Trek Lit: the fast food franchise of Lit

[Nathan]

I started a thread about how much of trek is crap, and JoeZhang commented he thought it was more like the "Fast-food franchise fiction"

I thought that was right, With it being close now to 600 books published, I want to say there is shit-load of trek books that are almost equivalent to a Big Mac, it tastes good eating, its comforting, eat almost anywhere, but is it really satisfying??

Yeah, the are some really, really, excellent Trek Lit, but I'd say that is in the realm of 10%, with most being "Yeah, that was above average."

Guess my biggest beef with Trek Lit as I wish I could get more invested in the characters and sick of the re-set button at the end.

Even the latest TNG crew, most of them if they were killed, I'd wouldn't even blink as I have no investment.

However, I really have been getting into the Aventine crew -- what a great crew. Whereas the SCE crew was a bunch of cookie cutter characters. I'm starting to feel that way with the TNG crew and New Frontier was just downright a bunch of weirdos.....except for Soleta and Shelby -- another two of my favs.

Wondering if anyone things along the same lines that Trek Lit is more of the Brain Candy or Fast Food of Lit.

Again, there are some kick @$$ books in Lit, but there is a healthy chunk of Trek Lit books that is really just brain candy.

Your thoughts?

 

[Kilana2]

I really hate the killing off of characters I came to like in recent Trek lit. One might say, someone has to die, but nonetheless. One line of thinking might be: oh, I don't care for a certain character, because in the next novel he/she could be killed off, so why should I care at all??????

Still I am able to find positive things about most of the latest Trek novels, so I keep on reading.

 

[Thrawn]

I feel that the average quality of the novels since about 2001 has genuinely been substantially higher than the average quality of the TV shows. There were 178 (178!!) episodes of Next Generation alone - that's almost as many as all of the Star Trek books TOTAL that have been released since 2001! If I put together a list of absolute classic, must-watch TNG episodes, and absolute classic must-read novels since 2001, that latter list definitely has more on it. And TNG is my favorite of the 5 shows.

At least for me. As usual, your mileage may vary.

 

[Mage]

Fast food? No.

Haute cuisine? No.

Good food that tastes great and leaves me fullfilled afterwards?

Yes.

Next thread.

 

[trampledamage]

Fast food? No.

Haute cuisine? No.

Good food that tastes great and leaves me fullfilled afterwards?

Yes.

Agreed. There's a place in the world for simple food well cooked

 

[Reanok]

I really hate the killing off of characters I came to like in recent Trek lit. One might say, someone has to die, but nonetheless. One line of thinking might be: oh, I don't care for a certain character, because in the next novel he/she could be killed off, so why should I care at all??????

Still I am able to find positive things about most of the latest Trek novels, so I keep on reading.

I definitely agree with you Kill anna I really hate that characters I like being killed off in the Star trek books.

Spoiler: Characters killed off

Jasminder Choudrary I was so sorry David Mack killed her off I think poor Worf should be able to find a girlfriend not have her killed off in the books.

I think you make an excellent point about how people feel about certain characters storylines are handled in the books wondering if they will be killed off in a future book.The writers of the novels certainly keep you wondering what will happen in the upcoming trek books.

 

[JD]

I do agree about the killing off of the characters, that is annoying, but I have to disagree with the OP.
I think a lot of that might have been true with the books that had been released during the run of the shows, since '01, I think the overall book line has been outstanding. Not every book has been a masterpiece, but that's bound to be true with books coming every month. I think having the freedom that the end of the Prime Universe shows and movies gave them has allowed the books do some really interesting things, and taken a lot of chances that the shows and movies never did.

 

[Sto-Vo-Kory]

Nathan, this is your third thread that you've started recently with a negative view of Treklit (the "% of crap" and "Seekers disappointment" threads being the other two).

Your original posts for these threads always seem very measured and fair, but your thread titles come off as a bit inflammatory (to me, anyway). This thread's title, for instance, is more than a little insulting to the authors of Treklit.

Have you had a particularly bad experience reading Treklit in the past few months? I know you were disappointed in the first Seekers book, but disappointment alone doesn't usually translate into a string of threads with low opinions about Treklit.

