Star Trek: Death's Angel by Kathleen Sky (1981)

[Christopher]

I just thought that if it had been openly active that recently, the characters in DS9 would have at least been aware of them, but it DS9 nobody had ever heard of the organization at all.
It wasn't enough to effect my overall enjoyment of the season, which I loved, it was just the one thing that bugged me with the story.

Well, people in "Encounter at Farpoint" seemed surprised by holodecks, even though they had one in TAS, and even though VGR later established that Janeway had played holoprograms as a child. Trek continuity has never been anywhere close to airtight.

Granted, yes, an open Section 31 does create a degree of inconsistency with DS9. But it is a whole lot less stupid than the conceit that S31 somehow managed to be both far-reaching and totally secret for over 200 years, so I'll take the tradeoff.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Well, people in "Encounter at Farpoint" seemed surprised by holodecks, even though they had one in TAS, and even though VGR later established that Janeway had played holoprograms as a child. Trek continuity has never been anywhere close to airtight.

Not to mention, it already looked pretty cool in "Encounter at Farpoint", but yeah, the characters' reactions seemed to indicate it was way more impressive than TAS. Then it was out-of-control cool "The Big Goodbye", and then it got an noticeably more-real upgrade in "11001001". I guess if time constraints had not been so hectic, the scripts might been switched around to build a sequence as to the deck's functionality.

 

[Christopher]

Then it was out-of-control cool "The Big Goodbye", and then it got an noticeably more-real upgrade in "11001001". I guess if time constraints had not been so hectic, the scripts might been switched around to build a sequence as to the deck's functionality.

No, that was in sequence. The improvement was in character interactivity. The "Big Goodbye" characters were clearly acting out a script for the most part, able to improvise responses up to a point but unable to grasp anything beyond the game world or act outside their preset film-noir characterizations. Minuet was more sophisticated and self-aware, able to interact like a real person rather than a game character.

Also, it's explicitly stated in "11001001" that the Bynars are repairing the damage caused to the holdeck in "The Big Goodbye." The Bynars say "The deviation / caused by a previous probe / has been corrected," referring to the Jaradan probe that triggered the malfunction in TBG. So the episodes are meant to take place in that order.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Also, it's explicitly stated in "11001001" that the Bynars are repairing the damage caused to the holdeck in "The Big Goodbye." The Bynars say "The deviation / caused by a previous probe / has been corrected," referring to the Jaradan probe that triggered the malfunction in TBG. So the episodes are meant to take place in that order.

Yep, but that line was supposedly hastily added when the order was changed (I noticed just now that Wikipedia's entry for "11001001" agrees - the reference is back to KRAD's rewatch - but it also tallies with actual conversations I had with Tracy Torme at a New Zealand convention in 1990.) I am sure that, allthough the episodes were given production numbers only three apart, and aired three apart in that same order, the original intention was for the Bynars to enhance the holodeck, and then it goes awry in "The Big Goodbye". The Stardate given to TBG, at a time when they were trying to be quite methodical (as opposed to star dates in TOS and TAS), is for much later in the first year of their mission.

"It was originally intended that this episode would take place prior to 'The Big Goodbye', with the Bynars' modifications causing the problems with the holodeck seen in that episode. Instead it was changed to the Bynars aiming to fix the holodeck to prevent those problems re-occurring."

 

[Christopher]

^Even so, I don't agree that it creates a continuity error. As I said, Minuet's AI is considerably more advanced than that of the "Big Goodbye" characters. Realism isn't just about what characters and scenery look like. Cyrus Redblock and Felix Leech could only act like characters in a story and would soon exhaust their repertoire for improvisation. Minuet could pass a Turing test, fool you into thinking she was a real person even if you talked to her for hours.

 

[Damian]

I'm about 85% through the novel and I'll post overall thoughts when done.

But it's a shame in a way. The Elizabeth character could have been better had she not been such a Mary Sue style character. Had Kathleen Sky handled the main characters better, I think Elizabeth had some potential. There's nothing wrong with original characters. Hell, in the relaunches I've come to care about original characters and am interested in what happens to them. And Diane Carey showed in her Dreadnought/Battelstations! duology that you can have an original character as a main character in the story without sacrificing the main characters' role in Star Trek. Carey's character was handled well, the right way to handle it. Sky, unfortunately, was the wrong way.

And unlike the main character in Vulcan!, Elizabeth could be a likeable character. But the main characters are badly mismanaged. Kirk is like a school boy. He even asked Elizabeth to marry him. And she seems to misunderstand his lady's man role. And Spock again is badly mismanaged (I guess Sky doesn't like Spock as this is the 2nd time she bungled him). McCoy I guess is ok. The remaining characters are almost nonexistent.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Well, as you'll see when you finish it, Kirk wasn't entirely in his right mind at the time he proposed to Schaeffer.

