• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Stand-Alone Novels

donners22 said:
The books I was particularly thinking of there were Millennium, Rebels, the Q trilogy and the first two post-Voyager books.

I'll give you those, except Millennium. Q-Continuum would have been fine as two books. Rebels and the VOY-R duologies didn't merit more than one book (well, I don't think they merited publication at all, but that's another gripe). Mil., however, whether one likes it or not, had meaty, distinct plotlines from book to book, with different settings, guest characters and problems to resolve. And yes, the VOY-R books failed to mention it was "Part 1 of 2"... though I don't, offhand, know if the VOY-R might have been intended as a series of serialized novels akin to the DS9R, or if the plan had always been to advance the storyline in duologies.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
 
Keith would probably tell you that Diplomatic Implausibility isn't a true TNG tale, either.
Er, well, uh -- no, I wouldn't tell you that. Strictly speaking, it's a Worf book, but TNG was the right banner to put it under. The Enterprise actually appears in the book, as do several of its crew, and Worf is most associated with TNG (seven seasons plus four movies) than DS9 (four seasons). Given the structure of the line at the time, making it a TNG novel was 100% the right move, and I have neither regrets nor complaints about that.

(If anything, looking back, it might have been better if DI, as well as the three I.K.S. Gorkon books, all were under the general Klingon Empire banner that we're putting A Burning House under, but c'est la vie....)
 
^ Oh I know, but when this discussion has come up before, you've sometimes responded with variants of "It could have gone either way."

So, quit flip-flopping, dagnabbit! ;)
 
Therin of Andor said:

If AuntKate wants truly stand-alone ST stories, then they are going to conflict with all the others. We also end up with hundreds - thousands! - of interesting guest crew characters who never get to grow beyond one story.

Yay! Where do I register for this? :thumbsup:
 
The Giggling Elf said:
Therin of Andor said:

If AuntKate wants truly stand-alone ST stories, then they are going to conflict with all the others. We also end up with hundreds - thousands! - of interesting guest crew characters who never get to grow beyond one story.

Yay! Where do I register for this? :thumbsup:
1989.
 
The Giggling Elf said:
Yay! Where do I register for this? :thumbsup:

A volume of "The Best of Trek" had an article where somebody tried to do a definitive list of original Enterprise crewmembers who had appeared in the novels. Initally I was excited as I remembered there'd been a small amount of character sharing and sequeling in the Bantam and early Pocket novels (Dr Ruth Rigel, Ingrit Thomson, Mahase the Eseriot, Naraht the Horta, Harb Tanzer, Lia Burke, etc), but the resulting list seemed totally useless and pointless, since most other characters received one appearance only - and often it was for a redshirt whose entire contribution to the plot was "Please sign this" or "Aaaargghhh!".

And whenever an author decided to make use of minor TOS guest crew, such as Freeman ("The Trouble With Tribbles"), they'd give him a different first name anyway.

I can't see why you find lack of character-building across novels something to celebrate?
 
The Giggling Elf said:
Therin of Andor said:

If AuntKate wants truly stand-alone ST stories, then they are going to conflict with all the others. We also end up with hundreds - thousands! - of interesting guest crew characters who never get to grow beyond one story.

Yay! Where do I register for this? :thumbsup:
I am the complete opposite when it comes to this. I am not at all continuity obbsessive, but I hate it when books contradict each other. It always pulls me out of the story when stories contradict each other, because any time the contradictory information is mentioned then all I can think about is how it was done in the other book or episode. Now, don't get me wrong, I can still like, or even love contradictory stories, but the contradiction will still annoy me.
As for the characters, I love the fact that we are getting to see recurring characters, because it allows the authors to develop the characters more, and we can also see new aspects of the characters as they interact with new people.

But hey, to each his own. We're all entitled to our opinions, and all that.
 
Therin of Andor said:

I can't see why you find lack of character-building across novels something to celebrate?

I prefer my character building within a novel. There's something elegant about a story that can be told within the confines of 400 or so pages, that don't need to refer to something else or lead on from something else, or lead to something else.

How many classic novels are part x of n? Very few I'd say. Even when they were part of a whole, the whole would have a beginning, middle and end.

The original series, and TNG to a degree were episodic television. Each week a different story. Few people complain about a lack of character continuity and serialisation in The Original Series. What's wrong with wanting the literature to reflect that?

