The Peter David appreciation & discussion thread

[Steve Roby]

Taken out of context of the EU continuity as an isolated novel

Not to unload on you or anything, but please allow me to register my dislike of "Expanded Universe" terminology in Star Trek discussions. EU is a Star Wars thing, or it's the European Union, or it's the go-go band who recorded "Da Butt." Nothing to do with Star Trek.

(If it helps, I agree with a lot of what you're saying about PAD....)

 

[KRAD]

I think there were many quality Trek books produced at a time PAD built his reputation, and I cannot think of many which have been written recently to match that standard.

Because I hate vague statements and love to make lists, I hereby provide this list:

Folks who were writing Trek novels at the same time that Peter David started writing them (1989-1991)
Carmen Carter
Carolyn Clowes
A.C. Crispin
Gene DeWeese
J.M. Dillard
Diane Duane
David Dvorkin & Daniel Dvorkin
Julia Ecklar
Brad Ferguson
D.C. Fontana
Michael Jan Friedman
Mel Gilden
Robert Greenberger
Barbara Hambly
Judy Klass
Dana Kramer-Rolls
Jean Lorrah
V.E. Mitchell
Peter Morwood
Judith & Garfield Reeves-Stevens
Keith Sharee
Jeri Taylor
John Vornholt
Howard Weinstein

Folks who are writing Trek novels now, besides Peter David (2006-2008)
Christopher L. Bennett
Margaret Wander Bonanno
Greg Cox
Keith R.A. DeCandido
J.M. Dillard
Diane Duane
David R. George III
Heather Jarman
William Leisner
David Mack
Michael A. Martin & Andy Mangels
S.D. Perry & Britta Dennison
Judith & Garfield Reeves-Stevens
Chris Roberson
Kevin Ryan
William Shatner
Sarah Shaw
Josepha Sherman & Susan Shwartz
Dave Stern
Mike Sussman
James Swallow
Geoffrey Thorne
Geoff Trowbridge
Dayton Ward & Kevin Dilmore
Olivia Woods

I make no judgments here, I'm simply providing the actual data by which such a judgment could be made.

 

[Deano2099]

There are a handful of authors for whose books I would have high expectations these days, and certainly no more than I did in the mid-90s.

I tend to agree but with the caveat that whereas those handful of great authors back in the mid-90s wrote about 30% of all Trek books, I'd argue that same number write about 70-80% these days, or at least those in the 'mainstream continuity' or whatever you want to call it.

Just finished BD and loved it btw.

 

[donners22]

The way I read that statement was the other way around...that now PAD has a lot more very tough competition from high-quality writings. Not that there wasn't great writing around before, but there's one heck of a concentration of it now.

I suppose I didn't quite read it that way. I would probably agree that there were a heck of a lot of average, though enjoyable reads with a few standouts in the period I was thinking of (most of the 90s). Since Peter David had several of those standouts, he did certainly loom large amongst other Trek authors.

These days...well, there are certainly fewer novels produced, and there is not really the sense of a production line in that most have series-changing events that were simply not possible when canon was still being made.

I suppose by a sheer drop in the numbers of books produced now, the ratio of quality-to-average books could be seen to rise somewhat.

However, I honestly think that the average quality of books has declined, and that there are still very few novels I would regard as standouts now even with the increased freedom for authors. I suspect I'm in the minority in this feeling, but it's one I hold quite strongly.

Hence, returning to the original point, I don't think PAD is overshadowed by other authors any more now than he was then - though the events in his novels may seem a bit less significant (which perhaps prompted the slight overreach in Before Dishonour).

 

[KRAD]

I would probably agree that there were a heck of a lot of average, though enjoyable reads with a few standouts in the period I was thinking of (most of the 90s). Since Peter David had several of those standouts, he did certainly loom large amongst other Trek authors.

These days...well, there are certainly fewer novels produced,

That last bit isn't actually true.

Peter started writing Trek novels in 1989. Here's how the number of Trek fiction books published broke down then and over the next few years, and again since 2005:

1989: 12
1 hardcover
11 paperbacks

1990: 13
1 hardcover
12 paperbacks

1991: 13
1 hardcover
12 paperbacks

1992: 15
3 hardcovers
12 paperbacks

1993: 17
3 hardcovers
14 paperbacks

1994: 20
5 hardcovers
15 paperbacks

2005: 31
2 hardcovers
3 trade paperbacks
14 paperbacks
12 eBooks

2006: 29
3 hardcovers
4 trade paperbacks
10 paperbacks
12 eBooks

2007: 31
2 hardcovers
7 trade paperbacks
10 paperbacks
12 eBooks

2008: 17
4 trade paperbacks
10 paperbacks
3 eBooks

Okay, the eBooks may strike one as stacking the deck, but the fact is, the current output of the fiction line is about the same as it was when Peter started (and, of course, there were only two franchises). But this serves as a reminder that the days of two books every month was only a decade long: from 1995, when Voyager debuted, to 2005.

