She used to be active at cons (I saw her at one or two, many years ago) but I don't remember her ever participating in any Trek books online hangouts.
The Diane Carey novels
- Thread starter Joel_Kirk
- Start date
Neither Diane nor Greg have a personal website or blog. They tend to be more focused on family and work. 
Rush, if you want to get an email to her, just email me. dhg -at- comicboards dotcom.
But, I tend not to forward her BBS postings on herself, because she once asked me not to, as she would absolutely want to reply--and she doesn't want to take the TIME to reply.
Diane is an intelligent, passionate woman whom I respect on an artistic level (admittedly subjective) as well as a personal level. Doesn't mean I like everything she writes or that I never disagree with her. We share a lot (but not everything) philosophically, but I don't care to put politics into my books. I might put a little philosophy, but it would be broad enough that you couldn't ascribe it to some political party. Why? I've always felt doing that pulls the reader out of the story. Allyn and I, for example, have pretty different political ideologies. I don't think I could, to his satisfaction, articulate his positions well, and don't think he could articulate mine well. So I don't try, because if I do, he might read it and suddenly not be thinking about Star Trek, but instead some modern political talking point. If my reader is jolted out of the story, I feel I've failed. That's just me. I often write in a way that plays to what *I* like. (Troublesome Minds was written as a Kirk/Spock/McCoy story that read like an episode because that's what I like, for example. Or I tend not to start a book without our main, well known Trek characters, because I like it when a book I read starts with people we know.)
All that said... Diane's not written a Trek book in a long time, and yet people are still talking about her work. I'd say she's done SOMETHING right.
BTW, as a post script, if anyone actually thinks Diane is a racist, they're sorely mistaken. There is not a racist bone in her body. She has the biggest heart of anyone I know, and sees people as individuals, not members of this or that group.
Rush, if you want to get an email to her, just email me. dhg -at- comicboards dotcom.
But, I tend not to forward her BBS postings on herself, because she once asked me not to, as she would absolutely want to reply--and she doesn't want to take the TIME to reply.
Diane is an intelligent, passionate woman whom I respect on an artistic level (admittedly subjective) as well as a personal level. Doesn't mean I like everything she writes or that I never disagree with her. We share a lot (but not everything) philosophically, but I don't care to put politics into my books. I might put a little philosophy, but it would be broad enough that you couldn't ascribe it to some political party. Why? I've always felt doing that pulls the reader out of the story. Allyn and I, for example, have pretty different political ideologies. I don't think I could, to his satisfaction, articulate his positions well, and don't think he could articulate mine well. So I don't try, because if I do, he might read it and suddenly not be thinking about Star Trek, but instead some modern political talking point. If my reader is jolted out of the story, I feel I've failed. That's just me. I often write in a way that plays to what *I* like. (Troublesome Minds was written as a Kirk/Spock/McCoy story that read like an episode because that's what I like, for example. Or I tend not to start a book without our main, well known Trek characters, because I like it when a book I read starts with people we know.)
All that said... Diane's not written a Trek book in a long time, and yet people are still talking about her work.
I'd say she's done SOMETHING right. BTW, as a post script, if anyone actually thinks Diane is a racist, they're sorely mistaken. There is not a racist bone in her body. She has the biggest heart of anyone I know, and sees people as individuals, not members of this or that group.
Carey is one of them. It's a background element for young Kirk in Best Destiny.
I didn't care for that particular interpretation (it reached too much), but it was pretty clear to me what she was trying to expand on: on why the Enterpise's dedication plaque said "Starship Class", on the emphasis place on Kirk's being a starship commander in "Court Martial", the difference between Kirk and Merrick in "Bread and Circuses".
The Carey books I've read are Best Destiny, Ship of the Line, Final Frontier, and her New Earth books. If I read any of the others, her name didn't stick with me.
My biggest beef with her is the sheer uneveness of her writing, both between different books and within a single book. I'll like some elements, only to run aground on some other point that's too much of a reach or too weak and falls flat. Nice characterization in one place is undermined by cardboard cutouts in another, a plot that holds my interest will get pulled down by an "are you kidding me?" subplot or framing story that just throws me out of the book. All the fuss over political aspects are just part and parcel to the unevenness of the writing itself.
Neither Diane nor Greg have a personal website or blog. They tend to be more focused on family and work.
Rush, if you want to get an email to her, just email me. dhg -at- comicboards dotcom.
But, I tend not to forward her BBS postings on herself, because she once asked me not to, as she would absolutely want to reply--and she doesn't want to take the TIME to reply.
