Please Recommend Books For Continuity Porn or Story Advancement.

[Christopher]

I think we are misunderstanding each other. I'm happy about the variety of prose styles and plotting styles and pacing styles in Trek Lit. However, I prefer far less variety in the style of interpretation that an author brings to an established universe. I prefer tie-in fiction with less "freedom to interpret" and more established canon. I do not come to Trek for a wide variation of interpretations, but rather for more of a singular vision (well, at least TNG and DS9 levels of coherency). Frankly, if I want to read some really out-there and different science fiction ideas, I don't go to Trek. I go to Trek when I want Trek. Trek can have some out there and different stuff, but for me to love it, it needs to be Trek first and foremost.

I'm just trying to offer some historical perspective. I don't know how long ago you came to Trek, but what I'm saying is that the perception modern audiences have of what defines "Trek" is more clearly delineated in the wake of TNG, DS9, VGR, ENT, and the movies. But back when it was just 79 standalone episodes of TOS and 22 of TAS, plus two or three movies, the very nature and identity of the universe was less clearly defined. So the definition of what "Trek" was could vary a lot from person to person. I'm not saying you're wrong to have your preferences, I'm just trying to place it in historical context and explain why the older books had a wider range of approaches. The Trek universe was so much smaller and emptier and vaguer that there was much more room for individual interpretations of just what that universe was beyond what little we'd seen of it. As far as anyone knew at the time, Diane Duane's version of the universe or Vonda McIntyre's version or Alan Dean Foster's version or even Sondra Marshak & Myrna Culbreath's version was as plausible a take on the universe as anything else.

 

[BobtheGunslinge]

I started reading Trek books in the late 80's. I am aware of how little the background was developed at the time. I just did not enjoy the Trek books I read back then. I didn't enjoy the numbered books for TNG or any other series, either. The post-Nemesis relaunch, early NF, SCE, and some other outliers, all appeal to me. I feel that Treklit is the best it has ever been right now, although I admit my sample is limited.

Perhaps another aspect of my preferences is that I don't like to go back. I don't want to read another stand alone episode set in TOS, or on the Ent-D. Continuity porn that helps tie things together and add some new understanding is different because it feels less like a needless prequel and more like a puzzle piece falling into place.

I am a bit flexible; I'm a sucker for a good story well told. However, my ideal Trek stories would move the plot forward or flesh out the universe in a way that incorporated more of the one-episode technologies, aliens and policies into part of a sensible whole, as well as new, original ideas.

 

[Phantom]

Well, I gave you my recommendations. I think the books I listed would give you at least some if not all of what you want. Up to you whether you take them up or not.

 

[BobtheGunslinge]

Well, I gave you my recommendations. I think the books I listed would give you at least some if not all of what you want. Up to you whether you take them up or not.

I believe I've taken most of the recommendations into my queue, except maybe for the Rihannsu books. Reading Immortal Coil now, and then into The Cold Equations, and then, if my interest in Trek holds strong, Full Circle and the Beyer Voyager books. From History's Shadow, the Eugenics Wars, Dark Mirror, The Buried Age, Sight Unseen, Armageddon's Arrow and the others I will get to when I find them, or if someone buys them for me off my amazon list for the holidays. Vanguard is also on my list, waiting for its turn.

 

[Idran]

Oh, Q&A is another good one, doing for Q what Watching The Clock did for time travel in terms of tying all appearances together into a single coherent whole.

 

[BobtheGunslinge]

Oh, Q&A is another good one, doing for Q what Watching The Clock did for time travel in terms of tying all appearances together into a single coherent whole.

You have my attention.

Wasn't Q&A also written by Greg Cox? The man's been busy.


By the way, why is KRAD never given any credit for his Klingon books? Didn't he actually write the definitive book on (TNG) Klingons?

 

[Christopher]

Wasn't Q&A also written by Greg Cox? The man's been busy.

No, that was KRAD. Greg did the earlier The Q Continuum trilogy.

 

[Idran]

And KRAD's given tons of credit for his Klingon books; people have been clamoring for him to return to Treklit for ages in part because he is the definitive Klingon writer in a lot of people's eyes (including mine).

 

[Greg Cox]

Wasn't Q&A also written by Greg Cox? The man's been busy.

No, that was KRAD. Greg did the earlier The Q Continuum trilogy.

And Peter David did Q-Squared and Q-in-Law and I, Q. (The latter with DeLancie.)

In my experience, though, nobody except us can keep straight who wrote which Q book!

 

[BobtheGunslinge]

I've read all three of those books and still had no clue Peter David had written all three. I blame my memory.

 

[JD]

And KRAD's given tons of credit for his Klingon books; people have been clamoring for him to return to Treklit for ages in part because he is the definitive Klingon writer in a lot of people's eyes (including mine).

Yeah, his Klingon stuff is talked about a lot on here and he pretty much always gets mentioned whenever conversations about Klingons start up.

 

[BobtheGunslinge]

And KRAD's given tons of credit for his Klingon books; people have been clamoring for him to return to Treklit for ages in part because he is the definitive Klingon writer in a lot of people's eyes (including mine).

Yeah, his Klingon stuff is talked about a lot on here and he pretty much always gets mentioned whenever conversations about Klingons start up.

Huh. In my experience, his Klingon works have been pretty much ignored by a lot of the fans I know, who tend to prefer the TFR interpretation of Klingons. I've seen a lot of TOS purists here and elsewhere online, but not nearly so many TNG fans who discuss Treklit with the same fervor. It came across as disapproval for his interpretation (or Moore's) of the Klingons.

I also enjoyed his Nan Bacco books. Hope he will return to Treklit.

 

[Christopher]

Huh. In my experience, his Klingon works have been pretty much ignored by a lot of the fans I know, who tend to prefer the TFR interpretation of Klingons. I've seen a lot of TOS purists here and elsewhere online, but not nearly so many TNG fans who discuss Treklit with the same fervor. It came across as disapproval for his interpretation (or Moore's) of the Klingons.

That kind of tribalism is sad to see in Trek fandom. What about infinite diversity? This isn't science or history, it's just a bunch of entertaining lies people make up. There isn't any single "right" answer. It's a creative exercise, so there's nothing bad about different people creating different versions of a thing.

 

[Idran]

And KRAD's given tons of credit for his Klingon books; people have been clamoring for him to return to Treklit for ages in part because he is the definitive Klingon writer in a lot of people's eyes (including mine).

Yeah, his Klingon stuff is talked about a lot on here and he pretty much always gets mentioned whenever conversations about Klingons start up.

Huh. In my experience, his Klingon works have been pretty much ignored by a lot of the fans I know, who tend to prefer the TFR interpretation of Klingons. I've seen a lot of TOS purists here and elsewhere online, but not nearly so many TNG fans who discuss Treklit with the same fervor. It came across as disapproval for his interpretation (or Moore's) of the Klingons.

I also enjoyed his Nan Bacco books. Hope he will return to Treklit.

I don't know if this was the book you referred to earlier, but have you checked out "Klingon Art of War" yet? It's a "nonfiction" treatise by KRAD (presented as an in-setting work) on the nature of Klingon honor and its evolution over the course of the civilization's history dating back pre-Kahless. Came out last year, I believe?