The Final Reflection- best Trek book ever

[Therin of Andor]

"Too far"? Try "at all"...

I didn't like Richard's dampening of the authors' explorations either, but many would argue - esp. the copyright owners and show creators - that licensed tie-ins must not deviate from the parent show, esp. when those shows are on the air (as were TOS movies and TNG at the time).

And there are fans on this bbs who say they prefer the ST novels and comics of the 1989-1992 period.

 

[Christopher]

I didn't like Richard's dampening of the authors' explorations either, but many would argue - esp. the copyright owners and show creators - that licensed tie-ins must not deviate from the parent show, esp. when those shows are on the air (as were TOS movies and TNG at the time).

Heck, the books today are forbidden to deviate from the parent show (except in Myriad Universes, but the existence of parallel timelines is itself a canonical fact in Trek). There's a huge difference between forbidding deviations from canon and forbidding innovations that are beyond canon but still consistent with it, which is what Arnold did. Introducing new characters and storylines doesn't deviate from canon. On the contrary, when canon restricts you from doing too much exploration or development of the central characters, focusing on supporting characters is a good way to compensate, to allow your stories to have growth and change and emotional impact while still honoring the obligation to keep the central characters' status quo unchanged.

 

[Therin of Andor]

There's a huge difference between forbidding deviations from canon and forbidding innovations that are beyond canon but still consistent with it, which is what Arnold did.

Exactly. And, as you know, he stomped on three manuscripts that would have explored Andorians: "Metamorphosis", "The Eye of the Beholders" and (via a quirky guest character) "Probe"/"Music of the Spheres", angering the novelists and chasing them away from ST fiction for too long.**

But then, the fans do complain when later canonical ST overrides their favourite novel storylines, and much of RA's chat sessions at conventions included scores of fans "demanding" to know why various novels were "inconsistent". The 1989 memo was his "solution" to a perceived problem.

(** Not to mention blackballing Arex and M'Ress out of DC's TOS Series II. And Number One (of "The Cage") out of Pocket's "A Flag Full of Stars".)

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

There's a huge difference between forbidding deviations from canon and forbidding innovations that are beyond canon but still consistent with it, which is what Arnold did.

Exactly. And, as you know, he stomped on three manuscripts that would have explored Andorians: "Metamorphosis", "The Eye of the Beholders" and (via a quirky guest character) "Probe"/"Music of the Spheres", angering the novelists and chasing them away from ST fiction for too long.

Wasn't he also responsible for butchering "The Cry of the Onlies" and making it so wildly INconsistent with the episode it was based on? (i.e. ordering all references to Miri's planet being a parallel Earth to be deleted, and forbidding any explanation as to *how* that planet came to be such a duplicate in the first place)

 

[Christopher]

Exactly. And, as you know, he stomped on three manuscripts that would have explored Andorians: "Metamorphosis", "The Eye of the Beholders" and (via a quirky guest character) "Probe"/"Music of the Spheres", angering the novelists and chasing them away from ST fiction for too long.

Wasn't he also responsible for butchering "The Cry of the Onlies" and making it so wildly INconsistent with the episode it was based on? (i.e. ordering all references to Miri's planet being a parallel Earth to be deleted, and forbidding any explanation as to *how* that planet came to be such a duplicate in the first place)

That's because canon doesn't necessarily mean what actually happened in past episodes; it means what the current showrunner chooses to assume happened in past episodes. In TOS, Roddenberry had to make a lot of decisions on the basis of budgetary restrictions or expediency, and that required compromising credibility. "Miri" was a particularly egregious and awkward case of that, introducing a duplicate Earth and then never explaining or justifying it, with the whole thing just being an excuse to use the "Mayberry" streets in Desilu's Culver City backlot and pass it off as an alien planet. Later in life, Roddenberry regretted some of the sillier decisions he'd had to make in TOS and chose to disregard them (for instance, changing the Klingons' appearance in TMP and asking fans to assume they'd always "actually" looked that way). With The Cry of the Onlies, by insisting that Miri's planet be retconned so that it wasn't a duplicate Earth, he was remedying a bad decision he'd had to make in the past. Late in life, Roddenberry said there was a lot of TOS that he considered apocryphal, and this was a case where I'd say he definitely had good reason.

 

[Therin of Andor]

he was remedying a bad decision he'd had to make in the past. Late in life, Roddenberry said there was a lot of TOS that he considered apocryphal, and this was a case where I'd say he definitely had good reason.

