What Trek Reference Books Need To Be Compiled?

[MatthiasRussell]

Star Wars has many more reference works than Trek does. I've noticed writers use them as much as we do. Memory Alpha and Beta are great as encyclopedias, but we need more specialized reference materials.


I would like VOY and ENT tech manuals, a galactic atlas with sector maps. It would also have pictures and descriptions of significant planets, and an incredible cross sections book.

 

[F. King Daniel]

You want the Star Trek Star Charts or it's (very expensive now) predecessor, Star Trek Maps.

 

[MatthiasRussell]

How thorough are they as reference books? If they are significantly old, should they maybe be updated?

Is there even a desire for such books now like there was in the 90s?

 

[F. King Daniel]

They're not, really, since Trek writers never gave much thought to stellar distances when writing the show. Nor have any of the manuals and timelines ever been strictly (or even loosely, in many cases) adhered to by those in charge of the TV shows or movies. With the exception of the Star Trek Encyclopedia and the Star Trek Chronology (which started off as writer's aides), they're written for the fans.

Although done by the same guy (Geoffrey Mandel) the 1980 Star Trek Maps and the 2002 Star Trek Star Charts are entitely different (much like how the 1979 Star Trek Spaceflight Chonology and the 1993 Star Trek Chronology are - the former puts the events of TOS around 60 years earlier than the latter). Placement of worlds and empires were moved around and Federation space reconfigured.

Sales of Trek reference books died in the late 90's/early 00's. IIRC the Star Charts were a flop, and there wasn't another Trek reference until this year's Haynes Enterprise manual.

 

[MatthiasRussell]

And I thought that Haynes manual was a joke, especially when compared to past tech manuals and the star wars incredible cross sections. Would love for the authors to spearhead works like those. I bet Michael Martin would write an awesome ENT tech manual. I noticed it was David Mack who wrote the Starfleet Survival Guide.

I'm shocked we don't see more of these as it would give the authors a different type of creative outlet for writing trek. Also, there are a lot of fans who don't want to read novels but would probably buy reference type books, especially thorough ones.

 

[Christopher]

^There's plenty of creative will behind doing more tech manuals, but the sales figures simply aren't enough to convince the publisher's bean-counters that it's worth the expense. Tech manuals are very expensive to create because of all the artwork and photo clearances and such, but they have a smaller audience than novels do, so they're just not considered profitable.

 

[js]

^ Agreed. I'd still be doing Trek reference books given the chance.

 

[Plaristes]

I've wondered about this disparity between Star Trek and Star Wars reference material. What accounts for the lack of sales for Trek reference books while SW reference sells really well?
In recent years, SW has published the massive three volume Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia, the incredible textbook The Jedi Path, several blueprints books, the cutaway book on the Millennium Falcon, a dozen or so rpg sourcebooks, and two more entries in the essential guides series (Jedi vs. Sith: The Essential Guide to the Force and The Essential Atlas; The Essential Guide to Warfare is forthcoming next year). Are there simply more SW fans? Is the quality of the material consistently that different? (e.g., The Essential Atlas totally kicks Star Trek Star Charts' ass in every way imaginable). Something else?

 

[MatthiasRussell]

The numbers REALLY show novels sell better? That's sad that there isn't more of a market. I started polls at st.com about ent and voy manuals and the replies I got were pretty positive. I wonder why star wars reference books are more profitable.

A shame, the reference books from the 90s were of high quality and VERY inspiring.

 

[Therin of Andor]

What accounts for the lack of sales for Trek reference books while SW reference sells really well?

I should point out that, even though they sold many, many copies, the guide books ("Incredible Cross-sections", "Visual Guide") for "Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace" were a terrible flop that killed a large, long-running, international publisher, Dorling Kindersley - leading to at least one warehouse of books (ie. here in Sydney) getting pulped. As far as I know, every major locale suffered a similar glut.

