• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Why Not Allow Trek Writers To Make Major Changes In Novels?

Dayton3

Admiral
I was reading Jeff Ayers books Voyagers of the Imagination book that I bought recently about the hundreds of Star Trek books published over the years.

It came to my attention again (I've known this previously of course) that Trek writers were not allowed to make any major changes in Trek novels.

They aren't supposed to introduce new characters, have major changes to existing characters, have big geopolitical shifts and stuff like that?

Why not?

None of the Trek novels or other written material regarding Trek is considered "canon".

No future Trek episode or movie has to defer to things that happen in novels.

So why not let Trek writers have alot more freedom in the things they write?
 
Even though, yes, the films and television shows don't "defer" to the novels, that doesn't mean that it's a good idea to make wholesale changes to the playground equipment in the novels.

The novels still have to be accessible to the general audience.

Any Star Trek novel could be a reader's first Star Trek novel. This reader will likely only be familiar with what he's seen on television.

So how would he react to a Star Trek novel where Spock had become a Mormon and kept three wives aboard the Enterprise? Yes, the television series would never, ever reference that, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. ;)

The point is, the universe seen in the novels needs to be recognizable. Wholesale changes to the universe in the novels would ultimately be counterproductive in the marketplace.
 
I agree with you, esp. now that it's unlikely that TNG, DS9, VOY, or ENT will ever grace the big or small screen again in new adventures.

I think the ENT relaunch has already done this with reversing TATV. DS9 relaunch has introduced some changes to their canon characters as well-Sisko returning, Sisko's child, Jake's marriage, etc.

However, I think it would be cool to see more changes, to really put some of the characters in a life and death situation and actually kill some of them off. However, I don't think that's going to happen. It will invariably piss off some faction or other, plus CBS/S & S don't want to lose any potential revenue from offing any of the beloved characters, even though the book's non-canon status makes that point a somewhat moot.
 
Well, you're rather behind the times. These days, the authors are able to make major changes in the novels. The novels have introduced plenty of new characters; the post-finale novel series for DS9 and VGR and the post-Nemesis novel series for TNG have all focused on crews that were mixes of established TV characters and original characters created for the books. There are entire novel series focusing primarily or exclusively on new characters, including New Frontier, Titan, Corps of Engineers, and Vanguard. There have been major changes to existing characters and their relationships, with more in the offing in upcoming books. And there have been some pretty sizeable astropolitical shifts in some of the books too.

So nothing you're talking about here is in effect anymore. What you're describing is pretty much the policy that was in effect in the late '80s and early '90s, and over the past dozen years that policy has increasingly given way to the new era of freedom we have today. There's very little that Trek authors today can't do, so long as what we do is consistent with onscreen continuity. And even that no longer fully applies, what with the Myriad Universes alternate-timeline anthology coming out next year.


But speaking in historical terms, trying to answer your question as it applies to the time when these restrictions were in effect: Yes, it's true that no onscreen productions were required to defer to events in the novels or comics. Still, the novels and comics were intended to feel to the reader as though they could have taken place in the onscreen continuity, and so the effort was made to try to minimize things in the books that might later be contradicted onscreen. Of course, contradictions arose regardless, but still, the idea of tie-ins is to follow the lead of the original work, not to go off on a wholly different tangent.

Of course, you're blurring together a couple of different periods. For a while, the timeframe I mentioned above, things were extremely strict due to the restrictive attitudes of the person responsible for approving tie-in fiction at the time. After he was fired in 1991, the extreme restrictions (no new characters at all, no continuity between books at all) were gradually relaxed, but so long as the shows remained on the air, there was still an attempt on the part of the books to defer to the lead of the shows and try to minimize the risk of contradictions.

But now that TNG, DS9, VGR, and ENT are all done on TV with little to no chance of revival, the books pretty much have unlimited freedom to advance their storylines and make significant changes. And the original-to-books series I mentioned above have even more freedom.
 
I'm talking about changes DURING a series run. LIke in a future series.