A lot of the tie-in manuscripts that had the most RA resistance were those which attempted to "explain" something, ie. Andorian customs and religion in "TNG: The Eyes of the Beholders" and "TNG: Metamorphosis", duplicate Earths in "The Cry of the Onlies", giving Number One a name in "A Flag Full of Stars", what the Whale Probe wanted in "Music of the Spheres"...

Even though RA was always quick to say that all novels were "not canonical", he also discouraged the authors of the day from interpreting and extrapolating from canonical facts. Many fans couldn't understand why, if the novels were not canonical, why the ST Office wouldn't let the tie-in authors stray into explaining things.

Completely standalone novels and comics usually made it through easier; interestingly, the official Pocket novel submission guidelines have always insisted that first-time pitchers to ST submit completely standalone adventures.

 

[KRAD]

Completely standalone novels and comics usually made it through easier; interestingly, the official Pocket novel submission guidelines have always insisted that first-time pitchers to ST submit completely standalone adventures.

That's because an unsolicited submission is a "job interview," in essence. It's there to show that the writer can do a straight-up Trek adventure. Books that explain things or are part of a series tend to be at least partly editor-driven in any case.....

 

[Therin of Andor]

That's because an unsolicited submission is a "job interview," in essence. It's there to show that the writer can do a straight-up Trek adventure. Books that explain things or are part of a series tend to be at least partly editor-driven in any case.....

Yep. You know, I drafted a similar paragraph to say all that several times this morning - and worried you or Christopher would nitpick it anyway - so I decided to just leave you an opening...

 

[Dayton Ward]

That's because an unsolicited submission is a "job interview," in essence. It's there to show that the writer can do a straight-up Trek adventure. Books that explain things or are part of a series tend to be at least partly editor-driven in any case.....

So, you're saying first-timers should follow the guidelines?

That'll never work.

 

[AstroMike]

I have fond memories of reading this book when it came out. I was a junior high student who had read all of the Trek novels and stories up to this point and really liked this novel. It was way different than the standard Kirk and Spock stories and the first real Klingon novel. I loved the cover of the book as well. A true classic.

 

[wew]

I must disagree about The Final Reflection being the best Trek book ever. I believe it is very good, but I actually find more of the newer books to be better written. Although it would be hard to pick a best book, among the ones I think are the best are:

Serpents Among the Ruins (or something like that)
The Art of the Impossible
A Stich in Time
the Shimmerman/David George III Ferengi book
the Gorkon series in general
and Dayton Wards and David Macks various books.

 

[Sci]

I'm not sure if there's a topic left to get off of, but, to go even further off-topic for a bit...

Uh, Mitch? Speaking as an author, I wouldn't find that insulting at all, if I were her. Put it this way, I think that the best novel I've written is The Art of the Impossible.

With the caveat that I've not read all of your novels and that I'm analyzing it several years after having last read it, I'm afraid that I have to disagree. The Art of the Impossible was a truly wonderful novel, but it wasn't your best that I've read -- Articles of the Federation was. While The Art of the Impossible was a brilliant book, I felt that it lacked the kind of focus that Articles had. It works as an ensemble piece, but the override theme as I saw it -- the interaction of power politics and the cycle of life and death -- never quite congealed for me because I felt it lacked context. It's all well and good to talk about power politics amongst the Cardassians and Klingons and Romulans -- but what does it say about us, about liberal democracy? And that's, again, not to insult Art -- but I felt that it didn't quite reach the level that Articles reached.

Articles of the Federation, on the other hand, was a novel that spoke directly to the question of what kind of society and what kind of politics we ought to build in liberal democracies. It was a novel with a clear focus, and it dealt directly with what quality of leadership really means and what the responsibilities of a leader really are. One of my favorite scenes in that novel is where former Federation President Thelien, in an echo of a similar scene from A Time for War, A Time for Peace, notes that how a president performs in reaction to circumstances that are completely unexpected is at least as important a measure as how they live up to their campaign promises. That bit of insight is incredibly accurate, let rarely noted in the mainstream media, I find. I also cheered when President Bacco announced that no one in the Federation would be imprisoned without due process of the law in a court system. The book was also a bit prescient -- though it was written long before it happened, Articles was published at the same time that there was a conflict between Congressional Democrats and Republicans over Democratic filibusters of certain Republican appointees in the Senate that had prompted the Senate Republican leadership to propose abolishing the filibuster altogether, strangely mirroring Articles' subplot about the Council blocking Bacco's appointees!

