What happened to "episode" books?

[mirandafave]

With the end of televised Trek for a foreseeable future, the idea of numbered novels is lacking because fans are invested in the characters and want to see how their lives unfold following the finales.

Numbered 'episode' books were probably confined in the manner they were because they had to have a reset to allow them to fit in to canon, especially since they lacked canon status. Not much of a problem, if the story is standalone and has no lasting ramifications that would be contradicted by what was to be seen onscreen.

Episode books have their value in allowing an author to explore a new world, alien species, problem or dilemma. But this can still be done even with the arcing stories.

I imagine for those read the novels, the fact they have arc and interconnections help to give one a sense of them feeling more canon-like. In the absence of TV or movie its all people have to go on. Myself, I don't read the novels, or haven't for years because lack of availibility in book shops and with the current trend shaping the Trek universe it means I don't have my own wee world to imagine how it all pans out.

 

[Brendan Moody]

It's harder to justify, when continuing the ongoing series is something that clearly sells well

Or well enough, anyway. It's been so long since within-the-series fiction has been a major part of Pocket's Trek line that it would be impossible even for those with access to sales figures to know how such books might perform vis-a-vis the ongoing lines. But in an uncertain economic climate (or indeed any economic climate) going with what's proven to work is the better bet from a business perspective, and I don't want to be one of those fans who questions the judgment of experienced industry professionals.

far less restrictive of potential plots

There are restrictions inherent in the ongoing series approach as well, though, just different ones. The TNG relaunch so far has been such an onslaught of event stories (Borg! Q! Borg! Romulans! Borg! Picard and Crusher get together! And did we mention the Borg!) that the character work has struggled to keep up. More generally it sometimes seems that the need to make each book feel like part of an ever-changing narrative tapestry prevents the characters from emerging in depth as they would if the different series took their cue from televised Trek in terms of event pacing. Obviously there's a balance to be struck among all these concerns, and it takes time to work these things out.

 

[ialfan]

I don't miss the standalone novels much at all. It's much more satisfying to have the novels pay off into each other and actually expand the trek universe instead of just having crew x going to planet y and then never mentioning anything from that story again.

 

[Christopher]

As the authors and the publisher keep asserting, it really isn't necessary to read all the novels published prior to a new release. The authors do a very good job of filling in the background and the backstory, as they might be expected to do. For example, Mack explains in the Destiny trilogy how Ezri Dax came to be a captain and in command of the Aventine. If someone wants all the details, they can read the relevant novels in the DS9 relaunch series, but it is not necessary.

That's a better example than you think, because there are no relevant novels in the DS9 series. The DS9 books are still more than four years behind Destiny, so the only information that exists about how Ezri became a captain is in Destiny itself. You don't need to read any prior books explaining it, because there aren't any.

Although the DS9 novels do explain how Ezri switched from counselor duties to the command track in the first place, so there's that.

 

[justcorbly]

Although the DS9 novels do explain how Ezri switched from counselor duties to the command track in the first place, so there's that.

Yeah, I guess that's what I had in mind, since some folks have expressed an unwillingness to accept Ezri as a captain. I think the DS9 books do a great job of depicting how Ezri changes and grows and becomes credible in the command track. If someone's last contact with Ezri was watching her in 20-something anguish over Bashir, finding out that she's now the captain of the fastest ship in the fleet might be a bit of a jolt.

In any case, I see the development of Ezri's character in the novels as something that makes perfect sense -- people grow, grow up, and refocus their lives. (EDIT: Admittedly, I'm a fan of the "new" Ezri. Hope she has a major role to play in forthcoming books. I'd love to see Ezri and Kira play off each other.)

 

[Saul]

One problem with ongoing series that keeps continuity is that if a future Star Trek show comes along then the continuity of the books can be ignored and disregarded. Ok, I know this doesn't bother everyone. But for me I hold the TV cnon above anything established in Novels, no offense Authors. I love your stuff.

I always enjoyed stand alone Novels more. When I started a series like Invasion I felt committed to completing the story and some books weren't as good as others in the series so the quality changes. With DS9 Season 8 in the books I do feel it's a bit daunting as there are many books. Once you start a series like that you can't skip over all of them.

For me the non stand alone books I have enjoyed were Shatner's Kirk Novels and Enterprise Novels. They are released usually one book every year for Enterprise and more than a year or two with Shatner's Novels. Since the books are spaced apart by a year in release I can have time to read other things and take my time with the story.

I have to say I am a little surprised that the continuity Books sell better because they appeal to Star Trek fans and continuity books fans more than the regular public. So it's hard for new Star Trek fans to jump into this continuity. I know Christopher says that we don't need the back story but just for normal people looking at these book series will think they will have to have read all the other books first.

 

[RobertScorpio]

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.

Only one word needed to describe this post...BINGO!!!

 

[JD]

You guys always talk about how no one new wants to start reading the books because of the continuity, but yet there are still quite a few people coming on here saying that they just started reading the books. So obviously it's not having that big of an impact if there are enough new readers coming in that there are that many people coming on here.

