All Things Star Trek

Yeah. Normally I'd stay away from time travel stuff, but these were surprisingly well written in that regard.
Well, we are definitely not in agreement, then.

I love time travel stories, love the concept of the DTI and the Timeship Relativity (in one of my musings of post-Endgame Voyager, I had this idea that Seven of Nine would be recruited as an agent, based in the 24th/25th centuries - of course this was long before anyone conceived of that pile of crap that is the Picard series).

What I don't love are these particular novels and Christopher Bennett. I found his writing to be dry, uninteresting, and gave up within half a dozen pages. That's not good when it comes to Star Trek tie-in novels. I gave more of my attention to the really awful ones (anything by Diane Carey is generally acknowledged to be poorly-written crap, and the reason she was chosen to write them is because she could churn them out quickly; her final novel crossed a number of lines, though, and she was dropped from the stable of Trek tie-ins).

And I've interacted with Bennett too many times on TrekBBS to recommend him as someone to give $$ to. He's a condescending jerk who has a pathological need to be Absolutely Right all the time, about everything, even when he's 100% wrong.

His rudeness got him banned from my Trek bookshelves. I kept the ones I already bought, but it's been over a decade since I last bought anything he wrote.
 
(anything by Diane Carey is generally acknowledged to be poorly-written crap, and the reason she was chosen to write them is because she could churn them out quickly; her final novel crossed a number of lines, though, and she was dropped from the stable of Trek tie-ins).

That sounds like a story I haven't heard.
 
That sounds like a story I haven't heard.
Hang out in the TrekLit subforum over at TrekBBS and you'll hear a lot of stories about the authors. She always comes up when people discuss their lists of least-favorite authors.

The final straw was a Voyager novel, in which Carey put her own thoughts into Janeway's head. Carey thinks Voyager is a stupid show, so she put all kinds of derogatory and negative stuff into Janeway's dialogue and inner thoughts. When the editors got the manuscript from her, it was too late for the extensive revisions that would be needed and definitely too late to get another author to come up with a book to fill that particular publishing slot. And the idea of outright canceling a Voyager book was not doable; they had slots planned out and the book had to come out. Period.

The only consequence they actually could mete out was to fire Diane Carey as one of their authors, which they did. As for Carey herself, she couldn't care less. She stated that she'd written the book in six days, during her spare time from working as a cook on someone's boat, bragged that the publishers used her as a writer because she could work fast, and didn't seem to give a damn that her book was appallingly bad.

Her TOS books are a little better, since she likes that show and puts her own love of sailing and her political views into Kirk's dialogue and inner thoughts. Her novels Dreadnought! and Battlestations! are basically putting herself and her husband into the novels as Mary Sue/Marty Stu characters who are just so damned good at their jobs (they're lieutenants), can outthink Kirk and Spock, and she claimed that when the cover art was done for the books, she persuaded the artist to model the characters after herself and her husband (though it should be mentioned that her husband doesn't actually have pointed ears).

I don't remember which Voyager novel it was that got her fired, and frankly, I haven't liked most of the Voyager pro novels. The fanfic is much better, and treats the characters with more respect.


Now if you want my recommendation on which authors always turn out good Star Trek novels, here are two: Diane Duane and Greg Cox. Diane Duane wrote much better Romulans than the ones that appeared on TNG, and explored their culture extensively. She also wrote one of the best TOS novels ever (in my not even remotely humble opinion): Spock's World.

Greg Cox writes good, straightforward adventures, and did a fantastic trilogy of novels exploring the rise of Khan Noonien Singh, and what happened to him and his people on Ceti Alpha V before the events of Wrath of Khan. He's a regular poster at TrekBBS in several of the media subforums (he writes tie-in novels for a variety of franchises as well as non-media tie-ins), and is super-nice to chat with.
 
I read a few of the classic Star Trek novels, including the one where Spock's son from Sarpeidon comes back through the Guardian of Forever for some reason or another.
 
I read a few of the classic Star Trek novels, including the one where Spock's son from Sarpeidon comes back through the Guardian of Forever for some reason or another.
There were actually two novels featuring Spock's son: Yesterday's Son and Time for Yesterday, both by A.C. (Ann) Crispin.
 