Articles also deserves credit for depicting an entirely new system of government that combines the best aspects of both the US and Westminster systems of democracy -- presidential independence and parliamentary accountability. I'm also a bit biased; Articles of the Federation and the clear passion you displayed in it for good governance and leadership, for public service and the principles of liberal democracy, was one of the influences that prompted me to undertake an internship in the US Senate last year and to major in political science, and, indeed, to prompt me to decide to move to D.C. after graduation in search of a public service job there.

I have a few quibbles with one or two bits in it, but, ultimately, I think Articles, with its smaller core cast, greater thematic focus, unique insights into good leadership qualities, and greater relevance to the citizens of liberal democracies, was a stronger work. Granted, to a point this is like comparing apples and oranges -- or, for that matter, like comparing a Tom Clancy movie to The West Wing -- but I definitely think that Articles of the Federation is the best novel you have yet written. (Key word being "yet," mind you. )

Uh, Mitch? Speaking as an author, I wouldn't find that insulting at all, if I were her. Put it this way, I think that the best novel I've written is The Art of the Impossible. I've published 16 novels (and four novelizations) since then. I don't think that's a knock on those 20 books....

Ditto. Personally, I suspect I'll never top Orion's Hounds.

I do not. I won't go into as much detail with Orion's Hounds as I did with Articles, but I will say that in reading Orion's Hounds, I felt like I was reading a very good novel from a writer who hasn't written a lot of novels yet. Yours felt like a relatively young novelist's early work -- it was very good, but, like Ex Machina, a bit raw (though less so than EM), and I strongly suspect that as you keep writing, your work will continue to improve. And your work is already of good quality, to boot. I have no doubt that at some point, you'll be producing much better work than Orion's Hounds if you keep at it. (And I say that, mind you, having not read any of your post-OH work save The Buried Age, so for all I know, you already have!)

 

[KRAD]

While The Art of the Impossible was a brilliant book, I felt that it lacked the kind of focus that Articles had. It works as an ensemble piece, but the override theme as I saw it -- the interaction of power politics and the cycle of life and death -- never quite congealed for me because I felt it lacked context. It's all well and good to talk about power politics amongst the Cardassians and Klingons and Romulans -- but what does it say about us, about liberal democracy? And that's, again, not to insult Art -- but I felt that it didn't quite reach the level that Articles reached.

Interesting. I feel the exact opposite, that Art had the more coherent plot, as it was about the Betreka Nebula Incident and its effect on four different nations. It was also about the differences between the Klingons and the Cardassians, and about Qaolin and Monor and how the initial confrontation over Raknal V changed the courses of both their lives, and about the evolution of the face of the galaxy between the TOS movie era and the TNG era, all in the context of this bizarre 18-year "incident."

Articles, OTOH, didn't have a single plot, it had a bunch of small ones (some bigger than others). Oddly, Art had a plot but no single protagonist, and Articles had a protagonist (President Bacco) but no single plot.

I've never said this anywhere, not even to my editor on the book, but in the back of my mind I had the idea that the young boy in the prologue was a young Qaolin and that the old grandfather in the epilogue was an elderly Monor. The reason why I never mentioned it is that I wanted it to remain vague, and indeed I vacillate on whether or not that's actually the case depending on my mood. But I thought I'd mention it here...

FWIW, my mother -- who is a professional editor of thirty years' standing, and who reads all my stuff before I submit it -- agrees with you, Sci. She likes Articles much much more and thinks is far stronger. (She also hates Klingons, which has an effect on her feelings. Yes, both my mother and my fiancee hate Klingons. I have a weird life...)

Articles also deserves credit for depicting an entirely new system of government that combines the best aspects of both the US and Westminster systems of democracy -- presidential independence and parliamentary accountability.

This right here is why I always laugh hysterically when people talk about what "the fans" like and/or want. I've gotten as many complaints about how un-original the Federation government I developed is as I have about how original it is. Of course, I was working with what little we got on screen, which includes a Federation Council (with fairly broad powers) and a Federation President. The combo of the U.S. and UK systems seemed halfway in place anyhow...

I have a few quibbles with one or two bits in it,

Oh? Which ones? (We're getting waaaaaaaaay off the topic of The Final Reflection, so feel free to take this to e-mail at keith at decandido dot net...)