 

[Steve Roby]

Meanwhile, in the world of Doctor Who... The New Adventures (61 books) and Eighth Doctor Adventures (74 books) had a fair amount of continuity, not always as much as the DS9 relaunch, but a hell of a lot more than the old standalone Trek novels. The NAs ended in 1997 and are all out of print, the EDAs ended in 2005, and most of them, if not all, are also out of print. And yet there are posts at the DW forum on a regular basis from people who've just discovered them and are eager to read them all. And there are a lot of longtime fans who wish they'd come back. Why? Because the current line of Doctor Who novels is exclusively standalone, episode-like books.

Meanwhile, in the Trek universe, yes, there's more continuity between novels. But, like mystery novelists who build up a lot of backstory in their series, the Trek editors and writers are aware that any book in a series is somebody's first, so they generally make an effort to include all the necessary information to bring new readers (or older ones with bad memories) up to speed. And if they don't, well, going back to my own experience...

When I read the Doctor Who novel The Taking of Planet 5 I had no idea what the hell was going on, or who anyone other than the Doctor was. Instead of being frustrated and feeling that I was being excluded, my reaction was that the novels clearly had the freedom to do a lot of interesting things and weren't just imitations of what happened on TV. I didn't want to stop reading, I wanted to read more. That's the fun of continuity. The more you read, the more you get out of it.

 

[Guartho]

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.

That's exactly why I don't read Star Trek books anymore. The thing is I don't necessarily want each one to be a totally insular story either. But now it seems that they're all dependent on each other. I don't mind going "Ok, I need to read that book, then that book and then I can read this book."

What I do mind is "Ok, I have to read that trilogy, then that series, then that two-part series, then read that series and that series at the same time, alternating books, then I'll be ready to read the series that leads up to this book. I can't even be bothered to track down all those connections, let alone read all those books just because the one in my hand looks like it might have an interesting story.

 

[Brendan Moody]

Meanwhile, in the world of Doctor Who... The New Adventures (61 books) and Eighth Doctor Adventures (74 books) had a fair amount of continuity, not always as much as the DS9 relaunch, but a hell of a lot more than the old standalone Trek novels.

Right, but the difference is that those lines were published in tandem with the more traditional and standalone Missing Adventures and Past Doctor Adventures, so the desires of both broadly-defined audiences were being met, something that hasn't been done in Trek in years.

The NAs ended in 1997 and are all out of print, the EDAs ended in 2005, and most of them, if not all, are also out of print. And yet there are posts at the DW forum on a regular basis from people who've just discovered them and are eager to read them all. And there are a lot of longtime fans who wish they'd come back. Why? Because the current line of Doctor Who novels is exclusively standalone, episode-like books.

And I don't think anyone would argue that that is a good thing from a creative perspective. But I don't see what it has to do with this debate, since no one seems to want an exclusively standalone line. Why does this debate always seem to have a subtext that the line has to be at one extreme or the other?

Meanwhile, in the Trek universe, yes, there's more continuity between novels. But, like mystery novelists who build up a lot of backstory in their series, the Trek editors and writers are aware that any book in a series is somebody's first, so they generally make an effort to include all the necessary information to bring new readers (or older ones with bad memories) up to speed.

They make the effort, yes, but the prospective reader can't always tell that, because the preference for integrating that backstory infodump into the text means that new readers won't necessary see it as they casually examine the books while looking for something to buy.

And if they don't, well, going back to my own experience...

When I read the Doctor Who novel The Taking of Planet 5 I had no idea what the hell was going on, or who anyone other than the Doctor was. Instead of being frustrated and feeling that I was being excluded, my reaction was that the novels clearly had the freedom to do a lot of interesting things and weren't just imitations of what happened on TV. I didn't want to stop reading, I wanted to read more. That's the fun of continuity. The more you read, the more you get out of it.

Well, good for you, but not everyone is going to have that particular response when they encounter something with layers of continuity, and there's no reason they should.

 

[RobertScorpio]

You guys always talk about how no one new wants to start reading the books because of the continuity, but yet there are still quite a few people coming on here saying that they just started reading the books. So obviously it's not having that big of an impact if there are enough new readers coming in that there are that many people coming on here.

Some of the serial books are good, no doubt about it. But when I go bookstores, and I do, and I see the Star Trek section shrinking each time I go, I have to scratch my had and wonder why...and I DO miss the numbered books which is what the OP was all about. To me, those were the GLORY DAYS of Trek literature...

Rob

 

[RobertScorpio]

Meanwhile, in the world of Doctor Who... The New Adventures (61 books) and Eighth Doctor Adventures (74 books) had a fair amount of continuity, not always as much as the DS9 relaunch, but a hell of a lot more than the old standalone Trek novels.

Right, but the difference is that those lines were published in tandem with the more traditional and standalone Missing Adventures and Past Doctor Adventures, so the desires of both broadly-defined audiences were being met, something that hasn't been done in Trek in years.

