Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Star Trek Novels

This is topic Star Trek Novels in forum General Trek at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/874.html

Posted by koy'peled Oy'tio (Member # 796) on :

Sweet and simply how much of the Trek Population actually reads trek books, wheather it be pocket books or hardcovers. A can say i do, i read one every two weeks or so, i'm just wondering how wide spread trekliterature is thats all. Anyway besides the point those of you how do read have probably come to the conclusion that i have...novels are the best!

Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :

Well... Novels set early in the series are great standalone books, sometimes. I'm finding that the new TNG/DS9/NF/SCE novels are becoming quite internally consistant, which is a nice treat. I'm currently reading "The Battle of Betazed".

Posted by koy'peled Oy'tio (Member # 796) on :

I have read i think i can remember as far back as...All four Invasion books, the dominion war all four, the return, ship of the line, valient(i think thats how its spelt), Emissary, the romulan prize(good book), i'll say a few more when my brain is clear...

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

I'm ba-aaaaaack...

I've read all the books. I own a copy of every single one. Some of them rock, some of them are really third-rate. Most of the newer ones (The DS9 Relaunch, the recent TNG ones, the "Eugenics Wars" books, etc.) are in the "Rock" category.

There's a good info/discussion page about the books over at www.psiphi.org, better than the 'official' site, IMHO.

[ May 08, 2002, 12:03: Message edited by: First of Two ]

Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :

I'm still waiting for the second Eugenics Wars book to arrive at Coles. I had to order it in. The bastards don't carry Trek HC's anymore... [Frown]

Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :

I've been reading science fiction as long as I've been a Trek fan (since my single-digit years), but I've never read a single Trek novel. I've read hundreds of SF novels and short stories, but for some reason I've never been interested in reading the further adventures of any characters I've seen on screen. I inherited a complete set of Blish novelizations, but I use them for reference only.

Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :

I've read quite a few of the Trek books; I liked NF particularly. One thing I don't get though is how few Trek books shops actually have in stock; they always seem to sell quite a few so it remains a mystery for me...

Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :

I've read most of them, and I laregely agree with everyone else's comments. The early novels were generally good, those between about 1988-1996 were mostly crap, and the trend has been accelerating to greatness lately. In the last two years, there have been very few duds.

My only exception is New Frontier... I've never been a fan of Peter David, and NF's biggest selling points also happen to be the same things I don't like about his writing. I like the idea, I like his way of tying together loose ends and whatnot, but I don't dig his writing style at all.

The DS9 relaunch, however, has been genius. Diplomatic Implausibility and Immortal Coil stand out as stand-alones. I also have high hopes for the TOS reboot coming soon.

Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :

IMO many of the early novels were wayyy off base to be considered good Star Trek, with the exception of Diane Duane, Diane Carey, "The Final Reflection" and all the others i liked, then after Paramount's 'purge' of fandom and supporting character elements, things became more cohesive, but incredibly bland.. not quite in the time period you mention, but an accurate estimation (there are still some favorites in there too) The new focus is not on series (there was a time when it felt like they were publishing any crappy novel they had sitting around just to keep them coming on a monthly basis rather than waiting for a good story to come in), rather the new focus lies in 'concept books'.. they began this around "Day of Honor" and "Invasion!" when they started having series that crossed over between the many different franchises, taking advantage of their strengths and differences to make each one fit thematically with its source material. Now that they are on track, I just hope to see some effort to reconcile older stories and the writers that were the heart & soul of their publishing that were unceremoniously sacked by the wierdness of the last couple of years of the 80s when Paramount forbade any interesting concepts from their novels.

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Just to be contrary, I think Star Trek books are actively dangerous to science fiction.

Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :

elaborate

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Can it wait until sometime this evening? I've got ten or eleven essays to read before my nonfiction class at 6:00. But as soon as I get back, I'll be all geared up to release the hounds of culture, 'kay?

Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Topher:
Well... Novels set early in the series are great standalone books, sometimes. I'm finding that the new TNG/DS9/NF/SCE novels are becoming quite internally consistant, which is a nice treat. I'm currently reading "The Battle of Betazed".

Erm SCE? What? [Confused]

Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :

Starfleet Corps of Engineers.. its Pocket's first e-book only line of short stories (although now they are publishing them on paper too! yay!).. Its about a Starfleet Engineering team on the USS daVinci led by Sonya Gomez, and master controlled by Scotty from Earth, with sometimes guest stars of LaForge or Nog, and a cast of other character, most of whom have ppeared or are related to characters from all the other major Trek series.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sol System:
Just to be contrary, I think Star Trek books are actively dangerous to science fiction.