Diane is an intelligent, passionate woman whom I respect on an artistic level (admittedly subjective) as well as a personal level. Doesn't mean I like everything she writes or that I never disagree with her. We share a lot (but not everything) philosophically, but I don't care to put politics into my books. I might put a little philosophy, but it would be broad enough that you couldn't ascribe it to some political party. Why? I've always felt doing that pulls the reader out of the story. Allyn and I, for example, have pretty different political ideologies. I don't think I could, to his satisfaction, articulate his positions well, and don't think he could articulate mine well. So I don't try, because if I do, he might read it and suddenly not be thinking about Star Trek, but instead some modern political talking point. If my reader is jolted out of the story, I feel I've failed. That's just me. I often write in a way that plays to what *I* like. (Troublesome Minds was written as a Kirk/Spock/McCoy story that read like an episode because that's what I like, for example. Or I tend not to start a book without our main, well known Trek characters, because I like it when a book I read starts with people we know.)
All that said... Diane's not written a Trek book in a long time, and yet people are still talking about her work.
BTW, as a post script, if anyone actually thinks Diane is a racist, they're sorely mistaken. There is not a racist bone in her body. She has the biggest heart of anyone I know, and sees people as individuals, not members of this or that group.
Thank you, Mr. Galanter--very much!
And...now that I know more about you, I think I'll check up on more of your books.
Thanks again, mate!
I almost wish she would have.
People would've had less of an excuse to hate her.
I think her Final Frontier and Best Destiny were awesome, BTW.
Over all, Best Destiny is a good book. Just the three points I brought up with it were troublesome for me. Two I could kind of let go, some of the overrought emotionalism and the "One armed gal shows she can hack the tough standards/author soapboxing lecture". But the "libertarianism is GOOD for international/interplanetary crisis situations" is at best, naive, and at worst demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of humans in a crisis situation and what self centeredness will generate during them, based on actual history.
But are they worse than those who slavishly worship everything that flows from her pen?
Perhaps each individual Treklit reader has different reactions to each individual book. It's one of those "Infinite Diversity" sorts of things...
I, for example, know that I'll never enjoy a book written by Marshak and Culbreath -- because I read all four of their Trek novels a couple decades ago, and disliked them. Intensely. That doesn't make me part of an "anti-M&C camp," it simply means their writing doesn't work for me. No harm-no foul. Were I to choose not to read them in the future, it's not some kind of a boycott; it's simply that I choose to spend my precious reading hours with something I think I might possibly enjoy. I suspect many in the so-called the "anti-Carey camp" feel the same way. They may express it a little more vehemently, but it all boils down to the choices we each get to make about how we spend our money and time.
But, like Marshak and Culbreath, Carey has evidently "left the building." So, for anyone invested in keeping up with Treklit, there seems little worry that we'll be in a position to read any new Trek writing from Diane.
Carey has her occasionally long winded and inappropriate political soapboxing. MnC, on the other hand, they are so trippy and out there, they are what I think Trek by David Lynch would look like.
I enjoy it as a radically different approach, but I'm not sure I would call what they do "good" Trek.
Carrey, on the other hand, her Trek is MOSTLY servicable to good.
I almost wish she would have.
People would've had less of an excuse to hate her.
I think her Final Frontier and Best Destiny were awesome, BTW.
Over all, Best Destiny is a good book. Just the three points I brought up with it were troublesome for me. Two I could kind of let go, some of the overrought emotionalism and the "One armed gal shows she can hack the tough standards/author soapboxing lecture". But the "libertarianism is GOOD for international/interplanetary crisis situations" is at best, naive, and at worst demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of humans in a crisis situation and what self centeredness will generate during them, based on actual history.
I suppose it depends on the kind of libertarianism....
I almost wish she would have.
People would've had less of an excuse to hate her.
I think her Final Frontier and Best Destiny were awesome, BTW.
Over all, Best Destiny is a good book. Just the three points I brought up with it were troublesome for me. Two I could kind of let go, some of the overrought emotionalism and the "One armed gal shows she can hack the tough standards/author soapboxing lecture". But the "libertarianism is GOOD for international/interplanetary crisis situations" is at best, naive, and at worst demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of humans in a crisis situation and what self centeredness will generate during them, based on actual history.
I suppose it depends on the kind of libertarianism....
Well, no kind would be my vote. Way I understand the Tarsus 4 situation, it was a planetary crisis. You need tight organization and secure law n order to deal with those. Numerous examples exist for both examples of that and for failures to do the same in crises.
The problem was not the governor, Kodos, declaring martial law and taking tight control of the colony. It was the decisions that he made while doing that that were the problem.
But Carey has Robert April going on about Tarsus 4 and how it was an object lesson for the government of the Federation. And how that it's always best to have a society as individuals scrambling to make it, rather than a big authority running things.
Ok...but during crises, those are usually called riots.
