Things you can’t STAND about Trek novels

[David cgc]

That’s what I’ve never understood about this site.. Why have a username? Why not use your real name?

Anonymity can be freeing, especially in on-line contexts where actions our monkey-brains expect to be private aren't (I constantly forget my Twitter "likes" are public, for instance, and may even be shown on the timelines of people following me if they access the service through the website). There are certainly times I've wished I was a little more inventive with my online identity and didn't have such a straight line connecting it and my real life. It hasn't been a problem for me, but there's always a first time.

 

[DonIago]

Frankly, if I used my real name here, I wouldn't necessarily trust that I wouldn't run into someone here who'd use it inappropriately.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

This is a BBS, with loose rules on who can get an account, and what can be discussed. Indeed, quite a bit looser, at least on sexual, scatological, and blasphemous language, than a lot of boards. It's not an academic/professional list server (like PIPORG-L, for organ geeks, or the various Midrange.com lists for IBM Midrange System users and programmers), where you are expected to post under your own name, and observe professional decorum (even when sharing jokes).

 

[Sci]

I guess another one is adding super-rebellious, "modern" types to the crew who you'd never, ever see on a TNG-era show (or *maybe* as a one-off at most).

You mean like Ro Laren?

 

[Damian]

Anonymity can be freeing, especially in on-line contexts where actions our monkey-brains expect to be private aren't

Frankly, if I used my real name here, I wouldn't necessarily trust that I wouldn't run into someone here who'd use it inappropriately.

That’s what I’ve never understood about this site.. Why have a username? Why not use your real name?

Yeah, it probably depends on the individual. I use my real first name but wouldn't want to put my whole name here (part of it is I have a bit of a longish last name and it would just be a pain to everyone else probably). I actually use my first name on a Notre Dame blog I frequent as well (yep, I like consistency in my real life too).

I use my real first name because, well, I'm too lazy to try to create a username. It's easier.

But I avoid using my last name because I do like a bit of anonymity. I think I'd be a bit more hesitant to post my honest opinion if I used my whole name. I usually avoid controversial topics here and I don't flame people or intentionally insult people but still. I feel a bit more free to express myself if I have just a bit of anonymity.

 

[Cap'n Calhoun]

You mean like Ro Laren?

Fair point.

 

[Greg Cox]

You mean like Ro Laren?

Or Seven of Nine?

 

[Cap'n Calhoun]

Or Seven of Nine?

I was referring more to long-term Starfleet officers who should be disciplined "paragons", at least according to Roddenberry. Seven doesn't really fall under that, at least to me.

But, yeah, I admit "never, ever" is hyperbole.

 

[Greg Cox]

I was referring more to long-term Starfleet officers who should be disciplined "paragons", at least according to Roddenberry. Seven doesn't really fall under that, at least to me.

But, yeah, I admit "never, ever" is hyperbole.

Got it. Just pointing out that Seven serves much the same narrative function as Ro: a crew member with an attitude who adds some spice and conflict to the proceedings.

 

[flandry84]

And yet one of the most memorable lit-only characters was Starfleet nutcase Cmdr.Quentin Stone.

 

[Cap'n Calhoun]

Got it. Just pointing out that Seven serves much the same narrative function as Ro: a crew member with an attitude who adds some spice and conflict to the proceedings.

Yeah. Conversely, one of my complaints with Voyager (and it's a fairly common one) is that they actually set up those types of characters and then didn't make much use of them (other than Seven). So it's all contextual.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

And yet one of the most memorable lit-only characters was Starfleet nutcase Cmdr.Quentin Stone.

Stone was Calhoun before Calhoun was Calhoun.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

I don't like it when writers actually write Chekov's accent into the book. It just sounds really weird.

Writing in dialect is, generally, incredibly annoying.

I came back to the thread to add this. I don't mind Chekov saying an occasional "Keptin" or Scotty saying "canna" once in a while, but full-on phonetic dialogue is just awful to read. I couldn't get through Toni Morrison's Beloved back in college because of it. I was spending half my time just trying to decode the impenetrable dialogue.

On writers and their personal tics, it can really drive you nuts once you notice a pet phrase from a particular author. I can't really read Chris Claremont's comics anymore because of stuff like every single character saying odd phrases like "He owns me... body and soul" or "No quarter asked, and no quarter given" over and over.

I enjoyed the level of depth she put into her novelizations for TWOK and maybe especially TSFS (IIRC the events of the movie start about halfway through the novelization). I was disappointed when I saw TSFS and some of her scenes were missing.

Can something really be "missing" if it was never there to begin with, though? You having the expectation that McIntyre's scenes were meant to be there does not mean that they were supposed to be there.

