Discussion in 'Trek Literature' started by Julio Angel Ortiz, Dec 5, 2007.
Do you really think after five years that anyone would have remembered the existing discussion?
That's exactly my point. Reviving old threads lets them be remembered rather than vanishing into obscurity.
And I submit that if no one has seen fit to comment in a thread for five years, it's dead, Jim.
But as we've just seen here, sometimes new people come along and want to restart the conversation. And other new members who've joined in the interim might find it worth their while to read the old posts in that thread and might learn something from it. If you ran a library, would you throw away books that hadn't been checked out in five years?
Trek BBS, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the Trek Literature forum. It's five-year mission...
Sadly, that's exactly what happens. Out with the old, in with the new. It's not like libraries can suddenly add new sets of shelves every few years.
As for reviving old threads, I've also never really understood why it's so awful to revive them. The search facility never seems to be 100% successful (I find Googling turns up TrekBBS threads faster) and it is sometimes very frustrating for regulars to have to recreate old replies to old questions asked anew. But then, I guess if we were moderators we'd see the frustrations that come with old threads?
That's not really a valid comparison. Books have much more long-term value (and some genres more than others) than posts on an online messageboard. As much as I love this place, it's just not in the same category as a good library.
Again - the policy is to not revive dead threads and double that for ones that are so ancient. Unless there is a very compelling reason to use an old thread, don't do it.
From another thread in Q,S&F talking about revving old threads:
Maybe it would be helpful if the admins (and mods, as I have seen different mods handle such things differently, too) here had a common approach to this issue. As it is some "officials" say it's a total no-no, some handle it case-by-case, and some are pretty much for it.
Since you're the head-honcho here I guess what you said here is the "law", but not every mod/admin seem to enforce it.
Dont really see the problem in using an old thread to talk about a book, whats the point in even keeping them on the site if you cant use them. I just recently finished this book. I really enjoyed it, it was a bit slow to get going but once it did it was great. I really liked the descriptions of the insect aliens civilisation.
^Right. I can see the "no old threads" policy making sense in something like the Miscellaneous forum or something socially oriented, but this is a forum specifically about books. People are constantly picking up old Trek books for the first time and coming here to talk about them and read what others have had to say on them. So Trek Lit is a forum where it's possible, even likely, for threads of any age to be resurrected and contributed to substantively after being dormant for years. Hence my library analogy.
Yeah, me neither. If it's some totally random topic, I can understand, but if it's somebody wanting to talk about a book, then it makes more sense to just use the preexisiting thread, even if nobody has posted in it for a long time.
Not all of us read the books when they first come out, after all.
What's the limit for something being an old thread? This is not sarcasm or snottiness, I'm honestly curious.
And is it from when a thread was last posted in rather than when it began? The "Cast the Character of Trek Literature" pinned thread was begun in April 2006, nearly 7 years ago.
Well, when I started reading this thread, I didn't check the timestamp, and thought the discussion was about a new book. Of course, I'm wrong, and it's not. I just expected that a new thread about an old book wouldn't have "spoilers" in the thread title. "Spoilers" to me mean information on unreleased material, hence my confusion.
Generally we put up spoiler warnings for stuff that has just come out so people who haven't read it yet and don't want to see spoilers know to stay away.
honestly, I'm just happy people are still reading the book. even if they don't love it or even like it.
I will say that i find it odd that a few people have found the opening "slow." Doesn't it start with what appears to be the last surviving members of TITAN's away team, stranded and injured on a hostile planet, in the middle of a war zone where giant bugs are trying to kill them?
I mean, really.
Do we need to blow up a planet EVERY time to lock folks in?
This is still probably my favorite Titan novel. Such a different writers' voice from the rest of them! While I'm by no means dissatisfied with the last few years of TrekLit, it's been a while since the line regularly took chances like this, and I miss that.
Hope life's treating you well, Geoff
and i'm about to present the first of the pieces that will allow me to complete my promise to do a full series of TITAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES pics that got suspended.
the first one will be TAKING WING as Andy thought it should have a separate poster from THE RED KING.
Then we continue with the novels in sequence.
Well, not completely 'up'. Maybe just a bit 'up'...
No no you don't have to blow up a planet
It's not the epilogue that I found "slow". I didn't understand everything in this part, but it got my attention, I was immediatly interested to read the following. What I found "slow" were the first chapters, with the issues on the Titan, the issues with Dr Xin Ra-Havreii, Vale worried about the problems between Riker and Troi, ... this kind of things. I understand that the characters have to be developped somewhere in the book, so maybe I felt that way because for the moment I don't care a lot about the different characters of the Titan crew. But apart from that I enjoyed the book and maybe after reading a few Titan books I will be more interested in the crew, when I'll start knowing them better.
Separate names with a comma.