The current vogue is for serialisation, for long arcs, for character continuity in all aspects of the media, film, TV, literature and comics. The motives behind it are always debatable. Some might say that the story telling opportunities are enhanced by it, that viewers and readers can gain more satisfaction and reward from it. It's certainly true. I doubt I would have enjoyed the first season of Heroes (recently concluded on UK TV) if it had been episodic. But the money men also know they are on to a good thing. Episodic or one-off stories have a limited financial scope compared to the serialised stuff. It's also far more easier creatively to keep on revisiting an existing property than to create new and fresh each time. It's also safer, one success practically guarantees another, and audience momentum is built up to guarantee the bucks. This past year of 'threequels' has proved that. An ambitious and risk taking studio would be making a new space opera, instead of remaking Trek.

But most pernicious of all is how they play on the old hunter gatherer instinct. That primal urge we have to feed our families and ourselves, to go out and beat a moose, or strip a tree bare of fruit, always to a greater extent than needed, has been converted into the urge to collect. Everyone does it, they pick something of meaning to them and pursue it to varying degrees of obsession, whether it's money, cars, trophy wives, Armani suits, or DVDs, stamps, coins, and even novels.

People also go through phases, a year or two of Mel Gibson movies, a decade of Elvis memorabilia, half a lifetime of Trek merchandise. There eventually comes a point, usually after marriage and just before children, that one looks at the groaning shelves, the vacant bank balance, and the lack of a social life and asks "What the fuck have I been doing all my life?" The salesmen want to put off that moment as long as possible, keep that desire for the next fix burning. What better way to do that than to put "To be continued" at the end of each novel, or "Last time on Buffy The Vampire Slayer" at the beginning of each episode.

I may be cynical, I may be totally off base, and I may be offending a few sensibilities. But before you rant off at me, ask yourself this.

Have you ever invested in something, be it books, music, movies, TV, whatever, that you collected eagerly as it was being released, experienced it once at the time of purchase, then never looked at it again? Did that collection wind up in a yard/car boot sale twelve months later?
 
The Giggling Elf said:
Therin of Andor said:

I can't see why you find lack of character-building across novels something to celebrate?

I prefer my character building within a novel. There's something elegant about a story that can be told within the confines of 400 or so pages, that don't need to refer to something else or lead on from something else, or lead to something else.
Uh... we're talking about media tie-in novels... books that by definition refer to and lead on from something else. :wtf:
 
Besides, we're blurring two different issues here, I think. A book doesn't have to contradict other books to work as a standalone. It's entirely possible to tell a self-contained, standalone story that is consistent with the overall book continuity. It might make the occasional reference to events elsewhere in the continuity, but the uninitiated reader would not even realize what they were because they'd just be incidental and smoothly meshed into the book. Independence does not require inconsistency.
 
Fa-La-La-Leisner said:
The Giggling Elf said:
Therin of Andor said:

I can't see why you find lack of character-building across novels something to celebrate?

I prefer my character building within a novel. There's something elegant about a story that can be told within the confines of 400 or so pages, that don't need to refer to something else or lead on from something else, or lead to something else.
Uh... we're talking about media tie-in novels... books that by definition refer to and lead on from something else. :wtf:

Yes, the media that they are tying in to, not necessarily the other creations spun off from that original property.

In my experience, the most horrible experiences I have had with tie in media is when creators try to give us a multimedia extravaganza, with an onslaught of tie in material to go with a production.

If you wanted to enjoy The Chronicles Of Riddick, naturally you would need a familiarity with Pitch Black, but aspects of the story were also told in the Dark Fury animation, the computer game and the extras on the Special Edition DVD. The story was thin enough as it was, without it being diluted by spiltting across spin-offs.

The same goes for the Matrix, prior to the Matrix Reloaded, we were expected to watch the Animatrix, as well as play the Into The Matrix computer game (complete with footage not in the movie, as it was advertised), is it any wonder that people were disappointed by the Matrix sequels.

Then there is the grandaddy of them all, The Shadows Of The Empire phenomenon in Star Wars. All you had to do was buy the comic book, play the game, read the novel to get all aspects of the story. And it wasn't all that good...

But then, you know all this, and you probably know what I meant when I typed it. That little :wtf: of yours seems to me to be just a trifle facetious.
 
