What do you, the reader, look for?

[Myasishchev]

I really hate where the books have gone in terms of how the Trek universe has shaken out. This isn't a knock on any individual story, some of which are very good, some of which are very bad, and most of which are middling, but in the aggregate I really think they've come close to just ruining the background. So anyone who ignores TrekLit, or picks and chooses what to incorporate, takes no skin off my teeth.

True, we hardly know anything about the Romulans compared to the Cardassians. And chances are we're never going to learn much more about them either with their home planet gone. A fic could fix this, but it would have to be a long series of stories than, not just as single novel length one. Or at the very least a series of short stories to accompany the main story. Otherwise the chosen race ends up like the villain-of-the week again.

Agreed.

I kept them. Galaxy, Nebula, and Sovereign have life expectations of about 100 years, so it's sort of justified to keep them. However, they are no longer the top ships of the fleet, more the Excelsiors and Miranda's of the 25th century. The only TNG-DS9-VOY ship I removed is the Defiant, supposed to last about 20 years.

Most of the new ships, however, are battle ships. While it's justified in the story by Starfleet being afraid of a new Dominion invasion, and the shadow of the Borg still hanging over the Federation (Starfleet doesn't know about the destruction of the Unicomplex, only what Voyager told them). I still feel a bit uncomfortable about Starfleet having a deep space version of an aircraft carrier, though.

I don't mind battleships. I always more or less considered the Galaxy a BB anyway. I mean, look at "Yesterday's Enterprise," where in the Klingon-ridden alt-universe it's referred to as such, and no changes have been made to the actual ship design at all. This indicated to me that 1)they didn't want to build a new model and 2)the Galaxy was built first as a warship, with exploratory capabilities added on, no matter what Federation propaganda says.

I kept Defiants. I thought about creating a new class that occupied the same role, and said screw it, because everyone knows what a Defiant looks like and it's only been thirty years. There are a lot more of them, however, because I'm unrestrained by the DS9 conceit of a Defiant as the hero ship. That's always bugged me--the notion that we can't have swarms of the same kind of ship if our heroes are on board, people won't know where to look. So instead of dozens of Defiants attacking the Dominion battleline, it's one Defiant flanked by decrepit Mirandas.

I dunno about carriers, although it sort of makes sense given that we saw attack fighters in DS9. But I also thought that since starships are more analogous to airplanes anyway, throwing fighters into the mix was just a cheap way of increasing the numbers of swarmers--and the swarmer role was better filled by ships that were at least somewhat capable of defending themselves against the capitals, namely the birds of prey, Defiants, and Jem'Hadar bugs. That said, I would rather see fighters than shuttlecraft. Shuttlecraft combat was always lame. It's like taking the chase scene from Bullitt and replacing the Mustangs with minivans.

Now, what I wouldn't mind seeing is more support ships in Starfleet: tankers, tenders, repair ships, hospital ships, tugs, etc.

 

[Nevyn]

I really hate where the books have gone in terms of how the Trek universe has shaken out. This isn't a knock on any individual story, some of which are very good, some of which are very bad, and most of which are middling, but in the aggregate I really think they've come close to just ruining the background. So anyone who ignores TrekLit, or picks and chooses what to incorporate, takes no skin off my teeth.

My thoughts exactly. The last years I always had the feeling Trek literature was sort of following Star Wars's lead. It started out with a solid base, followed by several good books, before a rapid decline in quality, with an occasional good book in between. With thinks the way they are now, I wonder how long it will be before they start killing off characters like Picard. But that's beside the point here.

I kept Defiants. I thought about creating a new class that occupied the same role, and said screw it, because everyone knows what a Defiant looks like and it's only been thirty years. There are a lot more of them, however, because I'm unrestrained by the DS9 conceit of a Defiant as the hero ship. That's always bugged me--the notion that we can't have swarms of the same kind of ship if our heroes are on board, people won't know where to look. So instead of dozens of Defiants attacking the Dominion battleline, it's one Defiant flanked by decrepit Mirandas.

I'm in 2424, so if the original Defiant was created shortly after Wolf 359, she'd be about 50 by then. Given that Starfleet seems to design a successor every 20-30 years, moving the older ships to secondary rolls, I couldn't no longer justify the Defiant as a 'though little ship" . Of course, my successor has an uncomfortable resemblance with the Defiant in terms, of size, fire power, and overall shape. Unfortunatly this has happoned to a lot of the ships I made. My Enterprise-G is pretty much a Galaxy without children and scaucer separation, but with a slipstream drive and added technobrable.