Say in the future we have Captain John Tower of the Enterprise and a novel writer wants to write a novel about an incident years ago involving the Captain and his father.

Why should it matter if a later episode states clearly that the Captains father died when he was a baby and he never knew him?

I've always thought this was a factor that made it much, much harder to produce good books regarding an existing series.
 
Re: Why Not Allow Trek Writers To Make Major Changes In Nove

Dayton3 said:
Why should it matter if a later episode states clearly that the Captains father died when he was a baby and he never knew him?

The books/comics do often get overruled by canonical episodes, but if it happened with every story, every character and every event, because nobody was there to keep the tie-in books/comics on the straight and narrow, they'd soon stop being tie-ins. If you don't like the restrictions placed on tie-ins of a franchise, maybe you should be reading original fiction.

Let's imagine you had created a TV series and had put a lot of effort into the constraints of the premise, ie. what made the TV series unique. Would you want licensed tie-in novels of your series to break your premise every chapter, perhaps becoming unrecognizable as even being about your series? Or would you want the consumers buying the tie-ins trusting that they were getting something that could easily have come from your own pen, and enhanced enjoyment of your series?
 
Re: Why Not Allow Trek Writers To Make Major Changes In Nove

Therin of Andor said:
[

Let's imagine you had created a TV series and had put a lot of effort into the constraints of the premise, ie. what made the TV series unique. Would you want licensed tie-in novels of your series to break your premise every chapter, perhaps becoming unrecognizable as even being about your series? [uote]

As long as I was getting paid it would hardly matter.
 
Re: Why Not Allow Trek Writers To Make Major Changes In Nove

Actually, I feel as though we have a great deal of freedom. Over the years, I have introduced all sorts of new characters, as have other writers. I have also made major changes to existing characters, including, but hardly limited to, killing them. Further, I have also introduced major geopolitical shifts. So I guess the response to the question of why not allow Trek writers more freedom is that we don't need it, since we already have it.
 
Re: Why Not Allow Trek Writers To Make Major Changes In Nove

I think I see what Dayton3 is getting at. To use an example from Olympus Descending, why can't a novel written in the future ignore what was done to the Great Link and go its own way?

The short answer is that that hypothetical novel could, but there would need to be a compelling dramatic reason for it. Otherwise, we would end up with all these little splinter series, and I don't think most of the readers want that.
 
Y'know, this is pretty funny. Because right now I'm putting the finishing touches on my Myriad Universes novel, which essentially turns every event in the Star Trek universe after the year 2### on its ear... and one of my biggest concerns is that this alternate universe I've created is going to be unrecognizable as Star Trek to all but the geekiest of fans.

Though, I will admit, killing off people who canonically shouldn't be dead is kinda fun. :evil:
 
I think saying that "Trek writers have alot of freedom now" is somewhat avoiding the issue.

After all, currently Star Trek is in a state of flux that it hasn't been in before.

Television ST:TNG, DS9, Voyager, & Enterprise are dead. Movies involving any of them as well.

But I'm referring to some future time where we have a successful Trek series on television again and writers having this freedom in writing about it while it is on the air.
 
Re: Why Not Allow Trek Writers To Make Major Changes In Nove

Dayton3 said:
But I'm referring to some future time where we have a successful Trek series on television again and writers having this freedom in writing about it while it is on the air.

Not going to happen. Hasn't happened with any other TV series, won't happen with Star Trek. For a start, there's the problem the editors of the DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise novels had while those shows were on the air -- the novel process takes so much longer than the TV process that if they tried to do stories that really delved into the big ongoing TV storylines, the novels would be at least a year out of date by the time they came out.
 
Dayton3 said:
But I'm referring to some future time where we have a successful Trek series on television again and writers having this freedom in writing about it while it is on the air.

All of the derivative material (books, comics, games, etc.) is required to remain consistent with what's on the screen at the time it's written. That's the Golden Rule pretty much with any licensed property. Why? Because the owners want their characters and the universe they inhabit portrayed in a certain way, and that way is defined by the creators of the series and the films.