 

[Mike Farley]

KRAD is there any Trek related subject about which you don't have some list regarding?

 

[KRAD]

^ Not that I'm willing to admit to.

 

[donners22]

Must admit, I only got into Trek in the mid-90s when there was an absolute flood of DS9 and Voyager novels, but that is an interesting list.

I think PAD would have received most attention for Imzadi in 1993 and Q-Squared in 1994, and those were not particularly high-volume years.

 

[Red Ranger]

^ Stone is pretty much a trial run for Captain Calhoun in New Frontier, so you'd probably find those an interesting read as well.

Donners: Wow, that's interesting! I haven't read any of the New Frontier stuff, but maybe I'll give one a whirl. Would you recommend I start with the first one? BTW, I loved Stone's scars and all the different stories he told about them, like the Joker in The Dark Knight. -- RR

 

[donners22]

Funny you should mention that, because Calhoun does the exact same thing. Forgot about that little specific, but there are plenty of other similarities.

One of the books came in hardcover with the previous books in Adobe form on a CD - that would be the best to get, but I cannot for the life of me remember which one.

Can anyone help, please?

 

[William Leisner]

One of the books came in hardcover with the previous books in Adobe form on a CD - that would be the best to get, but I cannot for the life of me remember which one.

Can anyone help, please?

That was Stone and Anvil -- however, it was just the first printing that had the CD-ROM, and I'd think it difficult to impossible to find a copy with the disc still intact and included.

 

[Red Ranger]

One of the books came in hardcover with the previous books in Adobe form on a CD - that would be the best to get, but I cannot for the life of me remember which one.

Can anyone help, please?

That was Stone and Anvil -- however, it was just the first printing that had the CD-ROM, and I'd think it difficult to impossible to find a copy with the disc still intact and included.

Is Stone and Anvil the first NF book? I don't mind reading a good, old-fashioned hard copy book -- never warmed to CD-ROM books, and haven't even picked up a Kindle yet! -- RR

 

[captcalhoun]

no, S&A is book 14.

you can get an omnibus of the first 4 (thin) books, but you'd probably need to get it via Amazon's Marketplace or somethin similar

 

[donners22]

I read them as they came out, so it's hard to recommend a good spot for a newcomer to start. In my opinion, they got better as they went along.

 

[JD]

If you don't want to have to read the whole series, After The Fall might be a good jumping on point. It does still build alot off of the stuff from the earlier books, but at tha same time it jumps ahead 3 years in time, and starts alot of new story arcs.

 

[Red Ranger]

Hey, captaincalhoun, stars22, and Just Died, thanks for the advice. You can always count on BBSers to give you their recommendations on things they like. Sounds like I have a New Year's reading project ahead of me! I'm trying to finish Moby Dick, and it's the third time I've made the attempt. Wish me luck! -- RR

 

[KRAD]

^ I'd recommend not bothering. Like many of his contemporaries (e.g. Hawthorne, Poe), Melville was a far better short fiction writer than he was a novelist. Moby-Dick would've made a great short story, but as a novel, it's an overwrought, overwritten, overrated mess whose rep as "the great American novel" is wholly undeserved.

Erm, not that I feel strongly about this or anything.......

 

[David cgc]

I think A Prairie Home Companion noted that once, in their "Ruth Harrison, Reference Librarian" sketch. "Mr. Wiler, you've checked out Moby Dick thirty-five times. I think you're just going to have to accept that you're never going to finish it."

 

[ClayinCA]

I'm not about to disagree, KRAD. Even my college roommate, who thought Melville was fantastic, said that when you're reading Moby-Dick, the sure sign that you should skip a chapter is if it starts with, "You know, the great thing about whales..." I said (and still maintain) that this means skipping about 80% of the book.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Moby-Dick would've made a great short story, but as a novel, it's an overwrought, overwritten, overrated mess whose rep as "the great American novel" is wholly undeserved.

As a kid I read an abridgment. Not long after ST II, some publisher cashed in by reprinting the old Classics Illustrated "Moby Dick" comic book - and I was happy enough with these.