 

[Nathan]

I think Trek Lit has gone slightly down hill for me. I guess when I've read other fiction and thought, "Man, the characters are really fleshed out and I love the story.", but lately with the Trek LIt, I think some of the characters are a little one-dimensional where you could easily replace the name "Worf" with "Laforge" and have the same story.

Yeah, I do like reading the books, but as I said it has almost become Brain Candy as of late. Also, when flipping through the numbered books, I almost think, "This was great at 16, but at 45, I probably wouldn't pick it up.

Yes, yes, there are some great gems out there and I re-read some every few years (i.e. Strangers from the Sky or Serpents Among the Ruins, or the Vanguard books). I'm liking the Voyager re-launch too. However, lately everything seems sorta ho-hum where once I finish it, I think, "thankfully, I bought this book used and had store credit so the book costs me nothing so they only thing I was out is time, but it was good airplane read when I fly on business."

With about 600 books, there has to be a lot of books that are "meh" to downright "clunkers", and not just enough you can count just using 2 hands.

Don't get me wrong, I do like Trek Lit and I've read almost all of them for the past 30 years, so I suppose I am a little critical.

Sorta like, I'm a diehard Minnesota Vikings Football fan, and root for them even when they suck. I'm the first to complain when their defense sucks, or they have no passing game, but I still wear the jerseys, go to the games when I can, and read news articles about the team.

I get annoyed with folks here who says they love 96% of all trek that was ever written. I find that a little suspect. My all time favorite fiction author is Nelson DeMille. He has a few book that I find "meh" and he even has a shitty book that I couldn't get through (called "The Quest" by the way). And he's only written about 15 books or so.

I wonder if Trek Lit fans put on rose colored glasses when it comes to the books. I.e. someone says, "Yeah, I've read approx. 100 books and found only 4 books that very "meh" to downright horrible." I think "Really?....the other 96 books were above average?"

I find it even more suspect with the multitude Trek Authors. For example, you may be on the same wave-length as Mack and loves everything he writes, but there are ton of authors, and you happen to like ALL of them because they wrote something with the Trek Logo on it.

Guess I'm tired with every book getting "above average" to "excellent" reviews around here, and find it refreshing if someone is criticial of a book. And yes, I know, One man's shitty book is another man's Pulitzer Prize winning book.

And hey, on the Trek Lit, I would think we were "amongst friends" since we all chatting about Star Trek -- something we all like.

 

[trampledamage]

I think you have to bear in mind that the fact we all like the universe of Trek puts any novel set there already in the plus column for us being likely to enjoy reading it, it's not rose-coloured glasses, it's just a known universe.

All of the writers write within that universe, so all of the novels are going to meet that need whether they're written by David Mack, A.C. Crispin or me (not that I have I hasten to add ), what each author adds above that is what will move a novel up and down our favourites list - and those lists are very different for all of us, as the Underappreciated and Test of time threads show.

 

[Elias Vaughn]

Guess my biggest beef with Trek Lit as I wish I could get more invested in the characters and sick of the re-set button at the end.

Yeah, I hated the book where Riker was demoted back to Picard's first officer and divorced Troi solely to bring back the Rachel and Ross-esque 'will they won't they' thing.

And the one where Sisko retook command of DS9 and threw Ro back in jail. Why did Odo, a head of state, even agree to become the security officer again? Made no sense.

And the one where Tuvok visited Voyager and decided to take his old job back and Harry Kim spent like three books wondering what his purpose in Starfleet is before finally going back to Ops. I still think KMFB was objectively wrong to demote Kim to ensign in the process too, but hey, that's why I don't make the big bucks.

And who can forget oh my god I'm already bored but I hope you see my point.

 

[Thrawn]

I wonder if Trek Lit fans put on rose colored glasses when it comes to the books. I.e. someone says, "Yeah, I've read approx. 100 books and found only 4 books that very "meh" to downright horrible." I think "Really?....the other 96 books were above average?"

No, some of the other 96 were just: average. Which is fine, because I like Star Trek! Horrible and amazing are not the only two options.

But, bigger picture - I've read very few Trek novels I didn't like. But there have been many times that I wasn't very interested in Trek right now - didn't mean the books weren't good, just that I wasn't in the mood. When I start reading new Trek books and thinking "that wasn't much fun", I stop reading them. Every time, eventually I've come back intrigued and very much enjoyed catching up again.