Even with the Trek shows off the air, the decision to branch away and start making major changes to the status quo still had to come from CBS/Paramount. They still approve every storyline and either suggest revisions for or reject the ones they feel aren't consistent with how they feel the characters and such should be portrayed. If a new series comes along, you can bet your last nickel that the same rules that existed for the other shows while they were in production will be in place. The book writers, comics writers, game writers, etc. are temp workers at best, and they follow the rules they're given, plain and simple.

Such is life :)
 
Re: Why Not Allow Trek Writers To Make Major Changes In Nove

Dayton3 said:
Therin of Andor said:
[

Let's imagine you had created a TV series and had put a lot of effort into the constraints of the premise, ie. what made the TV series unique. Would you want licensed tie-in novels of your series to break your premise every chapter, perhaps becoming unrecognizable as even being about your series?

As long as I was getting paid it would hardly matter.
To you maybe, but alot of people who create, or even just work on, things like Trek feel very differently. I know I would be pissed if I spent years of my life working on creating the universe, mythology, characters, and storyline of a TV series and then read a book were some author came along and totally destroyed everything I had done for all those years.
 
^ Or we'd end up with something like:

"Somebody put a call into Garrett's agent. We have to break his contract and fire him."

"Why?"

"Some tie-in writer just killed off Harry Kim in a novel."

"Shit. Didn't they learn anything from killing off Kirk?"

Bubba D.
 
Re: Why Not Allow Trek Writers To Make Major Changes In Nove

Kevin Dilmore said:
"Shit. Didn't they learn anything from killing off Kirk?"

Bubba D.

"Yeah, they did, they killed him twice."

"Oh, well at least we've gone down that road before."
 
Dayton3 said:
Say in the future we have Captain John Tower of the Enterprise and a novel writer wants to write a novel about an incident years ago involving the Captain and his father.

Why should it matter if a later episode states clearly that the Captains father died when he was a baby and he never knew him?

Such things have happened in Trek Lit before, and been allowed. Diane Carey published two books centering on Jim Kirk's father, even though there was the possibility that something different might be established about Kirk's father later (and probably will be in the upcoming movie). As I said, the level of strictness has varied greatly over the years; don't assume there's ever been one consistent policy.

But as I explained, the purpose of tie-ins is to complement the source material, not to confuse the audience by going off in a different direction. You're right that it doesn't matter to the continuity of the show, but it matters somewhat to the response of the audience and their ability to appreciate the books as feeling like part of the same reality as the show. Which is why books try to defer to the lead of a show while the show is in production -- although it's usually not as strictly enforced as you're assuming, the Richard Arnold era being an exception.

Dayton3 said:
Therin of Andor said:
Let's imagine you had created a TV series and had put a lot of effort into the constraints of the premise, ie. what made the TV series unique. Would you want licensed tie-in novels of your series to break your premise every chapter, perhaps becoming unrecognizable as even being about your series?

As long as I was getting paid it would hardly matter.

If you were that cavalier about your creation, it wouldn't be worth anything anyway. The people who actually do create TV shows -- at least good ones -- care a lot about the integrity of what they've created and don't appreciate seeing it cavalierly distorted into something unrecognizable. It's not just about money to them.

And even to the extent that it is about money, consistency with the show still matters, because people who buy tie-in books expect them to be recognizable extensions of the show and won't buy as many of them if they're too arbitrarily different or inaccurate.

On top of everything else, it's just a matter of courtesy. When we write tie-in fiction, we're borrowing someone else's toys. We owe the work we're getting to their indulgence. It's just a matter of basic decency to defer to their lead, play nice with their toys according to the rules they set out, and put things neatly back when we're done with them. It would be rude and arrogant to think that we're entitled to run off with their toys and trash them while they're still interested in playing with them. If we want full creative license, that's what original fiction is for. Writing tie-ins is a conscious choice to respect someone else's rules for the duration of the project.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top