This reminds me of a novelization-specific pet peeve I have: I hate it when a novelization writer's distaste for the material bleeds through. Apparently Diane Carey did a lot of that in her novelization to Enterprise's pilot episode "Broken Bow." (I haven't read it, but I've read excerpts online.) Stuff like a character saying a line of dialogue from the script and then immediately thinking "That was a stupid thing to say." Or writing "No good Starfleet captain would have done this, but Captain Archer was no ordinary Starfleet captain.” J.M. Dillard did a similar thing in her novelization of Star Trek VI, where she was sticking in all sorts of extra, unnecessary things to "justify" Kirk's prejudice against Klingons in the movie, which I though missed the point of that subplot rather spectacularly.

It's fine if you don't like the script you have to adapt, but maybe if you dislike it so much, you should be professional enough to turn down the assignment instead of taking potshots at the original product in your work. Because if someone's buying a novelization of a thing, it stands to reason that it's probably because they liked it in the first place. And reading a professional writer taking shots at it feels like watching a movie while someone next to you is going, "Man... you actually like this crap?" throughout.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Diane Carey did a lot of that in her novelization to Enterprise's pilot episode "Broken Bow." (I haven't read it, but I've read excerpts online.) Stuff like a character saying a line of dialogue from the script and then immediately thinking "That was a stupid thing to say." Or writing "No good Starfleet captain would have done this, but Captain Archer was no ordinary Starfleet captain.”

You're lucky you haven't read the whole thing. The entire book is like that.

 

[Cap'n Calhoun]

I can't really read Chris Claremont's comics anymore because of stuff like every single character saying odd phrases like "He owns me... body and soul" or "No quarter asked, and no quarter given" over and over.

Definitely don't read the Star Trek: Debt of Honor graphic novel by Claremont then. I enjoy it, but I've heard complaints that the TOS crew all speak just like the X-Men.

This reminds me of a novelization-specific pet peeve I have: I hate it when a novelization writer's distaste for the material bleeds through. Apparently Diane Carey did a lot of that in her novelization to Enterprise's pilot episode "Broken Bow."

I had this problem with Alan Dean Foster's novelization of Star Trek Into Darkness, which felt like it was constantly apologizing for and trying to over-explain things we saw on screen. To make it worse, many of these issues were already implicitly explained by the film itself in far simpler, more logical ways.

Example: He goes to great effort to explain how McCoy puts collagen-based simulacra in the cryogenic pods to fool Khan into thinking his crew were still in the pods before beaming them over and detonating them. So McCoy apparently accumulates around 10,000 pounds of collagen and gets them in the individual pods in 5 minutes, and this manages to fool Khan's sensors into thinking there are live people inside... Except the movie (and the novelization!) had already established that the torpedoes were shielded from sensor scans, so this convoluted explanation was completely unnecessary.

Though I kind of want to ready Broken Bow just out of morbid curiosity.

 

[David Weller]

Of course it’s not just Carey though, is it?

what were the editors doing that allowed stuff like that to remain in the novel?

And what about CBS licensing? They have final manuscript approval.

AIUI, Carey never got another Star Trek gig because of this novel.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Definitely don't read the Star Trek: Debt of Honor graphic novel by Claremont then. I enjoy it, but I've heard complaints that the TOS crew all speak just like the X-Men.

Oh, I've read it. It's worth getting for the terrific art by Adam Hughes, but as a story, it's not that great. It's very fan-fictiony, especially when towards the end, lots of bit characters from TOS come aboard to help Kirk in his hour of need... and then promptly disappear for the rest of the book. The monologue by the Spacedock portmaster over Hughes' double page spread of the Enterprise is kind of hilarious, though.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

I found a thread that goes into more detail about the Diane Carey "Broken Bow" novelization, BTW:

https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/brannon-braga-not-a-diane-carey-fan.208597/

 

[DonIago]

Can something really be "missing" if it was never there to begin with, though? You having the expectation that McIntyre's scenes were meant to be there does not mean that they were supposed to be there.

Firstly, I wasn't even 11 when I saw TSFS, so I think some confusion is permissible.

Secondly, I only meant 'missing' in the sense of 'present in the novelization but 'missing' from the film'. Obviously they likely were never going to be in the film to begin with, but if their existence in the novelization adds something, then I think it's a shame if the film doesn't have them as well.

What bores me is when the novel is slavishly adherent to the source material, as with most of the TNG movie adaptations.

 

[Greg Cox]

Firstly, I wasn't even 11 when I saw TSFS, so I think some confusion is permissible.

Secondly, I only meant 'missing' in the sense of 'present in the novelization but 'missing' from the film'. Obviously they likely were never going to be in the film to begin with, but if their existence in the novelization adds something, then I think it's a shame if the film doesn't have them as well.

I know the feeling. I read David Gerrold's novelization of BATTLE FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES at least a year before I finally got to see the movie on TV. Was disappointed to discover that many of the scenes of from the book were "missing."

And I'm going to claim this is OT because . . . David Gerrold.