Not to speak for you, but it sounds to me like you just need a break. Don't read any Star Trek for a year, and I bet you'll like the next book you read a lot more.

 

[JD]

Part of the reason I haven't read many Trek books I haven't liked is because I follow the review threads here before I buy the books, so if a book gets an overall bad reaction here I avoid it. The only book that seemed to get a negative reaction that I tried was Seize the Fire and I gave up on that one after a couple chapters. I have thought about giving it one more try, just in case I let myself be influenced by the opinion around here. I think I'm also just very easy to please, there's a lot of movie and TV shows I like that most people don't, like the Star Wars prequels, Matrix and Pirates of the Carribean sequels, Cowboys & Aliens, and Prometheus.

 

[Mage]

Threads like this always come across a bit insulting to me. Something similar is in the General Scifi Thread, where a topic was started by someone who hates the MCU.

Now, having a opinion is fine, but topics like this feel like 'I have an opinion, and I can't believe there are people out there who don't share it and are stupid for not sharing my insights.' Then reasons are given for said opinion, and comments in the line of 'I get annoyed with people who like this' or 'fans of this franchise are the reason we're getting more of this crap'.

Yeah, that can come across as kinda insulting.

 

[Paul Weaver]

By definition half the books will be below average.

 

[Elias Vaughn]

Sure, if we're only talking about the subset of Trek books and not every book you've read.

 

[Idran]

Also only if when you say "average", you're talking about median; most people intend the mean. Take a look at, say, {1000,1000,1000,1000,1}. Mean is 800.2, and you've got one number below the average in that group. Or alternatively, {1000,1,1,1,1}; mean is 200.8, you've got four out of five below the average.

All you can really say about the mean is that there's always at least one below or equal to the mean and there's always at least one above or equal to the mean. Beyond this, the number of values above or below the mean depends entirely on the distribution, and there's not really any reason to think quality is a distribution where the mean and the median match.

 

[Nathan]

Sorry if I ruffled anyone's feathers if they thought the tone was negative. I suppose I could say, of the 600 books, do you all think that 95% or more are above average or awesome, I do, please discuss!

Just wanted try to get objectivity into the Trek Line. I mean, if people think that the Trek Line regardless of author is great stuff, that's cool. It just seems every book that is slapped with the Star Trek logo on it gets an above average rating here.

Not trying to pick a fight, but trying to take a strong look at something we all like.

I mean we can say, "Hey on the Titantic, the ship isn't sinking, we are just moving the pool to the lower decks." or "Hey, I think the Titanitc is a great ship, but it has a hole in its hull."

I like reading books centered in the 80s cold war era, but despite liking that era, a lot of fiction and non-fiction books down right suck, but I've read a lot of good ones too.

Not trying to put my opinion on everyone about Trek Lit, but if you think 95% of it is above average to awesome. Cool beans.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Apparently there are 600,000 and 1,000,000 books published every year. I've a feeling a large number aren't very good.

 

[BobtheGunslinge]

Wouldn't it be better to ask if Trek lit books are good Trek? Comparing them to literary works (most of which are actually trash as well) when that is not what they are even trying to be seems foolish. You might as well say that Dali's paintings were terrible at representing real objects.

In my opinion, modern Trek literature has the same quality spectrum for prose, pacing, plotting, characterization, and thematic depth as your standard NYT bestselling original sci fi series, with obvious variances from author to author. World building is another matter, but one of specific taste, so not really comparable. Does it fill the same niche as Cormac McCarthy? No. However, that doesn't mean it doesn't have an important place in our literary culture. There is not a whole lot of sci fi today that shares such an idealistic, positive view of humanity and our future. Star Trek, like Superman, Mickey Mouse, and James Bond, is an iconic part of our cultural heritage, keeping alive reminders of those aspects of our culture that resonate most strongly with the show's fans, the very ideals that made the show outlast its contemporaries. Few literary works still speak to such a wide audience today (outside of academic circles). Even casual Star Trek fans who never read a book like knowing that somewhere their favorite characters are still out there, boldy going. (I have friends who love hearing about how the Borg were defeated, or how Data came back, for example.) So, while Star Trek may be created for mass consumption, I wouldn't quite call it fast food.

Besides, if every book were written for Harold Bloom, only Harold Bloom would read books.


TLR: Fuck Harold Bloom.