They DID NOT just destroy... [SPOILERS]

[Romulus Prime]

I might be wrong about the intent of the writer. I'm not "wrong" about how I feel because that's my OPINION of how many previous Trek (and Star Wars) books read FOR ME.

But opinions are only as good as the information they're based on, and sensible people are open to changing their opinions when new information is provided. You've stated overtly that you lack information on the subject here, so how can you fault us for trying to provide you with more information and show you how your opinions are based on incomplete knowledge and incorrect assumptions?

I'm not "faulting" anyone, I'm stating what I don't like. I can actually not like an aspect of a book, show, series and have an opinion based on what I've researched on it.

The Typhon Pact concept doesn't sit well with me.

It's not unfounded. I haven't just read 1, 2, or 3 Trek books in my lifetime, l've read or tried to read at least 20 different Trek books in the past 20yrs either by different authors, or ones I like or am familiar with. I find many of them read like fan-fics. Every now and then, I find a diamond in the rough, like Vanguard, but more often than not, I feel Trek books are a let-down. You know what they say about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

But the results are different depending on what era of Trek Lit you're drawing from. It's gone through its ups and downs in the thirty-plus years that Pocket has held the license. After a "golden age" in the mid-'80s, it came under tighter restrictions after TNG and the other series came along, so that the content that came out for most of the '90s tended to be routine and unambitious, with only the occasional high point. But in the 2000s, with the old restrictions on continuity and innovation removed, the books entered a renaissance, a new era of interconnectedness and sophistication. The books edited by Marco Palmieri, such as the post-finale DS9 novels, Titan, The Lost Era, and Vanguard, were particularly praised for their quality. Vanguard is a distinctive series in its own way, but in a lot of ways it's representative of the approach and tone of a lot of modern Trek Lit.

So depending on when the books you've sampled were published, you may be missing out on a lot of information about where Trek Lit is in the 21st century.

I'll accept that as a fair assesment.

**Goes off to start Stitch in Time

 

[Romulus Prime]

If you're not a mod, it's not your job to chastise me. You have no authority over me.

So if several people walk up to you and tell you they have problems with how you're conducting yourself, that's your answer? Sounds like you're exactly who I pegged you to be.

Thanks for the stereotype. I'll just ask a mod to check my posts for violations, OK?

 

[JD]

Aside from "We hate Feddie Bears," what's the common ground with members of the Typhon Pact? Why and HOW can they put aside aspects of their nature to form alliances?

That's a great question. It's also a great two-line description of the first batch of Typhon Pact novels.

While I can't guarantee you'd like them, that very question was clearly at the forefront of all the authors' minds in writing these books. It's one without a straight-forward message-board-length answer. But it's one addressed by the novels themselves. It's one of the things that makes them interesting! This isn't "super-star-trek-baddie-team-up" - how and why this would happen is a big part of the stories.

And honestly, given the amount of time you've spent posting and discussing this very topic on here, I'm struggling to buy your "I read the summaries and I'm not interested" line. You're clearly very interested in how the hell this happened. But you're making an assumption that it happened because of 'bad writing'. I won't spoil them, but trust me, the books provide a consistent, logical explanation for how the Typhon Pact came about. And frankly you seem so into that topic that I really can't imagine you not loving them.

It's not necessarily bad writing at all - it's the concept or plots which usually don't do it for me. Fanfics tend to have both, which is why I don't bother with them.

Everyone loves New Frontier, and Peter David is a great writer.

I didn't like it. The "alien" name of the captain, the human appearance of some of the key "aliens," some of the crew - it just didn't do it for me. Contrary to what many fans of ANY genre think, I can actually NOT like certain episodes/series/books AND still be a fan. In this case, I'm picky about the types of books I read, and if they don't sit well with me, I'm probably not going to continue to read them.

Right now, I'm slogging through a Steampunk novel called The Buntline Special. The characters fit exactly how I would imagine them, and even though I'm a steampunk fan, I'm not "dying" to keep reading it. In contrast, I'm not a major vampire fan, but I've found Barb and C.J. Hendee's Noble Dead series to be amazing and I can't get enough of their books.



-----------------------

I might be wrong about the intent of the writer. I'm not "wrong" about how I feel because that's my OPINION of how many previous Trek (and Star Wars) books read FOR ME. In turn, I don't think you are "wrong" for liking something I don't. Now I already said I'd purchase Destiny which already implies my mind is "open," thus it's a non-issue in this case.



It's not unfounded. I haven't just read 1, 2, or 3 Trek books in my lifetime, l've read or tried to read at least 20 different Trek books in the past 20yrs either by different authors, or ones I like or am familiar with. I find many of them read like fan-fics. Every now and then, I find a diamond in the rough, like Vanguard, but more often than not, I feel Trek books are a let-down. You know what they say about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

If you like Vanguard you'd probably like the rest of the stuff coming out now, if you'd actually read them. And at least then you'd actually know what the hell you're talking about when arguing with the other posters here.

