The State of Star Trek Literature

[TheAlmanac]

As to comic books--if you look at what the ARTIST does, that's certainly detailed work. The ART on its own merit I can give some credit to. But when it comes to the WRITING, a novel demands far more in terms of weight, credibility, and substance. A comic is as flimsy as a chatfic in comparison and if you approach a novel that way, it's a mess.

I'm sorry, but I have to echo some of the other people posting--the way you're slamming an entire medium makes it sound as if you've rarely, if ever, read a comic book.

(This reminds me of people I've seen putting down the entire medium of television as inferior to film. You know the type--they brag about not owning a TV.)

What was the last comic book series or graphic novel you read, and when did you read it?

 

[RonG]

First of all, I've been a regular TrekLit reader since the early 1990s, and about that time I had started reading (and collecting) comic books.

Since those bygone days (I'll be 32 next February), Trek and Comics have been my (media-related) great loves, and I absolutely reject the notion that comics are "just for kids" or inferior to any other storytelling technique \ medium.

I read a wide range of comic books - from superheroes to crime fiction and noir, to sci-fi (including Star Trek), and anyone who puts down the entire medium, does so IMO from lack of knowledge/familiarity with it.

As for NF, while it's not my favorite series as it had been in 1999-2000, I think that it certainly has a place in today's veried market. Should sales plummet, I'm sure Pocket Books would take whatever move is needed, but since it's still here - people are obviously reading it.

 

[JD]

Yeah, I've got to go with the others here, and say that you're really making comics out to be a lot worse than they are. I'll admit when I first started reading regularly like I do now, I had pretty much the same opinion, but then I decided to give some comics a try, and was supprised by the depth and quality of writing. Like someone else said up thread, thought bubbles, and the narration boxes (not sure their real name) give us plenty of background and development.

 

[Christopher]

As to comic books--if you look at what the ARTIST does, that's certainly detailed work. The ART on its own merit I can give some credit to. But when it comes to the WRITING, a novel demands far more in terms of weight, credibility, and substance. A comic is as flimsy as a chatfic in comparison and if you approach a novel that way, it's a mess.

The more you badmouth comics, the clearer you make it that your actual familiarity with the medium is practically nil. Comics are a collaboration between writer and artist. The writer comes up with the story and the artist illustrates it. Often the artist contributes a lot of the ideas of how the action plays out, but that's elaborating on the basic story conceived by the writer. And both the writer and the artist are engaged in storytelling, even if they do it through different means.

Comics are not a genre, they're a medium. Assuming all comics are alike is as nonsensical as assuming that all movies are alike, that there's no difference between Citizen Kane and Slumber Party Massacre III. Or as assuming that all restaurants are alike, that you'd get exactly the same type and quality of cuisine at the classiest bistro in Paris that you'd get from the Taco Bell on the corner. They're simply a particular way of telling stories, and there's as much variety of subject matter and quality within comics as there is within prose, within film, within television, within theater, within any other medium.

I recommend you read Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics and actually learn something about the subject before you judge it.

 

[Defcon]

Bad writing doesn't stop people from selling--just ask Dan Brown and Stephanie Meyer. Unfortunately, crap sells. Now, PAD isn't QUITE as bad as those two, but Pocket Books has so many superior writers it's not even funny. Maybe way back when, while TNG was on the air and Pocket Books had fewer really impressive novelists (though they did have a few, like Diane Duane), PAD stood out and NF seemed like a good idea simply for its novelty--but these days he's so outclassed it's ridiculous. Almost all of the Trek authors who visit this board could write circles around him any day of the week.

I guess we have to agree to disagree here. Sure, Peter David has a different style than most other Star Trek writers, but IMHO he's a good author, and among the Top 5 of Star Trek authors (past or present).

 

[JD]

As to comic books--if you look at what the ARTIST does, that's certainly detailed work. The ART on its own merit I can give some credit to. But when it comes to the WRITING, a novel demands far more in terms of weight, credibility, and substance. A comic is as flimsy as a chatfic in comparison and if you approach a novel that way, it's a mess.

The more you badmouth comics, the clearer you make it that your actual familiarity with the medium is practically nil. Comics are a collaboration between writer and artist. The writer comes up with the story and the artist illustrates it. Often the artist contributes a lot of the ideas of how the action plays out, but that's elaborating on the basic story conceived by the writer. And both the writer and the artist are engaged in storytelling, even if they do it through different means.

