Writer's Guide and Writer's Technical Manual...anyone have them?

[Ian Keldon]

From time to time they pop up online and disappear again. Does anyone know if they're available online in any format?

I have the Voyager Technical Manual from the CygnusX-1 site, but it doesn't have the TNG ones.

Understand, I don't mean the commercially-produced "red book" Tech Manual, but the ones issued to the writers themselves.

 

[Alrik]

I can think of someone who might. Let's see if he checks in.

 

[Tiberius]

The commercially produced tech manual WAS used as a reference by the writers.

 

[22 Stars]

Yes, I have them, direct from the production staff. I have never scanned them in though.

 

[Maxwell Everett]

Here's the TNG Writer's "Bible": http://leethomson.myzen.co.uk/Star_...ion/Star_Trek_-_The_Next_Generation_Bible.pdf

And here's the Star Trek technical manual mother lode: http://golp.game-host.org/files/

 

[Christopher]

The commercially produced tech manual WAS used as a reference by the writers.

Except it didn't come out until 1991, so the writers needed some sort of reference during the preceding four seasons. Ian Keldon is referring to the earlier, very different Writers' Technical Manual which was issued to prospective writers for the show along with the series bible. I have a copy of it myself. It's a booklet of about 40 photocopied, hole-punched 8.5x11" pages, held in one of those clear plastic report covers with a white plastic spine (although the spine on mine broke off many years ago). It's not written in remotely the same style as the publicly available Tech Manual. That book is written based on the conceit that it's a "nonfiction" book existing within the Trek universe, and goes into exhaustive technical detail about the ship's systems. The Writers' Technical Manual is a primer for people interested in writing for the show, and just gives the basics of how the science and technology works from a scriptwriter's perspective. It's subtitled Or, "Yes, But Which Button Do I Push to Fire the Phasers?" It doesn't pretend to be an in-universe reference, but is explicitly the show's makers talking to aspiring writers in a conversational tone and laying out the ground rules in plain language.

 

[Ian Keldon]

Thanks for the help, everyone!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yes.

 

[Zaku]

I love this part in the bible:

"We do not do stories about psi-forces or mysterious psychic powers. No matter how fantastic the events in a story, the explanation must be extrapolated from a generally accepted science theory. (We have accepted the telepathy of Lt Commander Deanna Troi because many reputable scientist acknowledge the possibility of such abilities, but you will note that we have limited Troi to "reading" only emotions.)"

Soooo.. which "generally accepted science theory" can explain Q powers in the FIRST episode...?

 

[Christopher]

^Maybe that reflects the fact that the bible was mostly David Gerrold's work, while the Q subplot was something Roddenberry slapped onto D. C. Fontana's "Farpoint" script when the decision was made to expand the pilot from 90 minutes to 2 hours.

But really, back in "Farpoint," there wasn't that much Q did that couldn't have been explained away as the operation of advanced technology. We saw forcefields, teleportation, a "freeze ray" effect, quick costume changes that could've been some form of projected illusion, a recreation of 2070s Earth that could've easily been an advanced form of holodeck simulation... and otherwise just a bunch of standing around making snide remarks and hollow threats. Back then, I wasn't really convinced that Q was anywhere near as powerful as he claimed to be. It was only later on that the writers seemed to accept his allegations of godlike power as fact.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Here's the TNG Writer's "Bible"

I know there was an update for Season Two, mentioning the arrivals of Guinan and Pulaski. And I guess Worf gets a bio entry, since he isn't in the original, IIRC.

 

[Zaku]

^ (Sorry for my terribile english)

So, if we can explain pratically everything with advanced technology, which is the limit for a writer (except the fx, of course)?

And, who is the "reputable scientist" that "acknowledge the possibility" of telepathy?

 

[Christopher]

And, who is the "reputable scientist" that "acknowledge the possibility" of telepathy?

Back in the '60s and '70s, maybe the '80s, there did seem to be some research here and there that hinted at the possibility of some form of extrasensory perception, so it was taken as a serious possibility by some. Pretty much all of those results have since been discredited as the result of shoddy experimental design or deliberate fraud.

On the other hand, modern neuroscience is figuring out ways to deduce a great deal about people's cognitive activity from brain scans. There are enormous, perhaps insurmountable practical hurdles to taking such scans of a moving target at a distance, but it could serve as a justification for the fictional premise of an alien species that has evolved such abilities, even given that humans lack them.

 

[Ian Keldon]

hyper-evolved "godlike" aliens are a sci-fi staple, thus Q is a permissable (if annoying) concept

 

[RandyS]

I wish I did. TNG and ENTERPRISE are the only writers guides I don't have.

 

[Ian Keldon]

I wish I did. TNG and ENTERPRISE are the only writers guides I don't have.

Go up to Maxwell Everett's post...you'll at least find the TNG stuff there between the two links he provides.