"Actively Dangerous"? By what, hunting them down and shooting them with big guns?

Are we being a bit reactionary here Simon?

Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :

????????????????

[ April 23, 2002, 20:39: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

I don't know, exchange that with Number of the Beast and it's almost a mercy killing.

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by koy'peled Oy'tio:
Sweet and simply how much of the Trek Population actually reads trek books, wheather it be pocket books or hardcovers.

Much as I'm enjoying Sol's little diversion, I'll just answer the original question.

I believe it's been mentioned on Psi Phi's Book BBS that the best-of-the-best-selling Trek paperbacks these days print 10,000 copies. (I could be wrong, but this is the number that sticks in my head)

A low-rated episode of Enterprise pulls in 5 million viewers.

So, conservatively speaking, we could surmise that at most 0.2% of Trek viewers read the novels.

Posted by koy'peled Oy'tio (Member # 796) on :

quote:

PsyLiam
"Actively Dangerous"? By what, hunting them down and shooting them with big guns?

Are we being a bit reactionary here Simon?

is reactionary even a word?

Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :

Yes. And so is dictionary.

[Wink]

[ April 24, 2002, 08:58: Message edited by: Harry ]

Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :

you tell us Koy, you're the writer....

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Ok, I started to write a response, but then I thought I might want to ruminate over it for awhile, so I was writing it in Word, for later posting. But it's grown a bit, and I fear it is now far outside the boundaries of this discussion (not to mention the boundaries of my own abilities; it mentions Gilgamesh, for heaven's sake). So...I don't know.

Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :

I understand that Trek books are overly commercialized, and often are quite unimaginative (or they were, especially before the current editorial program).. but i also understand that what a lot of people consider to be 'literary' sci-fi just doesnt interest me an iota sometimes, especially some of the drier stuff.. i think that our impressions of what people should be taking away from the reading experience are different.

But then again this depends on the definition of sci-fi.. there was just a thread that dealt with this in Trek Lit at TrekBBS, where we decided by the standards of what sci-fi is, sometimes Trek shouldnt even be considered 'sci-fi', its more 'fantasy'

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

The fact that you're even using the term "sci-fi" says volumes.

Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :

I just don't like typing the whole thing out.. good point though..

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Nah. The literary types either use "SF" or "Speculative Fiction" because they think it makes them look smart instead of pretentious.

Same with "Counterfactual" instead of "Alternate History."

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

I can't speak for the literary types, but I just say science fiction, because that's what the word is.

Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :

You get a trophy for never abbreviating anything in your life. Here's a rag, go polish it.

Posted by The Apocalypse (Member # 633) on :

I read some, but I forgot which ones..

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Er...how is SF less an abbreviation than sci-fi?

The reason the latter is a loaded term is because it was used by "mainstream" sources to refer to all that childish stuff those magazines were publishing.

Anyway, I've finished my incredibly wordy, intensely boring, and ultimately painful post about the subject. I don't discuss the sci-fi (happy?) ghetto in it, though. But I don't want to make it any more wordy, dull, or painful. Not just yet, anyway.

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

I don’t want to start out on the wrong foot here, stepping into territory way, way out of my league, but I think its safe to say that science fiction is one of the oldest forms of human storytelling there is. It might not be as old as the romance, ("Alas! As Og looked upon the fair maiden moving through the high grass he knew, then and there, that he would never be at home in the trees so long as she strolled upright upon the ground.") but it’s up there.

Consider: Four or five thousand years ago, telling stories was big business, and what kind of stories were in demand? Explanations. Why isn’t the rainfall constant? Why do we die? Why did my neighbor steal all my grain? These were the deep, mind-bending questions of the day. And with science limited to building mud huts and supporting unprecedented population densities, people had to look a bit beyond the current science of the day.

Now, you might be calling foul right about now. Gilgamesh ain’t science fiction! Well, why not? Gilgamesh is full of alien life forms, undiscovered lands, a quest to beat death; all the ingredients of your modern transhumanist adventure. And it was rigorously accurate to the knowledge of the day. Of course the gods are out there!

1634: A bright guy by the name of Johannes Kepler, who achieved some minor fame by measuring wine casks, publishes a little book called Somnium, about some guy who travels to the Moon and finds it to be inhabited! Crazy! And slightly suspect, but the Church had bigger fish to fry at the time.

Anyway, go forward a bit more and you see stuff like Poe’s Ligeia and The Unparalleled Adventure of one Hans Pfaall. Of course, Poe is one of the first SF critics, too, publishing an article critiquing another balloon to the moon tale that, in his opinion, didn’t quite hold up to the modern understanding.

