What happened to "episode" books?

[AuntKate]

I was talking to some people the other day who used to read and enjoy Star Trek books but have long since moved on. They're comments boiled down to the fact that they miss novels that are based on events that are set during one of the series--even though the programs have been off the air for years.

They seem to resent the longer story arcs, whether they cross from one series to the next or are multi-book storylines (like Voyager's "String Theory"). They talk about picking up a Star Trek book at the bookstore, seeing the blurb about "After the events in the trilogy Destiny," and just putting the book back down--they don't want to have to be "caught up" on the backstory that has been developed in a series of previous books. And they don't like reading about "new" characters. They want to see the characters as they knew them on screen.

Does anyone else long for the old "numbered" books from years back where we could just enjoy a novel that "could have been" an episode?

I know I do.

 

[Trek]

Not really.

One of the reasons why I lost interest in the numbered books is almost exactly opposite to the reason that those people gave you for not reading the current books.

For me the days of the numbered books represent stagnation and, for me, the best example of this were the Voyager books. Every story seemed to be; Voyager runs low on supplies, turns to Aliens/finds Planet to resupply but runs into problems, problems get solved, Voyager moves on, and once I'd read about five of them I felt I'd read them all. That's not to say these books were the only ones with this problem. None of the novels did anything that hadn't already been established by the Series or Films when they were published and everything had to be put back where it was found by the end.

The continuity we have not makes things far more interesting. Decisions have consequences. Characters live, grow and (dare I say it) die. Nothing can be taken for granted and that reintroduces drama and jeopardy.

For me the novel line has never been better.

 

[JoeZhang]

Sort related to this - I wonder what percentage of star trek books are now sold in normal book shops rather than amazon or specialist shops?

I went around my 3 local bookshops and while they all have extensive sci-fi sections, between them, they had one Star Trek book (Stacks of Star Wars books) - and that was book 2 of errands of fury - what casual reader is going to pick up book 2 of a series?


On a personal level, while I support the idea of a more inteconnected universe and the change nature of the current universe, I find I don't actually like where the TNG universe has gone and find that I have no interest in picking up any more books - which is an odd mental state to hold

 

[Dayton Ward]

^ Precisely why my numbered novel killed the numbering for the TOS books. Killed them to death, it did.

 

[Daddy Todd]

Does anyone else long for the old "numbered" books from years back where we could just enjoy a novel that "could have been" an episode?

I don't miss those old days in the slightest. And if I did, I'd just go back and read some of the scores of "numbered" novels that I've never bothered to read.

I never read them back then because I'd already slogged through enough books that felt like "just another reset-button episode." I wanted novels that were about something that actually MATTERED to the characters. And, joy upon joy, that's what we're now getting from Pocket Books.

So, as far as I'm concerned, this is the golden age of Star Trek literature.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I was talking to some people the other day who used to read and enjoy Star Trek books but have long since moved on. They're comments boiled down to the fact that they miss novels that are based on events that are set during one of the series--even though the programs have been off the air for years.

They're not gone at all. There's a TOS one, "Troublesome Minds", coming up very soon. "Ex Machina" was a great story, but supposedly didn't sell well enough to guarantee lots more standalone novels for the post-TMP era. Shatner's "Academy: Collision Course" works as a standalone, but may get a sequel.

TNG recently had "The Buried Age", a "tale of the Lost Era". All of the earlier "Lost Era" books were stand-alones, too, although some people are counting them as an interconnected series books due to the umbrella title.

DS9 had "Hollow Men" popping up in the middle of the DS9 Relaunch.

And they don't like reading about "new" characters. They want to see the characters as they knew them on screen.

You know, every standalone ST novel I've read has had at least one "new" character in it. And I've read most of them to date. If the author only writes one book in that period, then the new character often vanishes forever. When authors have a successful book, they often use their "new" characters again in a subsequent story - sometimes by public demand (eg. "I loved the character of X, I hope to see them again some time"), if they haven't suffered a redshirt death during the first book, of course.

You don't begrudge authors from adding new characters, surely? Almost every episode of ST has introduced "new" bridge characters, who often never appear again in another episode.

 

[Defcon]

I think a healthy mix of both (stand alones and books in continuing series) would be best, and that the current ratio has tipped a bit to far in the continuing series direction.

While I enjoy the continuing series, now and then I just want to read something that is resolved in one book and isn't necessarily part of a bigger picture and sometimes it feels as if the gaps between the release of these kind of books is getting larger and larger.

 

[Therin of Andor]

sometimes it feels as if the gaps between the release of these kind of books is getting larger and larger.

Probably because standalones are much harder to sell. The continuing story of the Relaunches (and TV soap operas) are their own built-in marketing campaign.

 

[Marie1]

I prefer the post-fiction, especially DS9PF, where the story continues. I've learned most of what I wanted to of the series during the series. I actually get irritable when I see a bunch of stuff set during the series... I know what happened... moving on!!

Mind, I liked Battle for Betazed because we didn't see that, etc. But what two characters may have said that wasn't shown on screen, that I don't like.
I doubt I'd be purchasing much that was set during a series, tho it's good they exist for those who want them.

