Re: Will Pocket EVER Attempt Another Technical Man
Posted by Dayton3:
Sorry, my faith died when "Starship Spotter" was published.
Well, I'd've hoped it wouldn't have
that reaction...
'Course, I hope you realize that
Starship Spotter isn't and wasn't ever intended as anybody's idea of a comprehensive tech manual, at least not anyone who was involved with the project. If you're basing your logic on that premise, then your conclusions will inevitably be flawed.
I for one would love to see (or even write!) a comprehensive ship book, but whether the mass audience would support a hard-tech book of the type, in today's market, is a much dicier thing than finding folks like me willing to work on the project.
Posted by Marco Palmieri:
As for Pocket's willingness to take risks, your estimation of it is uninformed.
Even a cursory glance at the projects over the past few years should disabuse anyone of the notion that Pocket is unwilling to take some risks.
OTOH, consider, too, the natural reluctance of the people who are investing the funds to put those funds into projects they have reason to believe will fail. Whe one test fails, it takes a lot of work to build up to a second. When two or more tests fail repeatedly, well, how many times being burned does one want these folks to be before saying they're shy isn't treated as at least understandable?
All that said, gods know I'd love to see more tech stuff. I thought
Star Charts was fun, but I'd love to see a much more comprehensive star atlas. I thought the
Spotter was neat (and not just 'cause I worked on it
), but I'd love to see a thorough treatment of the subject of starships and stations in Trek. But if a good half-dozen tech and tech-related books have all failed, I can't say that I blame the folks making the decisions about how to invest their money.
And I agree. If there is a way that someone knows to increase the audience, tell the folks who make the books!
Best,
Alex