 

[Christopher]

Well, as you'll see when you finish it, Kirk wasn't entirely in his right mind at the time he proposed to Schaeffer.

Which doesn't justify all the other ways the cast are written out of character in Sky's novels.

I'm reminded of Robert Vardeman's early Pocket novels. In The Klingon Gambit, I assumed the characters were acting like obsessive caricatures of themselves because of the influence of the mind-control thingie in the story. But then in Mutiny on the Enterprise they were still written the exact same way despite not being under any mind control.

 

[Damian]

Well, as you'll see when you finish it, Kirk wasn't entirely in his right mind at the time he proposed to Schaeffer.

Yeah, the early landing party mission is coming back into focus (I figured that would have to play a role at some point, though it was forgotten for a while.

Which doesn't justify all the other ways the cast are written out of character in Sky's novels.

I'm reminded of Robert Vardeman's early Pocket novels. In The Klingon Gambit, I assumed the characters were acting like obsessive caricatures of themselves because of the influence of the mind-control thingie in the story. But then in Mutiny on the Enterprise they were still written the exact same way despite not being under any mind control.

Exactly. And I thought she really botched Sarek's character. Granted she only had "Journey to Babel" (and maybe "Yesteryear") to work off of, but his character reminds me nothing of Sarek from JtB at all. And you'd think he'd be an "also starring" type of character and for large parts of the book he's hardly mentioned. But when he is, oh boy. At one point he's brooding over the murders/deaths. I can't see Sarek from JtB doing that. And he was not affected by what happened to the crew early on.

One interesting thing I picked up on was Sarek was strongly considering retiring but wanted one final ambassadorial triumph before retiring, which would happen if détente with the Romulans was successful. Like SSD reminding me a bit of Section 31, that reminded me a bit of TNG episode "Sarek". Now I think that is purely coincidence, but I always find it interesting when you see things like that.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Which doesn't justify all the other ways the cast are written out of character in Sky's novels.

Who WAS nailing the characters back in the 1970s and early 1980s?

Of course, it is kind of a double-Mary-Sue: I would characterize Col. Schaeffer as Sky's aspirations, and Dr. Rigel as her reality. Sort of. YMMV, of course.

 

[Christopher]

Who WAS nailing the characters back in the 1970s and early 1980s?

That's a rather personal question, isn't it?

Where Bantam is concerned, I'd say both Joe Haldeman and David Gerrold got the characters pretty much right. For Pocket, if "early 1980s" is up to the end of 1984, I'd say Howard Weinstein, A.C. Crispin, and Jean Lorrah captured them well, as did Diane Duane in a somewhat idealized way.

Of course, it is kind of a double-Mary-Sue: I would characterize Col. Schaeffer as Sky's aspirations, and Dr. Rigel as her reality. Sort of. YMMV, of course.

Ruth Rigel is a tuckerization of a real person in the fan community, not a self-insertion of Kathleen Sky. Rigel was mentioned in the acknowlegments of David Gerrold's The World of Star Trek, and my web search just now turned up a reference for her as a cover artist for two 1976 issues of SFWA Bulletin (edited by Sky's husband Stephen Goldin), an actor in a Trek fan film, and a now-deceased member of a Doctor Who fan organization. Sky is still alive, according to Wikipedia, and does not match the description of the blonde, heavyset Dr. Rigel.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

I stand corrected on Dr. Rigel. And I met Sky and Goldin myself, when they lectured at a free con at a local shopping mall, decades ago, before Death's Angel and Trek to Madworld came out. Definitely not a heavyset blonde. But then again, neither did she look like any of the descriptions of Col. Schaeffer.

As to Haldeman, maybe he got the characters right, but I don't think he did very well in terms of the feel of ST. (His ST books, to me, felt more like Pournelle & Niven's The Mote in God's Eye done as ST) Although certainly, Planet of Judgment was far better than M&C's The Price of the Phoenix, released at approximately the same time.

And of course, David Gerrold nailed the characters (and you KNOW what I meant!); he wrote multiple episodes, and two nonfiction books about ST.

 

[Christopher]

As to Haldeman, maybe he got the characters right, but I don't think he did very well in terms of the feel of ST.

Certainly he gave it a different feel, but I don't think that's a negative. His embellishments to the Trek format worked well, like the more elaborate and believable landing-party procedures and equipment. It wouldn't have been a bad thing if Trek had been more like Planet of Judgment.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

His embellishments to the Trek format worked well, like the more elaborate and believable landing-party procedures and equipment. It wouldn't have been a bad thing if Trek had been more like Planet of Judgment.