^ I understand what you're saying, but from my own perspective, I don't believe it was necessary to absorb all of that material to understand whichever one you picked. For example, I never played the Matrix computer game, and only saw one or two of the Animatrix shorts, and the reason I didn't like the Matrix sequels is because they sucked. If there was something to miss...well, then I simply didn't care. :)

I also read Shadows of the Empire, but never missed anything from any of the other material, which I did not read.

The less said about Riddick, the better :D (but not because I "had to" watch an anime short).

We seem to be hovering around a mindset of: "Don't reference anything beyond these pages, ever, because I feel left out," and we've had the discussion before. Unless the book carries a page that reads "Previously in ______" or "To Be Continued," the books are designed to stand on their own. Yes, they may make reference to events or persons from another story -- which may or may not be chronicled in another book -- but that's the case with pretty much any book you read. You're invited to check out the other material where there may be some common ground (and obviously we hope you'd do so), but it's not a requirement and nor should it be...not if the storyteller does his/her job.

Off the top of my head: I didn't need to read a separate story detailing the backstory of characters Paul Brenner and Cynthia Sunhill before their characters meet up "again" in the pages of The General's Daughter. For one, no such book or story was ever written by Nelson DeMille, and everything I needed to know about their earlier relationship was covered in the pages of the book I was reading. Further, I didn't need to read (or reread) The General's Daughter in order to enjoy a novel with the Brenner character written ten years later, Up Country, because DeMille did his job as a storyteller and gave me everything I needed to know about Brenner, along with suitable references to earlier stories/whatever, as that story unfolded. Other authors I frequently read multiple novels using the same character -- Greg Rucka, Lee Child, P.T. Deutermann, Nelson DeMille again, etc. -- and I started reading such books from somewhere toward the middle/end of available titles utilizing their respective main characters. I've never felt required to read earlier titles in these "series," but instead compelled to do so because I enjoyed the writing.

That's the big difference, to me, anyway. YMMV. :)
 
The Giggling Elf said:
I prefer my character building within a novel. There's something elegant about a story that can be told within the confines of 400 or so pages, that don't need to refer to something else or lead on from something else, or lead to something else.

If an author tried to give every character in his/her ST novel equal time to get a story arc happening for them, and each arc completed in the one novel, most of it would be described by most readers as "wasted filler". The arcs they complete in a single novel ultimately contribute to the plot of that novel. Also, the authors would eventually exhaust the 420 or so TOS crew, or the 1000 or so TNG crew in just a few years of novels, because you don't want any minor characters ever being shared between books.

Minor characters don't have to have a story arc at all - that's why they are minor characters - but if a new author can add a dimension to a few of them in some future novel, that's good. But you still don't have to read every instalment to get resolution of the major arcs of the first novel. It's an Easter egg for those who notice it.

For example, we learn a tiny bit more about hortas each time Naraht appears in a novel. (I guess you don't want to know that he's also popped up in a computer game and a few comics, and each time we learned more about the oddities of silicon-based life.)

An ambitious and risk taking studio would be making a new space opera, instead of remaking Trek.

Sorry, I don't want "a new space opera". I want more Star Trek, and the thought of a new TOS adventure, where the characters are all young and virile again, is very exciting.

Have you ever invested in something, be it books, music, movies, TV, whatever, that you collected eagerly as it was being released, experienced it once at the time of purchase, then never looked at it again? Did that collection wind up in a yard/car boot sale twelve months later?

Nope, not really. But even if I did only see/read/hold it the once (and a lot of my books await unread), it was the buying of it that had some exhilaration, and was probably worth the price of purchase. A bit like seeing a live stage show. I usually buy the souvenir program, but the memories of going to and seeing the actual performance is what I paid the initial ticket price for. I could live without the program, I guess, but it's handy for later reference.

If they do end up in a car boot sale someday when I'm 90, so be it. I've had a lifetime of memories from the initial outlays of money. But I agree, any collection you choose to stop adding to eventually risks falling from grace, and the collector must go in search of new thrills. Human nature. Enjoy it!
 
The Giggling Elf said:
The current vogue is for serialisation, for long arcs, for character continuity in all aspects of the media, film, TV, literature and comics. (...) But the money men also know they are on to a good thing. Episodic or one-off stories have a limited financial scope compared to the serialised stuff.

