Why don't novels have numbers anymore?

[Extrocomp]

From the time that Pocket Books started publishing Star Trek novels until about 2001, most novels had numbers. The numbers were completely pointless, since nearly all novels were stand-alone stories but they were still there, perhaps for those people who like reading books in order.

Now there are many serial stories that must be read in the correct order, but the numbers are gone. In the past, many novels included a long list of all Star Trek novels ever published, but now that's gone too. So how is the average reader supposed to know which book comes first? What's to stop someone from reading Before Dishonor first and Resistance second, by mistake? How would one know that the McCoy book comes first and the Kirk book last in the Crucible trilogy?

 

[MajRichter]

I've noticed that a lot of the book series will have something like "Book One of Three" on it to tell the difference. Others I have seen have something along the lines of "The Continuation of...". If it doesn't have either one of those, I try to look inside the book on the first few pages. Many times the book will have a list of what books are in a series and those lists are generally in the correct order.

 

[William Leisner]

Already being discussed on another thread:

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=69476

 

[Stevil2001]

How would one know that the McCoy book comes first and the Kirk book last in the Crucible trilogy?

I don't think that would matter in this case. Those books were all pretty standalone.

 

[Christopher]

So how is the average reader supposed to know which book comes first? What's to stop someone from reading Before Dishonor first and Resistance second, by mistake? How would one know that the McCoy book comes first and the Kirk book last in the Crucible trilogy?

The month and year of publication are printed on the copyright page. Since MMPBs only come out once per month these days, it's always possible to tell the order in which they were published.

 

[KRAD]

From the time that Pocket Books started publishing Star Trek novels until about 2001, most novels had numbers.

Actually, this isn't true. Pocket didn't start numbering the novels until about 15 novels in or so, and they retroactively applied the numbering to later printings of the earlier books.

 

[Ktrek]

I was one of those originally opposed to stopping the numbering as I felt that it was far easier to keep track of your library as to what you need and where you are in your collection. I still think it's easier but I also see why the numbering system was let go. I do think that Pocket should find a way to let the reader know when previous books released may enhance their enjoyment because now so many books build on what came before. I personally like the continuity but still prefer the stand-alone stories over the multi-book arcs. Lately I have been beginning to feel exhausted and burned out because of them. On the other side at times I think there is too long a period between DS9 re-launch books and I really miss the way the relaunch was handled earlier in the series vs how it is handled now. I would really like to see the series handled more like a continuation of the TV series.

Anyway, it's a great time for Star Trek books and there is something for just about everyone. I appreciate the effort of the authors and the editors to give us a quality product with substance rather than just pulp novels of the month (and let me add that I have nothing against pulp novels. I'm a huge fan of the Doc Savage series).

Kevin

 

[KRAD]

The thing is, once Deep Space Nine started in 1993, the numbering started to cause more confusion than it solved, since there were now three separate numbering systems, and once the Invasion! crossover broke the dam in 1996 for series to cross over, it got worse. Plus, the hardcovers and "giant novels" were never numbered, and after a while, neither were the novelizations.

By 1997, you had five numbered series going: TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, and NF, all at different points. It really isn't less confusing to have novels numbered 84, 15, 22, and 5 coming out in sequence, as you had at the beginning of 1998.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

I didn't find it confusing, personally--and I was so young at the time that I was keeping up with the adult AND young-adult novels and all of their numbering systems. To me, it was pretty easy to understand that the more recent a series, the lower the number of the most recent book is going to be, and that different series don't mix with each other.

 

[KRAD]

^ Yes, but there were increasing numbers of novels that didn't have numbers: hardcovers, miniseries (since Invasion! looked silly having two numbers on each book), special books, and so on.

And then you throw in the other series that came in New Frontier's wake, and you just get a whole mess of numbers -- none of which actually mean anything....

 

[Ktrek]

And then you throw in the other series that came in New Frontier's wake, and you just get a whole mess of numbers -- none of which actually mean anything....