If you go to a restaurant, and 5 out of the 10 items you've ordered weren't so good, yet the other 5 were great, how willing would you be to try new items?

I wouldn't, but I also wouldn't go onto sites for people who like that stuff and eat that stuff all time and know everything about it, and talk about it how the stuff I didn't eat doesn't sound good.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

If you're not a mod, it's not your job to chastise me. You have no authority over me.

So if several people walk up to you and tell you they have problems with how you're conducting yourself, that's your answer? Sounds like you're exactly who I pegged you to be.

Thanks for the stereotype. I'll just ask a mod to check my posts for violations, OK?

Sho is a...very dedicated fan (on this site, of course, he does have like-minded company).
He really doesn't take it well when someone criticizes aspects he's emotionally invested in.

 

[Sho]

^ Seriously, this again? What I don't take well is when the behavior of people lacks common courtesy and respect for the venue, and I believe in standing up for the quality of the community. I have not read these particular books yet (which you know very well from the same past discussions you're alluding to, and in which we established that it's your MO to blame the criticism of others on their supposed emotional state or "fanboyism"), so I can hardly be emotionally invested in them.

Now, I realize your primary motivation in replying here was to get back at me. Now that you've got that out of your system, take a look at the post I was originally taking issue with and that it's not a pile of crap .

 

[Mage]

^ Seriously, this again? What I don't take well is when the behavior of people lacks common courtesy and respect for the venue, and I believe in standing up for the quality of the community. I have not read these particular books yet (which you know very well from the same past discussions you're alluding to, and in which we established that it's your MO to blame the criticism of others on their supposed emotional state or "fanboyism"), so I can hardly be emotionally invested in them.

Now, I realize your primary motivation in replying here was to get back at me. Now that you've got that out of your system, take a look at the post I was originally taking issue with and that it's not a pile of crap .

Do what we all do, ingore and move on. We've got better things to do.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Sho
My primary motivation for writing the last post is that, as per my experience on this board with you, it is correct.

You are correct in that my post draws empiric proof and reasoning in the largest part from the discussion we had previously on the subject.
In that discussion, you claimed that you think of yourself as someone who enjoys opposing viewpoints. But what one wishes one's reactions and traits to be like and what they actually are - these are two very different concepts - for ANY human being, myself included.

 

[Sho]

^ I maintain however that I'm not at all opposed to being exposed to viewpoints that are critical of the Typhon Pact books or concept. On the contrary, the controversy actually makes me only more interested in reading them, to find out what my own opinion will be in the end. And I'm certainly not shy of disliking things that carry the Star Trek brand - there are significant swaths of the franchise I find poorly executed, and often quite thoughtless beneath what is merely a superficial veneer of importance (I'm looking at you, most episodes which involve Janeway taking the moral high ground).

However, it's true that I tend to give authors and their works the benefit of the doubt perhaps more than most, or at least actively try to see the good in them, which can include failing in an interesting way. That's part of why I like Star Trek - even the bad episodes are more likely to inspire an interesting thought or debate than your average TV drama, just because of the higher-concept nature of the stories. If you're gunning for entertainment, might as well pick one with that property.

Given that, even if I don't like a book, I'm unlikely to take offense and feel compelled to post that sort of childish derision. I'd rather discuss things I don't like calmly, too. Perhaps it's not me who's overly emotionally invested?

 

[Edit_XYZ]

I maintain however that I'm not at all opposed to being exposed to viewpoints that are critical of the Typhon Pact books or concept.
[...]
Given that, even if I don't like a book, I'm unlikely to take offense and feel compelled to post that sort of childish derision. I'd rather discuss things I don't like calmly, too. Perhaps it's not me who's overly emotionally invested?

Very well, Sho - I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt - despite quite a few 'childish' posts of yours.

As for my criticisms - as you obviously did not notice, one thing they have in common is that they are supported by arguments. Which makes ALL the difference.

 

[Sho]

^ Well, I already said that I found some of your points interesting. Doesn't change that I wish you wouldn't feel it necessary to post them with the attitude you often adopt when you do. Having an opposing viewpoint != needing to provoke people. The sheeple don't need waking up here.

Or put another way: Even if you find yourself in a minority position, you don't need to compensate with loudness. You can trust others to build their own opinion.

 

[Deano2099]

It's not necessarily bad writing at all - it's the concept or plots which usually don't do it for me. Fanfics tend to have both, which is why I don't bother with them.

It's fair enough if you don't like the concept of the Typhon Pact, I can sure get that. It's a cold-war style thing, it won't be for everyone. But if the only reason you don't like it is because you don't think that it happening is feasible, then it's worth giving the books a go because they offer a feasible explanation. If you're still not going to like the end result anyway then yeah, not worth bothering with.