So, uh, what the heck does this have to do with Star Trek novels? Let’s look at the two men usually acknowledged as the founders of "modern" science fiction, Jules Verne and H.G. Wells. In 1865, (1865! We’re busy fighting over slavery, and this guy is 100 years ahead of us!) Verne wrote From the Earth to the Moon. Now Verne was plugged in to the science of his day like no one else. He was sued by a chemist for character defamation! A very with-it guy, all things considered. 36 years later, Wells publishes his own version, The First Men on the Moon.

The thing is, Verne, shall we say, strongly disapproved of that book, and Wells in general. Wells was just a dabbler, pretending to use science but in reality just writing fantasy. Cavorite? He made it up! The august Frenchman would never stoop to such a level.

And so we’ve got the first conflict between hard and soft SF, or science fiction and science fantasy, or just plain fantasy, or speculative fiction versus that skiffy crap. This internal division continues to heat things up today. Witness the vast amounts of anger and uproar when Harry Potter won a Hugo.

If this was the only issue people who read science fiction had to deal with, then everything would be perfect. The world would be a blissful daydream. It isn’t, of course.

The problem is, as I see it, that no one takes science fiction seriously, and the moment any science fiction is so good people can no longer ignore it, it gets quickly yanked out of the genre. Which of the following books are SF, if any, keeping in mind both the hard and soft, or fantasy and techish categories? Gravity’s Rainbow, Fahrenheit 451, A Scanner Darkly, The Satanic Verses? All of them? None of them?

The answer is that science fiction is in the eye of the beholder. Damon Knight famously remarked that science fiction is whatever you’re pointing at when you’re talking about it. And this is exactly why Star Trek novels are choking the life out of modern science fiction.

Let’s say you like science fiction. You’re passionate about it. Because there is something terribly, terribly wrong with you, you think science fiction actually matters, that art and literature can have some sort of effect on the real world. And so you’ve found all sorts of deeply meaningful things to talk about in brilliantly written books, and you want to share that with the world. But no one will listen to you, because as far as they’re concerned what you like is the worst sort of trash. And the reason for that is obvious when you go down to the mall and walk through the SF section of your local bookstore.

Since about the early 90’s (a somewhat arbitrary but more or less accurate date), "real" science fiction literature, that is, books written about things the authors decided to write about (and which publishers were willing to buy) have been slowly replaced by the media tie-in novel. I’m not about to go off spouting conspiracy theories and claiming the intervention of dark international publishing cabals; it’s the result of the market at work. People want to read about what they see on TV. As far as that goes, I’ve got no value judgments to make. If only that was as far as it went.

My father recently brought the first volume of The Eugenic Wars series, by Greg Cox, back from the library. Being the eager, slightly hypocritical Star Trek fan I am, I was eager to page through it. I was incredibly disappointed. Here was a book written in a style so flat as to be almost indistinguishable from any random selection of words. The book has no real characters, no real plot. In a way, it’s the perfect semiotic work. Move over, Eco. This book is entirely made up of signifiers, but nothing within it is signified. Cox presents his characters solely through references to things the reader is already familiar with. Thus, Gary Seven can’t go a page without tossing out some painfully contrived reference to the Borg, or the Vulcans, or the Klingons, and it is through these alone that we’re supposed to build his character.

I have to believe that, were it not for the Star Trek logo on the cover, this book would be unpublishable.

The Eugenics Wars series is widely praised among fans as being one of the best Trek novels currently published. And so it seems reasonable to assume that it represents the cream of the crop.

The fundamental problem with the media tie-in is this reliance upon reference to the exclusion of everything else. I, or anyone else, can pick up a copy of Dune and like or dislike it solely on its own merits. I don’t need to have seen an entire television series to pick up even the most basic plot and character elements. I don’t even need to know anything about Arabic, or nomadic desert cultures, or ecology. On the other hand, it’s impossible for someone to understand a media tie-in novel without that experience. But when the only thing a book contains is references to ideas outside of it, it becomes impossible for that book to say anything new or meaningful. Media tie-ins can’t be novel, in other words.

If media tie-ins were an isolated phenomena, none of this would be a problem either. People enjoy lots of things that don’t carry any intrinsic value. We don’t need to get rid of cotton candy. But go back to your neighborhood bookstore and consider the ratios. How many independent books are there versus media tie-ins?