If you go by broadcast dates, it's Star Trek's 54th birthday today.
 
If you go by broadcast dates, it's Star Trek's 54th birthday today.
That's the American date. Star Trek's actual birthday, going by international broadcast dates, is September 6, 1966 - when it aired in Canada. :smug:
 
The trailer for season three of Discovery has dropped.


I stopped watching season two midway through when it became apparent they were doing a time travel thing, and I see that season three is... more time travel?

In particular, I am deeply unimpressed with TOS-era Federation folks traveling far into the future. What's worse is that the future they've traveled to is one where the Federation has collapsed. This does not interest me. I do not want to see a collapsed Federation. I do not want to see a spoiled Star Trek that has rotted to its core. I am interested in challenging situations, ethical and moral dilemmas, and facing existential threats to civilization. But not quite as interested in a story where there is no dilemma or threat because it's already happened and the idyllic setting has been lost and destroyed. Why is this a story that needs to be told? Why does this need the Star Trek name attached? What is with this new obsession that Star Trek has to be about the inevitably of collapse and loss? Even in the past with metaphors about things happening IRL, it was always about finding a better way, being a better people. This is not that. This is just depression porn.
 
The trailer for season three of Discovery has dropped.


I stopped watching season two midway through when it became apparent they were doing a time travel thing, and I see that season three is... more time travel?

In particular, I am deeply unimpressed with TOS-era Federation folks traveling far into the future. What's worse is that the future they've traveled to is one where the Federation has collapsed. This does not interest me. I do not want to see a collapsed Federation. I do not want to see a spoiled Star Trek that has rotted to its core. I am interested in challenging situations, ethical and moral dilemmas, and facing existential threats to civilization. But not quite as interested in a story where there is no dilemma or threat because it's already happened and the idyllic setting has been lost and destroyed. Why is this a story that needs to be told? Why does this need the Star Trek name attached? What is with this new obsession that Star Trek has to be about the inevitably of collapse and loss? Even in the past with metaphors about things happening IRL, it was always about finding a better way, being a better people. This is not that. This is just depression porn.
Don't mistake this with me wanting the Federation to be eternal. I don't mind there being some kind of strife or catastrophe and the Federation being usurped or replaced by another union that espouses moral ideals. But based on this trailer, we're just gonna see a galaxy of ruin. The Federation is gone and replaced by anarchy. Pointless.
 
Fun fact: I can't watch either.
 
Huh, well that's certainly different.
 
Don't mistake this with me wanting the Federation to be eternal. I don't mind there being some kind of strife or catastrophe and the Federation being usurped or replaced by another union that espouses moral ideals. But based on this trailer, we're just gonna see a galaxy of ruin. The Federation is gone and replaced by anarchy. Pointless.
That's part of why I am so weary of prequels. Its pointless to tease at something happening that we all know good and well doesn't happen because we already know how the story turns out.

"Oh noes the Federation might be destroyed and the galaxy be plunged into eternal chaos!:eek:"

*sigh* Whatever :rolleyes:
 
Oh boy, more impassioned speeches by the ever irritating Michael Burnham. I'm on the edge of my seat just thinking about it.

I like the show, but why can't they get rid of her?
 
That's part of why I am so weary of prequels. Its pointless to tease at something happening that we all know good and well doesn't happen because we already know how the story turns out.

This is the 32nd Century now, literally uncharted territory whichever way you look at it.


I'm not sure that the ruinous aesthetic really fits Star Trek, but that's only a trailer.
 
That's part of why I am so weary of prequels. Its pointless to tease at something happening that we all know good and well doesn't happen because we already know how the story turns out.

"Oh noes the Federation might be destroyed and the galaxy be plunged into eternal chaos!:eek:"

*sigh* Whatever :rolleyes:
As Arakhor mentions, this season is set far into the future. You'll be working backwards: finding out in bits and pieces what has happened. Based on the trailer, they're time-traveling forward to after the Federation has collapsed and the galaxy is in ruins. What this season establishes will put in stone the future prequel content we'll be getting.

Which... doesn't please me. I'd rather something as traumatic and canon-shifting as the Federation's collapse to be a surprise, not a prequel.
 
Top Bottom