The NAs ended in 1997 and are all out of print, the EDAs ended in 2005, and most of them, if not all, are also out of print. And yet there are posts at the DW forum on a regular basis from people who've just discovered them and are eager to read them all. And there are a lot of longtime fans who wish they'd come back. Why? Because the current line of Doctor Who novels is exclusively standalone, episode-like books.

And I don't think anyone would argue that that is a good thing from a creative perspective. But I don't see what it has to do with this debate, since no one seems to want an exclusively standalone line. Why does this debate always seem to have a subtext that the line has to be at one extreme or the other?

Meanwhile, in the Trek universe, yes, there's more continuity between novels. But, like mystery novelists who build up a lot of backstory in their series, the Trek editors and writers are aware that any book in a series is somebody's first, so they generally make an effort to include all the necessary information to bring new readers (or older ones with bad memories) up to speed.

They make the effort, yes, but the prospective reader can't always tell that, because the preference for integrating that backstory infodump into the text means that new readers won't necessary see it as they casually examine the books while looking for something to buy.

And if they don't, well, going back to my own experience...

When I read the Doctor Who novel The Taking of Planet 5 I had no idea what the hell was going on, or who anyone other than the Doctor was. Instead of being frustrated and feeling that I was being excluded, my reaction was that the novels clearly had the freedom to do a lot of interesting things and weren't just imitations of what happened on TV. I didn't want to stop reading, I wanted to read more. That's the fun of continuity. The more you read, the more you get out of it.

Well, good for you, but not everyone is going to have that particular response when they encounter something with layers of continuity, and there's no reason they should.

Totally agree. TREK's continuity is part of the reason, IMO, it fell out of favor as much as it did.

Rob

 

[captcalhoun]

when i read Taking Wing and A Good Day To Die and they were going on about stuff from ATT and Diplomatic Implausibility or Brave and Bold all it made me do was buy the books referenced to see what they were on about. and i read them after the others and it never did me no harm.

 

[JD]

I did the same thing with A Good Day to Die, the first two Titan books, and Articles of the Federation. I got about half way through AGDtD, and decided that I wanted to know what all of this stuff that had happened in DI, and B&B (which I haven't actually gotten ahold of yet). Same thing with the Titan books and AOTF, although that time I got all the way through them before I went back and read ATT.

Kinda off topic but the same thing happened with the Star Wars books, too. I read the first couple New Jedi Order books, and since I really liked them I decided to go back read some of the earlier New Republic books.

Now when I did this it was not because I felt that I had to, because I really didn't. I thought all of the books did a great of explaining thing, it was just that was just that I had enjoyed what I read, and wanted to learn more about the situations and the characters.

 

[Dr. M'benga]

I always enjoyed stand alone Novels more. When I started a series like Invasion I felt committed to completing the story and some books weren't as good as others in the series so the quality changes

That's my main problem with the arc books, too. I've committed to some that I stopped dead in the middle of because they had a few installments that were hard rows to hoe. I still haven't finished "A Time To..." I'm not going to say which ones I stalled out on, though!

I know Christopher says that we don't need the back story but just for normal people looking at these book series will think they will have to have read all the other books first.

I'm not normal(!) but I feel the same. I guess it's a holdover from watching serialized TV shows. I can't see how anyone could come in cold on BSG, for example, at this stage in the game and get one thousandth of the impact (or make ANY sense) out of it. If I decide to read a novel arc, I always start at the beginning.

 

[Stevil2001]

Kinda off topic but the same thing happened with the Star Wars books, too. I read the first couple New Jedi Order books, and since I really liked them I decided to go back read some of the earlier New Republic books.

Now when I did this it was not because I felt that I had to, because I really didn't. I thought all of the books did a great of explaining thing, it was just that was just that I had enjoyed what I read, and wanted to learn more about the situations and the characters.

I guess the thing to keep in mind would be what if you read tNJO and you disliked it? Not only would you be put off what you were reading (and the continuity would probably be one extra thing to dislike-- God knows I get sick of the Lucenopedia's pointless referencing), but it would likely put you off reading anything that was referenced, because why would you like that any more?

 

[dbush]

Sigh. I loved Mr. Ward's In the Name of Honor. But I love the extended story arcs but have trouble keeping up with them.

 

[Christopher]

I guess it's a holdover from watching serialized TV shows. I can't see how anyone could come in cold on BSG, for example, at this stage in the game and get one thousandth of the impact (or make ANY sense) out of it. If I decide to read a novel arc, I always start at the beginning.

But the point is, not all story arcs are anywhere near as serialized as BSG. A series like Titan is more like TNG, where each installment has a self-contained plot and situation and only the characters have developing arcs. You couldn't come in cold on BSG, no, but you could begin watching TNG in, say, the third or fourth season and not be lost.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

Writing dispassionately, I can see a potential return to the single novel era, if only because of the current economic circumstances. If people are going to have less money in their pockets at the end of the working week, or if they have any concerns about the security of their jobs and therefore assuming that they have money left over for entertainment anyway, then I'd guess that they would be less likely to invest in an ongoing series than they would in a one off novel.