I dunno about carriers, although it sort of makes sense given that we saw attack fighters in DS9. But I also thought that since starships are more analogous to airplanes anyway, throwing fighters into the mix was just a cheap way of increasing the numbers of swarmers--and the swarmer role was better filled by ships that were at least somewhat capable of defending themselves against the capitals, namely the birds of prey, Defiants, and Jem'Hadar bugs. That said, I would rather see fighters than shuttlecraft. Shuttlecraft combat was always lame. It's like taking the chase scene from Bullitt and replacing the Mustangs with minivans.

I always believed starships to be boats, because of the many US navy resemblances. Given that the usage battle ships have began declining since WW II in favour of aircraft carriers, I decided to recycle it in space. The reason we never saw one on TV, was because it just doesn't look as cool as battle ships firing at one another. Or so I always believed.

Now, what I wouldn't mind seeing is more support ships in Starfleet: tankers, tenders, repair ships, hospital ships, tugs, etc.

Yeah, the only ship that came somewhat close was the USS Pasteur in the TNG finale. But they have to be there; it's hard to imagine starships would always return to a starbase to get repais and treatment for the injured. However, despite being lost in the Delta Quadrant Voyager always managed to repare any battle damage (because of the industrial replicators maybe), and every starship has it own sickbay. Still, it does seem somewhat farfetched.

 

[littlebirdie]

I love reading stories when someone takes a well-beloved character and gives them a new back story, a previously undiscovered reason for some of their thoughts, philosophy, and behavior. Match a great back story with some vivid description of your character's internal struggles, and it's a win!

I'm new here and this is my first post. Waving HI!!

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

I love reading stories when someone takes a well-beloved character and gives them a new back story, a previously undiscovered reason for some of their thoughts, philosophy, and behavior. Match a great back story with some vivid description of your character's internal struggles, and it's a win!

I'm new here and this is my first post. Waving HI!!

You may want to try Rush Limborg's stories, then...that's exactly what he's doing with Ezri.

 

[Rush Limborg]

I love reading stories when someone takes a well-beloved character and gives them a new back story, a previously undiscovered reason for some of their thoughts, philosophy, and behavior. Match a great back story with some vivid description of your character's internal struggles, and it's a win!

I'm new here and this is my first post. Waving HI!!

You may want to try Rush Limborg's stories, then...that's exactly what he's doing with Ezri.

Thanks, Nerys/Noel!


BTW...welcome aboard, littlebirdie.


Now...what do I look for in a story?

Well, yeah, spelling and grammer is important, BUT--

What I like, first and formost, is a good story. It can be dark, it can be light-hearted, but it must be something 1) that I can follow along easily; and 2) has a sense of drama--something that grabs the emotions of the reader.

Say what you will about Peter David, but at least his books deliver those traits in spades. (It's usually enough so that I can allow for all those crazy gags of his. Usually....)

Next, I want characters I can identify with--facing struggles that I can sympathize with. I think the best tales show the hero having a personal stake in the matter--a vested interest in triumphing over the odds.

Now...as for "preaching"--I like a little philosophy in the tale--heaven knows I inject quite a bit in my own stories--but, as I'm sure you all agree, it must serve the story.

I think, as CeJay said:

Good authors stay away from this and instead try to leave the reader to decide what is right and wrong. Others do it so subtly that you barely even notice it. (Some call that manipulation).

...The sledge hammer approach is a turn-off.

Exactly. Now, as you may or may not be aware from my constant Clash-of-the-Titans with Sci, and others, I'm pretty passionate about my beliefs. Indeed, many times, I will seek to "teach"--with the story.

Still...I would never intentionally use a sledge hammer approach (so to speak) to force my readers to accept my views on, say, Section 31. I would have the agent (or whatever) give their defense, and have the other side (say, Julian Bashir) give their argument--but I would let the events of the story speak for itself. If the debate has nothing to do with the tale, it should go out.

That's the best way to address a controversial topic in a tale--if you're going to take sides in a debate, by all means do--but by no means limit the other side to a parody--as so many writers do....