Haven't there even been times that the artist has been credited as a co-writer?

 

[Smiley]

It's not uncommon for a writer and artist to co-plot storylines. Ostrander and Duursema on Star Wars: Legacy are the immediate example that springs to mind.

 

[elaithin]

I think it's actually more uncommon for when they don't - when there IS a regular artist, in any event.

 

[Christopher]

It's not uncommon for a writer and artist to co-plot storylines. Ostrander and Duursema on Star Wars: Legacy are the immediate example that springs to mind.

I would've said Lee and Kirby. Or Lee and Ditko too, I think. Or Lee and Romita? Of course, Stan Lee pretty much invented the "Marvel method" where the writer comes up with the broad plot, the artist fleshes it out and adds ideas, and then the writer adds dialogue to the visual story. And he did that pretty much to save work for himself. But of course that's only one way of writing comics. There are plenty of writers who do full scripts for the artists to follow, and there are plenty of writers who are also artists and do the whole thing themselves except for coloring and lettering (like John Byrne).

 

[Therin of Andor]

I expect a lot more out of it than something you can blow through in five minutes as a piece of fluff.

Maybe that's your problem. You're only skimming it. I usually take a few weeks to read any ST novel, but "Treason" was a page-turner and I was on vacation, so it only lasted me about three days. But they were three enjoyable, fun-filled days with the NF crew.

 

[Smiley]

Therin, I believe that the five minutes comment was referring to comic books. Depending how much dialogue and narration there is, it really doesn't take much longer than 5-10 minutes to read an average comic book, especially if it is one of the "fluffy" ones. Of course, something more literate like Sandman should be savored.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Exactly--I was talking about comic books, which are most definitely five-minute fluff.

 

[Thrawn]

Five-minute maybe; fluff no. You think any poem shorter than five minutes is fluff? How about every song ever?

 

[Christopher]

Exactly--I was talking about comic books, which are most definitely five-minute fluff.

As I've already said, that's an inane generalization. Comics are not a style or a genre. They're a medium in which many different kinds of stories can be told. There's as much diversity in comics as there is in books, plays, movies, TV shows, etc. It's ludicrous to assume that every single work ever created in a given medium is identical in content, substance, or quality.

Yes, there are comics that are fluff, just as there are movies, TV shows, books, etc. that are fluff. There are also comics that are brilliant, deep, sophisticated, thought-provoking tales, just as there are in any other medium. And there are comics that are everything in between those extremes, just as in any other medium.

Yes, some comics these days are so decompressed and art-heavy that they can be read in five minutes. But plenty of other comics are told in a more condensed form or with more verbiage, and plenty require more thought and care to process. I've generally found over the years that a typical comic book takes around 12-15 minutes to read, give or take, and I tend to read them fairly quickly, not lingering on the art. It depends on the particular book, the particular author and artist, the particular publisher, decade, etc. And then there are various different formats behind the typical 22-page single issue: graphic novels, manga-style digests, etc. It's a medium, not a single style. It's nonsense to equate the medium with the nature or worth of the material.

 

[Sxottlan]

I'm not much of a comicbook fan. I've just never gotten into the format.

Once they get adapted into films, then I become a fan.

 

[DaveGalanter]

Can I just say 'Troublesome Minds' was an awsome book/concept.

Thanks! Yer check is in the mail.



j/k

 

[DaveGalanter]

Exactly--I was talking about comic books, which are most definitely five-minute fluff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strangers_in_Paradise

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandman_(Vertigo)

No. Not fluff.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

A fluff that takes five minutes isn't doing the job to a professional standard.

So I understand.

 

[flemm]

Nerys_Ghemor, I can understand your dislike for Peter David's approach to Star Trek (it is not a favorite of mine either), but I think it may be more his personal style you are reacting to, rather than any sort of generic comic book style. For example, I am a fan of comics, but not of Peter David's work in comics in particular.

Often an author's style shines through across multiple media. To take another example, I have enjoyed J. Michael Straczynski's work on television and in comics, in part because of his approach to character development. This is something he pays as much attention to in comics as elsewhere (sometimes at the expense of action in the comics, which is a problem for some fans, but is attractive to others such as myself).

 

[Sci]

Exactly--I was talking about comic books, which are most definitely five-minute fluff.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Are some comics five-minute fluff? Sure. Plenty of others aren't.

Read Watchmen by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons if you don't believe us. Or Y: The Last Man. Or Maus, which won a Pulitzer Prize.