That is an example of Carrey's politics causing her to stumble in her storytelling. Didn't kill the book for me, but definitely took me out of it for a second.
^Well, I agree with Robert April, and Diane Carey, there. While individuals making mistakes can cause societal problems, the problems caused by a ruler...have more widespread consequences. While Kodos taking control wasn't the WHOLE problem...honestly, it created the environment which led to Kodos's eugenic actions--an environment where the government rules all, and it alone decides which citizens are fit to live...and fit to die, soley on "worth".
As Ben Franklin said, those who are willing to sacrifice their liberty for the sake of security...deserve neither.
And as Ronald Reagan said, there are no easy answers...but there are simple ones.
As Ben Franklin said, those who are willing to sacrifice their liberty for the sake of security...deserve neither.
And as Ronald Reagan said, there are no easy answers...but there are simple ones.
But my understanding of the problem on Tarsus 4 was an emergency situation. The government having a hands off policy in an emergency situation is NOT a good thing.
I give you the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina as an immediate example.
Emergency situations are one of the things that strong government control comes in HANDY for.
And to use it as a chance for a Libertarian rant comes across as not only opportunistic, but completely naive about emergency situations.
A trained Starfleet officer will be aware of this, too. Moreso than Carrey is, it would seem.
Bottom line, I don't think you can point to a single disaster in history where the government kind of did a hands off "it'll work out" kind of approach, and it actually did.
That really depends on the situation. A full-scale riot, for instance, is the product of thousands upon thousands of individuals making mistakes that have widespread consequences for the entirety of society.
The problem there does not stem from the fact that there exists a government attempting to impose order upon an anarchic situation; the problem there stems from the idea of a government being regarded as having the authority to do whatever it wants in the name of national security. You can have the rule of law (and thereby preserve the basic rights of the individual) while still imposing a state of emergency to control chaos. The idea that chaos -- which can lead to its own forms of mass death -- is preferable to the kinds of states of emergency that we find in modern liberal democracies is just absurd.
^
This...and this would be something a veteran military officer or police officer would be well aware of. That's why such sentiments coming out of the mouth of Robert April, one of many, was so jarring and out of place.
Emergency situation...hey, great idea, let's just close the capital and see if it just sorts itself out.
Maybe some should write a story were Kodos is a libertarian.
Already happened. It was called Hurricane Katrina.
So, looking at the discussion here, I guess Carey makes aware politics in her books...lol
I will probably have to see for myself. I'm interested in reading Dreadnought! and Battlestations!...even though I've known of these books since I've known of Trek. (Final Frontier is another I'm interested in).
I am interested in reading Ship of the Line, but it seems to be a TNG novel, and don't want to read Picard preaching for 400 pages....(Picard isn't a very interesting character, I think).
Ex: Page 1: 'We have evolved!'....blah, blah, blah......--------} Page 456: ...'And engage!'...Picard manuever....*end of story*
Ohhh, I'm bored already....
***
Anyway, I'm just passing through...
Continue...
I will probably have to see for myself. I'm interested in reading Dreadnought! and Battlestations!...even though I've known of these books since I've known of Trek. (Final Frontier is another I'm interested in).
I am interested in reading Ship of the Line, but it seems to be a TNG novel, and don't want to read Picard preaching for 400 pages....(Picard isn't a very interesting character, I think).
Ex: Page 1: 'We have evolved!'....blah, blah, blah......--------} Page 456: ...'And engage!'...Picard manuever....*end of story*
Ohhh, I'm bored already....
***
Anyway, I'm just passing through...
Continue...
Then you might like Ship of the Line. Carey makes her opinion of Kirk vs. Picard very clear as...
...Picard spends a good deal of the novel in the holo-deck learning how to be a "real captain" from a holographic Kirk. 
And, that, sir, is why I am a conservative, not a libertarian.
Working from memory here...
Ship is about 300 pages (I actually think it was less, like maybe 280), and the first seventy take place in the 23rd-century. Of the remained 200-plus pages, 45% are Picard, 45% are Bateson, leaving 10% for some pissed off Klingons. Of the 45% with Picard, fully half involve a holographic Kirk in some fashion. It's not a heavy Picard novel by any stretch of the imagination.
I've read many of Carey's novels over the years. I remember enjoying Dreadnaught! & Battlestations! -- fairly bright spots amid some less-than-stellar efforts of the era.
However, Ship of the Line pretty much killed my enthusiasm for her work. I'd liked the occasional nautical references in earlier books, but here she broke off the mast & beat you over the head with it!! It was really, really too much. Plus, I found Captain Bateson & his crew generally unlikeable, with Bateson especially having a God complex. I was VERY disappointed, having looked forward to the book since it was announced.