Except that he, his older brother Jack, and Gordon Eklund, were collectively responsible for a string of Bantam novels that felt like they were all rehashes not only of each other, but also of a trope that TOS and TAS had already done to death (i.e., Kirk & co. poke their noses where they're not wanted, and get spanked by some powerful entity). Compared to them, Death's Angel was a breath of fresh (and slightly tongue-in-cheek) air.

 

[Christopher]

Except that he, his older brother Jack, and Gordon Eklund, were collectively responsible for a string of Bantam novels that felt like they were all rehashes not only of each other, but also of a trope that TOS and TAS had already done to death (i.e., Kirk & co. poke their noses where they're not wanted, and get spanked by some powerful entity). Compared to them, Death's Angel was a breath of fresh (and slightly tongue-in-cheek) air.

That's not an "except," it's a totally separate topic. The question was about whether authors handled the characters well.

 

[thribs]

Didn't Roddenberry write about term marriages in the novel of The Motion Picture? It's been a long time since I've read it.

The book only just came out.

 

[Therin of Andor]

The book only just came out.

Ha! I spent a few hours recently explaining all the reasons why an unabridged audio book of a novelization of a 40-year-old movie was A Great Thing. And that did only just came out.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

That's not an "except," it's a totally separate topic. The question was about whether authors handled the characters well.

True. Whether what they wrote "feels" like ST, and whether their stuff contributed to the overuse of an already-overused trope is an entirely different matter. And in terms of the "feel" of ST, while doing something other than retreads of overused tropes, the current stable (along with ADF, DD, JL, and a few others not currently active) is at the top of the game, and nobody more than you and Greg Cox. At least in my own estimation.

 

[Therin of Andor]

True. Whether what they wrote "feels" like ST, and whether their stuff contributed to the overuse of an already-overused trope is an entirely different matter.

As a newbie fan in 1980, needing to catch up on most of TOS, several TAS, the Blish and Foster adaptations (some of which I read before seeing the actual episodes), and many of those Bantam novels, the proliferation of concepts such as Eden/Paradise, capturing/destroying God/computers, Yonanda-like biospheres, and sprite-like super beings did overwhelm me somewhat those first few years.

Mind you, I'm glad I saw TMP before "The Changeling".

 

[Damian]

His embellishments to the Trek format worked well, like the more elaborate and believable landing-party procedures and equipment. It wouldn't have been a bad thing if Trek had been more like Planet of Judgment.

That reminds me a bit of some of David Gerrold's comments in "The World of Star Trek" about ways he thought Star Trek could have been more realistic. Perhaps Haldeman was taking some of that to heart. I recall that was an interesting book. It did have a different feel than some of the other Bantam books.

Except that he, his older brother Jack, and Gordon Eklund, were collectively responsible for a string of Bantam novels that felt like they were all rehashes not only of each other, but also of a trope that TOS and TAS had already done to death (i.e., Kirk & co. poke their noses where they're not wanted, and get spanked by some powerful entity).

Yes, while I agree with Christopher that that is separate from characterization, that is an unfortunate tendency in the Bantam novels. A lot of them have a similar format. And in fact I thought "Perry's Planet" which I recently read had a few too many similarities to the book I read before that "Devil World", right down to the underground tunnels and a super advanced AI gone crazy.

I just find with "Death's Angels" the main characters are written so badly (as is Sarek) that it's basically ruining the rest of the story. As I said the Elizabeth character has potential. She is a better character I think that the main character from Sky's other book "Vulcan!". There is potential there. And even the story has some potential as it is not your typical Bantam style Kirk and crew investigate something they can't understand and bumble around until they happen upon a solution. This is more a murder style mystery. In a rare positive Kirk for this book Kirk makes a log entry where he acknowledges this angel of death appears to have supernatural qualities, but he goes on to qualify that he doesn't actually believe it's supernatural. Only things we don't understand yet that make them seem supernatural. To me it was a rare moment where she did seem to capture a genuine Kirk from the series. Wise enough to know there are things he doesn't know.

But I thought "Vulcan!" had some potential as well. A totally alien species on a planet that is drifting into Romulan space and the debate whether they were intelligent or not (even though Sky has an unfortunate tendency to anthropomorphize Earth creatures, in that case spiders). She touches on some interesting ideas, and she breaks the Bantam mold in some ways by not following the usual Bantam formula for her stories...but she badly misses on the characterizations of the main characters.

But then even M&C touch on some interesting ideas in their Phoenix novels--is the Federation a force for good truly? Is secession a good idea? and even Omne has some interesting points, esp. regarding his history. But in that case they fail to capitalize on that and leave many of those ideas undeveloped to any degree in favor of a borderline slash story (trying to be generous there ).