Since then, "DK" has become an imprint, and SW licensing is a more cautious venture.

 

[Mysterion]

(e.g., The Essential Atlas totally kicks Star Trek Star Charts' ass in every way imaginable).

This.

As much respect as I have for Geoff Mandel and what he has contributed to Trek and fandom thereof, the above quote is absolutely true.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I'm still convinced that what killed the tech manual market was too many bad tech manuals and non-fiction books.

 

[JD]

I know there would be a very small audience for it, but I would love a character guide that included main characters from the novels, along with all of the canon characters, and/or a species guide that did the same thing. Basically I just want to see the characters and aliens from the books, that we haven't seen officially yet.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I just want to see the characters and aliens from the books, that we haven't seen officially yet.

I can hear the debates already. "Why did that let that idiot artist design that alien. I could have done better myself."

 

[Rush Limborg]

Frankly, I'm under the impression that, with Memory Beta and Memory Alpha, a new Star Trek Chronology and Encyclopedia are basically redundant. Why spend $20 or $30 for a book when you can get all the info you need easily from a big, well-known website?

 

[MatthiasRussell]

^ That is my argument against a new encyclopedia. The internet has killed sales of dictionaries and encyclopedias but there is still a demand for more specialized reference materials. It is those type of focused works rather than general ones that I think still sell.

 

[MatthiasRussell]

I know there would be a very small audience for it, but I would love a character guide that included main characters from the novels, along with all of the canon characters, and/or a species guide that did the same thing. Basically I just want to see the characters and aliens from the books, that we haven't seen officially yet.

Excellent. That is the type if thing I would want worked into a trek atlas. When a section speaks of a specific world, describe its planetary conditions and dominant life forms along with their biology and sociology accompanied by a sketch.

I don't think anyone can complain about visual representations when the shows and books lay down a pretty solid word picture of what species look like.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Frankly, I'm under the impression that, with Memory Beta and Memory Alpha, a new Star Trek Chronology and Encyclopedia are basically redundant. Why spend $20 or $30 for a book when you can get all the info you need easily from a big, well-known website?

That's the main issue we're facing with the new Concordance, and I answer it thusly: It's a lot easier to browse through a physical book than a website.

Memory Alpha is a fine site (and we're pulling a lot of tidbits to fill gaps from there), but it works best if you know what you're looking for. If you just want to wander around and stumble across stuff, not so well. THAT is the advantage that physical reference books will always have over electronic media, and why there will always be a market for them.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I don't think anyone can complain about visual representations when the shows and books lay down a pretty solid word picture of what species look like.

But they would complain. And whatever arbitary, extra info the author of such a graphic work would have to make up and put in, in order to get some consistency of the depth of knowledge, would either have to be made compulsory for those using it as a reference, or be chosen to be ignored. All future authors and artists wanting to use those planets and aliens would be hamstrung. Or damned.

Think about "Worlds of the Federation". Shane Johnson had to make up names for cities, describe climates, create typical clothing, for aliens we'd barely seen in canonical productions, and many people reject that book outright. He actually did "describe... planetary conditions and dominant life forms along with their biology and sociology accompanied by a sketch". People complained. Think about all the FASA, Last Unicorn and Decipher RPG manuals, many of which also attempted to flesh out barely seen, or never seen, UFP, neutral and enemy races. People complained. Ditto the Goldsteins' take on Alpha Centaurians, and the dates (and order) of various first contacts, in "Spaceflight Chrononolgy" and Bantam's "Introduction to Navigation" descriptions of alien races, home stars and worlds in "Star Trek Maps". People continue to complain.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I loved Worlds of the Federation. I came across it by fluke in a charity bookshop a few years ago and happily absorbed the whole thing.

Going back to how autoritative the reference books are(n't), Mike Sussman once said in the ENT forum that he has a copy of WotF. ENT, of course, gave the Andorians a totally different homeworld to WotF - an icy moon in the show, an arid desert in the book.