On the other hand, Heroes was one of the few out of over a dozen serialized, arc-based T.V. shows launched last season that actually survived to a second one (or past November, for that matter). Notice how resultingly few of those there were beginning this year? Yes, serialized storytelling pays off in dividends when it actually works out... but by the same token, it's much harder to launch than an episodic series, which has the advantage that people can simply tune in whenever they feel like and not exert themselves recalling complex arcs. Both formats have their risks and benefits.

It's also far more easier creatively to keep on revisiting an existing property than to create new and fresh each time. It's also safer, one success practically guarantees another, and audience momentum is built up to guarantee the bucks. This past year of 'threequels' has proved that.

We did go somewhat overboard this year (which annoyed me, because local theatres are so incredibly mainstream that good films got shut out from the glut), but the real question is: as long as the product itself is of good quality, who cares if it's a sequel, threequel or whatever else?

That primal urge we have to feed our families and ourselves, to go out and beat a moose, or strip a tree bare of fruit, always to a greater extent than needed, has been converted into the urge to collect. Everyone does it, they pick something of meaning to them and pursue it to varying degrees of obsession, whether it's money, cars, trophy wives, Armani suits, or DVDs, stamps, coins, and even novels.

If that's what makes them happy...

Have you ever invested in something, be it books, music, movies, TV, whatever, that you collected eagerly as it was being released, experienced it once at the time of purchase, then never looked at it again? Did that collection wind up in a yard/car boot sale twelve months later?

Some collections I no longer pursue, but that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy them at the time. I used to be mad about Lego sets for the better part of a decade, particularly from their outer space line, but eventually drifted away around the time most of the line got rededicated to media tie-ins (ironically) like Star Wars, Harry Potter, Batman, Jurassic Park, etc., even though I like some of those franchises. But that doesn't mean it was a waste of time. I had oddles of fun building those things, then building stories out of them, or finding a method to assess offensive/defensive strength and then pitting them in battle against each other, whatever. From that alone, I'd say it's a good investment (and since I was wise enough to keep the boxes and instruction manuals, I now have several shelves of near-mint condition collectibles to which I'm no longer strongly attached that I can sell on eBay if I never need the money).

I admit, because I know I have a strong collector instinct, that I'm careful about what I involve myself in; pick a few franchises I really enjoy instead of branching off whenever the impulse strikes, and then buying only products I know I'll use more than once... but that's really just a question of being careful with one's finances, and it applies to anything, whether collections or things like automobiles and housing (one can't help but wonder if all those sub-prime mortgage idiots would have thought twice if they had more experience balancing desire and liquidity).

The Giggling Elf said:
In my experience, the most horrible experiences I have had with tie in media is when creators try to give us a multimedia extravaganza, with an onslaught of tie in material to go with a production.

If you wanted to enjoy The Chronicles Of Riddick, naturally you would need a familiarity with Pitch Black, but aspects of the story were also told in the Dark Fury animation, the computer game and the extras on the Special Edition DVD. The story was thin enough as it was, without it being diluted by spiltting across spin-offs.

The same goes for the Matrix, prior to the Matrix Reloaded, we were expected to watch the Animatrix, as well as play the Into The Matrix computer game (complete with footage not in the movie, as it was advertised), is it any wonder that people were disappointed by the Matrix sequels.

Then there is the grandaddy of them all, The Shadows Of The Empire phenomenon in Star Wars. All you had to do was buy the comic book, play the game, read the novel to get all aspects of the story. And it wasn't all that good...

Just because the producers unleash a barrage, doesn't mean anybody needs to buy into it fully, or even at all. I never played the computer game (I did rent the Animatrix), but understood the films just fine. Shadows of the Empire, I only read the book. Millennium, only read the books, never played The Fallen. And Riddick, only saw the film... and then only because of a hapless Christmas-shopping relative going "This looks weird; Roman'll like it." I'd say it's just a question of willpower, but I think even that's an exageration, because I've never felt strongly compelled to pursue any of these other products (and even if I wanted to know what they contribute to the story... well, that's what fan sites are for). Mainly, it's just being a consumer in modern society, and being canny enough (which, again, seems like a ridiculous exageration) not to be taken in by publicity.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
 
Christopher said:
The Best and the Brightest, a Starfleet Academy novel that was billed as a TNG book.