 

[Christopher]

I think the majority of the books are still standalones in terms of plot, even if they do have evolving character arcs -- much like TNG itself was. Certainly each Titan novel is a separate, self-contained adventure; indeed, most of the installments of that series have large gaps in story time between them, so it could hardly be called a serial. The only continuity elements in TTN pertain to the characters' developing lives, and given the large gaps between books and the different character focus in each book, that continuity doesn't dominate the storytelling.

The TNG novels set between Nemesis and Destiny were essentially standalones as well; yes, three of the five (counting Death in Winter) involved the Borg, but each one told a separate story about the Borg, focused on different character arcs and situations, and resolved its own particular story within itself, at most leaving a minor dangling thread from which a new, separate story could arise.

These books are consciously designed to be satisfying to both audiences. If you just pick up one book and read it as a self-contained story, then it tells you a complete story. Yes, it has references to past events, but that doesn't mean you have to read about those past events; you didn't need to see the fight on Rigel VII to understand "The Cage." But those individual stories also have links to one another to satisfy those who like more continuity.

 

[ronny]

I was talking to some people the other day who used to read and enjoy Star Trek books but have long since moved on. They're comments boiled down to the fact that they miss novels that are based on events that are set during one of the series--even though the programs have been off the air for years.

They're not gone at all. There's a TOS one, "Troublesome Minds", coming up very soon. "Ex Machina" was a great story, but supposedly didn't sell well enough to guarantee lots more standalone novels for the post-TMP era. Shatner's "Academy: Collision Course" works as a standalone, but may get a sequel.

TNG recently had "The Buried Age", a "tale of the Lost Era". All of the earlier "Lost Era" books were stand-alones, too, although some people are counting them as an interconnected series books due to the umbrella title.

DS9 had "Hollow Men" popping up in the middle of the DS9 Relaunch.

The fact that you give a book not yet published in 2009, a book published in 2007 and a book published in 2005 as evidence that "They're not gone at all" kind of weakens your case. OK, they are not "gone" but they are pretty rare compared to all the books that tie together now.

As much as I like how things are tied together for the most part I think I'm in agreement with Defcon in that maybe the pendulum has swung too far away from stand alone novels.

 

[captcalhoun]

am i cynical or is this just another thread bitching about the current status of Voyager from a Janeway fan who's bemoaning her death, but in a covert fashion?

 

[Steve Roby]

Does anyone else long for the old "numbered" books from years back where we could just enjoy a novel that "could have been" an episode?

Not particularly, no. I've read dozens, possibly hundreds, of those books. To borrow a phrase from one of the best tie-in book lines ever, I want "stories too broad and deep for the small screen."

 

[Scott Pearson]

am i cynical or is this just another thread bitching about the current status of Voyager from a Janeway fan who's bemoaning her death, but in a covert fashion?

CaptCalhoun, I believe you know Uncalled For, but let me introduce you to Left Field . . . I think you may have a lot in common.

 

[Brendan Moody]

I wouldn't necessarily call them "episode" books, since that can create the impression that I want a script formatted as prose or an exact retread of 1960s/1980s/1990s TV style, but issues of labeling aside, yes, I do wish there were more stories in the broad format of most televised Star Trek. There's absolutely no reason the fiction can't tell meaningful, character-based stories set within the various series more frequently than happens now. I sometimes wonder whether the natural and valid excitement over the relatively recent ability to make substantive changes to characters' lives has created the false impression that such changes are required for powerful storytelling.

 

[Thrawn]

To answer the question directly - what happened to them, as opposed to if I want to read more of them - it must be that they weren't as profitable. Invasion showed up the mid-nineties, and then Day Of Honor, which was 5 books, and New Frontier, which started as 4 books, and Captain's Table and Invasion and New Earth which were all 6 books, and then trilogies started happening (like Q Continuum) instead of individual installments... none of that would've happened if it wasn't completely clear that those books sold better. By the late nineties, some years more series books were selling than standalones, and that was before substantive changes were allowed.

The current preference towards ongoing stories, it seems to me, is a natural outgrowth of that; those same multi-book arcs that so clearly outsold the standalones, only now with ongoing plots instead of miniseries.

So, Kate, tell your friends they need to find more people that agree with them and travel back to the late 90s to change the purchasing patterns

 

[cb31]

I look forward to the books much more eagerly now that there is a continuuing story arc. I can't wait to see what happens next!

 

[Turtletrekker]

I had practically stopped reading Trek books completely in the 90's because of the bland "re-set" nature of the stories, prefering Star Wars books because of the shared continuity. I only came back to Trek books again circa 2000 (starting with Diplomatic Implausibility) because of the broader scope of storytelling and interconnectivity of the current novels.

My favorite era of aired Trek was the interconnected "origin of the Maquis" era where the story jumped from TNG to DS9, back to TNG and finally to Voyager's pilot (with Gul Evek as the common recurring character), so I've always prefered a larger over-reaching continuity to stand-alone storytelling.

 

[Hoshi_Mayweather]

I don't mind standalone books, but I like the fact that there is more continuity with story arcs; a sense that there is a 'universe' with consequences, growth for characters, etc...(as aforementioned in another post).

 

[JD]

Since I only read NF up until about 5 years ago (which about when the arc based stories began) I can't judge first hand how I feel about the old books. But based on what I've read about them on Memory Beta, I would be happier with what we are getting now. While sometimes it would be nice to get a story with all of the characters together back on the ships, we already got hundreds of both episodes and books that give us those kinds of stories, so IMO it's nice to get something new and different.