Except to those of us who actually like "order" in our lives!

Kevin

 

[Bryan316]

DS9's Warpath had the chronolisting inside the front cover.

I hate to use them as an example, but each new Star Wars paperback has a novel timeline with that new book spliced in in the first few pages. Could the relaunch/congruous Trek books do the same?

 

[Therin of Andor]

Except to those of us who actually like "order" in our lives!

You can always buy some little numbered stickers for the spines, you know!

As I mentioned in the other thread, adding numbers (from #16) probably seemed like a great idea at the time, when no one knew whether the Pocket license would make it beyond a few dozen books. Numbers can add a level of collectibility and marketability. I know people who bought ST novels they didn't think they'd even like because they wanted "a complete set".

But, after a while, landmark numbers can also work against the licensee, and allow people to "bail out". I recall entries in trade catalogs calling TOS #50, "... a very special novel" by Diane Duane. "Doctor's Orders" didn't end up being particularly "special", just a typically solid Duane ST outing. While many of us were expecting something really special for TOS #100 (originally mooted as a 2002 Diane Carey trilogy, "The Last Roundup", #98-100), but some people who'd run out of shelf space, or had became jaded by the latter TOS movies and new ST series, may well have taken this "final roundup" event as an excuse to stop buying altogether at TOS #100.

"The Last Roundup" was then used as a title for a TOS hardcover by a different author, Christie Golden. IIRc, the term was first used in connection to ST in an early script for ST VI, in which Kirk goes off to find his old bridge crew in various locales, and reunites them all.

 

[Sci]

What's to stop someone from reading Before Dishonor first and Resistance second, by mistake? How would one know that the McCoy book comes first and the Kirk book last in the Crucible trilogy?

In a lot of the books where they are part of a series, there's a list of the relevant books on the inside cover. For instance, every DS9 Relaunch book contains a list of the DS9R novels on the inside cover; Articles of the Federation listed the A Time To... novels and Titan: Taking Wing. Etc.

As for the Crucible trilogy, it really wouldn't matter which order you read them in.

 

[Man of Steel]

If you look at the books published under John Ordover (editor at the time), there as a checklist at the beginning and end of the book. The checklist also served as a lineup of what was coming when. Maybe this is something that should be brought back?

Also, very early in Trek book lore used to have a synopsis of the next two books that would be printed and this would also be at the end of the book. I believe this was done from the mid 80's till about early 90's.

Books used to also be shorter (less then 400 pages) and have the yellow pages instead of white.

As you can see, Trek publishing has changed over the years based on the editor at the time.

 

[JD]

I don't know about other people, but whenever I want to start a new book series, I usually just look them up on the internet to find out which order to read them. And in the case of things like Star Trek it's usually very easy to find a list somewhere on the internet.

 

[JD]

I don't know about other people, but whenever I want to start a new book series, I usually just look them up on the internet to find out which order to read them. And in the case of things like Star Trek it's usually very easy to find a list somewhere on the internet.

 

[Therin of Andor]

If you look at the books published under John Ordover (editor at the time), there as a checklist at the beginning and end of the book. The checklist also served as a lineup of what was coming when. Maybe this is something that should be brought back?

The full checklist was dropped because it took up more and more pages every few months, was a daunting list of (many) out-of-print books and was spooking new customers.

Most new series books DO have a relevant checklist of recent titles.

Memory Beta is the place for a readily-updated/easily-correctable book list. And we already have that.

 

[Ktrek]

Except to those of us who actually like "order" in our lives!

You can always buy some little numbered stickers for the spines, you know!

Very true Ian but that would go against my nature as a collector. Most of my copies are in mint or near mint condition and I intend to keep it that way.

Kevin

 

[Therin of Andor]

Very true Ian but that would go against my nature as a collector. Most of my copies are in mint or near mint condition and I intend to keep it that way.

Me too. How about Post-It notes? Bookmarks?