Therin of Andor said:
The original advance cover slick said, "Starfleet Academy".

A shame really. The book might have done better under that banner. People might have realized what they'd be getting into. (I've been under the belief that the book did not do well and was not popular. I could be wrong). I quite liked it.
 
In response to the original post, I think that part of the "problem", is having to wait long months or even years for a plotline to reach its peak and eventually conclusion.

I'm all for having continuity and consistency between novels, and other media tie-ins, as it greatly enriches the reading experience, and overall "feel" of said franchise (I look for it in Star Trek, Star Wars, etc). However, I think there is a fine line between that and completely serial fiction (a-la DS9-R, NF and TNG-R). When going the route of comlete serialization, I can understand the reader feeling unfulfilled (so to speak) with a specific novel.
Just one personal example would be the DS9 Relaunch, which has IMO some of the best Trek fiction in years (if not ever). I hated the fact that WoDS9 vol 3 ended with a cliffhanger that I had to wait months (or was it over a year?...) to see "resolved" in Warpath - and now the wait for Fearful Symmetry...

What I'm getting at, is that there should be a way to incorporate the benefits of continuity with the abitlity to tell a fulfilling "stand-alone" story (something that I think the Titan and Vanguad series seem to accomplish, and that DS9 tried to do early in the Relaunch).
 
RonG said:
However, I think there is a fine line between that and completely serial fiction (a-la DS9-R, NF and TNG-R).

TNG-R is far from "completely serial." It's actually pretty episodic. One could hardly say that Q&A is part of the same single storyline as Resistance or Before Dishonor, because it has nothing to do with the Borg.
 
I think, and of course I could be utterly wrong, that Q&A is placed between two Borg novels as a transition and to bring the reader close to and familiar with the notion of the Q. One must remember that
the Q do play a role in Before Dishonor, specifically Janeway's destiny
(without going into detail), and I would think that they would play some part in the Destiny trilogy.

With that in mind, I think that the order of the TNG-R novels is indeed a part of an ongoing serial and not as episodic as one would think. Of course, we'll be able to say for sure only from a future perspective :)
 
Well, I have a future perspective since I wrote the next book, and from my perspective, the TNG-R is episodic with a loose underlying continuity. It's a far cry from being completely serialized.

It's a gross oversimplification to try to lump everything into one of two opposite categories, "episodic" and "serial." Most series have elements of both. For instance, TNG itself was an episodic show, but it had lots of evolving character arcs and plotlines that ran through multiple non-consecutive episodes. And DS9 was not fully serialized, because although it did have ongoing story arcs, they were generally told in self-contained episodic segments, with the exception of multiparters and the more fully serialized arcs that opened season 6 and closed season 7.

A lot of people use "serial" to mean anything with ongoing continuity, but that's a misuse of the word. A true serial is something like a soap opera or a show such as Hill Street Blues, where all the story arcs are spread out across multiple episodes. For instance, instead of having an episode about Kira dealing with her issues with Cardassians followed by an episode involving Quark and the Nagus followed by an episode about Worf and Dax going on a mission on a Klingon ship, in a true serial you'd have all those storylines overlapping each other and taking more than one episode to resolve. Instead, each one is a distinct episode with its own beginning, middle, and end, but there are underlying story and character threads that are followed through from earlier episodes and continue into later episodes. That's not a serial -- it's an episodic series with strong continuity.

The TNG Relaunch is a lot like that. While there are underlying arcs giving continuity between installments, the installments themselves are self-contained stories with their own beginnings and endings.

In fact, I daresay that my upcoming TNG-R novel is the most "serial"-like installment of the whole series, since it follows up on a dangling thread from Before Dishonor and is something of a prologue to Destiny. But it's still very much its own distinct, self-contained story in other ways.
 
Christopher said: In fact, I daresay that my upcoming TNG-R novel is the most "serial"-like installment of the whole series, since it follows up on a dangling thread from Before Dishonor and is something of a prologue to Destiny. But it's still very much its own distinct, self-contained story in other ways.

I humbly surrender to your logic, Christopher :) However, I do think that your last paragraph epitomizes the original poster's point. Also, objectively speaking, do you think readers need to read the previous TNG-R novels prior to yours in order to enjoy it to the fullest?
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top