The reason why the media tie-in novel is so disastrous to science fiction is, simply, this: When the people inside the genre, that is, the fans, assume that media tie-ins are the SF norm, the people outside the genre have no choice but to concur. Which they have, by and large. And so every science fiction book published has to wage a losing battle against this mountain of opinion that claims that media tie-ins are representative of science fiction and thus the entire genre is garbage, good for a quick read at the beach, but surely not MEANINGFUL or anything. Heavens no.

Science fiction is still struggling with its climb up from the pulps, when fans were so desperate for stories about spaceships and aliens that they would read anything, regardless of quality. Those days are over now, and we’ve got an almost ridiculous wealth of amazingly written science fiction that is approachable by everyone, that is rich in plot and character, that contains ideas to marvel over, ponder, chew up and spit back in altered forms. Or at least we would, if anyone could find them.

Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :

I liked the Eugenics Wars because of the frequent references to other pop-culture references too.. I'm not in it for the deep understanding of the universe right now.. otherwise i might not have a CrystalPepsi site, right? I like like my beer cold, my TV loud and my novels campy!

Posted by koy'peled Oy'tio (Member # 796) on :

i gave up reading that whole post, but as far as i did read, it made a lot of sence with the "years ago they must have told sif-fi stories" and all but is see what your getting at.

Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :

'sif-fi'? structural integrity field fiction? I prefer more esoteric genres myself...

Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :

quote:
i gave up reading that whole post, but as far as i did read, it made a lot of sence with the "years ago they must have told sif-fi stories" and all but is see what your getting at.

Kind of ironic, considering thats one of the main reasons why media tie-in novels sell so well.

The simple fact is that people don't like having their pre-conceptions challenged, having to think, or in the case of the quote...even pay too much attention to what they're reading. Thats why Star Trek novels do so well, like the latest John Grisham novel...you pretty much always know what to expect. Its the same universe, no major characters will die (without being resurrected), everything will be comfortably bland and politically correct.

Don't believe me? Walk into your local Chapters, Coles, or what not. Around half, or if you're lucky, a third of the Science Fiction shelves will be filled with Star Trek and Star Wars novels.
Lets get this over with. There's some enjoyable stuff in there. I've wasted an incredible amount of my life reading this stuff. But most of it is total crap.
Don't even get me started with the X-Men/Star Trek cross-over...or the Terminator tie-in book *rolls eyes* Some bookstores even place fantasy novels in the same section.

However, with this massive proliferation of crap, more interesting stuff written by any other science fiction author gets marginalised.
Asimov? Maybe five books....most of them written by other authors trying to cash in on his name. Note that Asimov was probably one of the most prolific authors of science fiction. Note that if his stuff is having so much trouble staying on the shelves, imagine what its like for the unknown author to get his stuff on the shelf.

Its just rather annoying that Star Trek and Star Wars dominate science fiction on the shelves (and they're mostly the same now anyways...see Nim Pim's post on a new Star Wars enemy in another thread)

quote:
I know it's judgemental, but these people are a perfect blend of the Jem'Hadar, the B5-Shadows and the Species 8472, literally and physically. They come from another galaxy than the SW-one, brand the inhabitants (The New Republic) "infidels" and will now proceed with the usual cleansing.

Sure, its just your inevitable market forces at work....but I'd have to agree with Sol System, it really is rather tragic.

Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :

quote:
i gave up reading that whole post, but as far as i did read, it made a lot of sence with the "years ago they must have told sif-fi stories" and all but is see what your getting at.

quote:
I know it's judgemental, but these people are a perfect blend of the Jem'Hadar, the B5-Shadows and the Species 8472, literally and physically. They come from another galaxy than the SW-one, brand the inhabitants (The New Republic) "infidels" and will now proceed with the usual cleansing.

Sure, its just your inevitable market forces at work....but I'd have to agree with Sol System, it really is rather tragic.

Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :

This is all quite interesting SOL. I was having a conversation with my daughter the other day and she asked my how I could read so many novels all the time. I said that each one brought me to a different world and I could just lose myself there for a while. She came back with but how can you make up all these characters and keep them straight in your head. I really couldn't give her a good answer I just can( maybe it is from years and years of doing it). She then said that she prefered to read about people and places that she had already seen on TV and that way she didn't have to worry about making the characters up.
Perhaps this is part of the problem, people want to read what they are familiar with and don't know how to go beyond this. I was tempted to say too lazy, but I don't think that is the case. My daughter is certainly not lazy and she does read quite a bit. I think it may come from growing up watching too much TV, althought this may not have stunted the reading growth of most true readers, it has caused the fringe readers to have to go to the familiar in order to visualize the story.
As I am sure there are more fringe readers than true readers( most of the people I know don't recreationally read at all)and this is what has been influencing the publishing and stalking of books in the stores today.
Or I could be full of it.

Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :

AMEN SIMON!

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

There's a part of me that wants to file people who read exclusively said media tie-in novels under "people who don't recreationally read at all." I mean, we apply all these nice little attributes to those who turn off the TV and read a book... activating their imagination, reveling in one of the oldest art forms, etc. etc. But reading formulaic stories involving known characters and settings in back-of-a-napkin-grade prose hardly qualifies as either of the above, no?

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Grokca: I hope your daughter never has to read a Dickens novel, then. Her head would probably explode...

Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :

of course,there isnt a law that says you cant be well read and then still enjoy media tie-in novels also.. if we recall the 'what are you reading now' thread, youd know that besides many of the best new Star Trek titles, im also starting to re-read Fahrenheit 451, and also some short stories by Asimov and Heinlein.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

2 cents:

I read at least as much "literary" SF as I do "tie-in" SF. I see no harm in reading either. There's no law that says people who read Trek books can't like Asimov, Heinlein, Clarke, Gaiman, Bear, Forward, Chalker, Lewis, Saberhagen, Niven, Pournelle, Brin, etc. etc. (to name a smattering of the books on my non-Trek shelves.

My local bookstore's SF section is 8 shelves tall by about 9' wide. The bottom 2 shelves are media tie-in. Much of the rest is taken up by Fantasy, which IMHO shouldn't be lumped in with SF (Thus, Gilgamesh and other pre-science-based stories aren't SF)

The Eugenics Wars is most definitely a 'fanwank' book, with its constant references to things (trek and not) that only a long-term pop SF aficionado would get. Whether that detracts from or adds to the enjoyment factor depends greatly upon your POV.

[ April 25, 2002, 12:46: Message edited by: First of Two ]

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Incidently, I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't read such books. I do think, personally, that they're not very good. I also think, objectively, that there are specific reasons why media tie-ins are "lesser" works, some of which I pointed out.

I don't really have an answer. I suppose we could say that television is destroying our culture, but I don't really believe that. Do I? No, I like television. A lot. And I'm not even prepared to go so far as to say that reading a book is somehow qualitatively better than watching a show, though I think there are convincing arguments to be made.

In an ideal world, people would be able to read whatever they pleased, and they would have the opportunity to read anything at all. It's that opportunity that I think current market trends are squelching.

Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :

Think of Star Trek/Star Wars books as being the McDonalds of the literary world.

About a third of it tastes good, provides quick gratification, without any horrible surprises.
And lets face it, everyone has some every once in a while.
But its certainly not good for you in the long run...if you have too much.

The problem isn't so much that its there....but its starting to take up entirely too much room on the shelves, making it hard to "discover" interesting material in mainstream bookstores. (which is why I'm starting to frequent used bookstores more often)

To continue the metaphor (simile? dang English class) imagine a world where a third of all food was McDonalds.

Thats the problem with SF, if all people see are media-tie in novels...then of course the general public will think of it as trash.

(Keep in mind, that we're only talking about the small subset of the general population that actually does read.....)

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

As I think I pointed out, Gilgamesh was rigorously accurate to the science of its day.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Star Trek / Star Wars books are STILL better than @#$%*ing GOOSEBUMPS. [Smile]

After years of fighting series books, librarians came around to the viewpoint of "Hey, at least the kid is reading SOMETHING." Because it seems as though a lot of people who read series books might not read regular novels.

Why this is, I don't know. Lots more kids read "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" who wouldn't have been willing to read books half that size before him.

And sometimes lowly series books are jumping-off points to other books. Kids who liked Harry Potter often ended up checking out the Chronicles of Narnia. Some people decide to read certain books because they were authored by the author of a media tie-in... or am I the only person here who went from "Imzadi" to "Sir Apropos of Nothing"?

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Judging by sales figures, yeah, just about. Not so much with David, who's sort of a mini-multimedia force, but guys like Michael Kube-McDowell are forced to post pleas to Usenet asking fans of his Star Wars books to pick up just one copy of his non media efforts too.

(I'm almost certain this was Kube-McDowell, but I also thought I remembered him mentioning it on his webpage, and nothing there appears. So I suppose it could be an elaborate illusion.)

At any rate, he has mentioned that only a tiny percentage of people purchase media tie-ins based on the author's name, though I couldn't tell you where he was gathering his statistics.

Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :

I usually find that ST novels are not worth the money spent. They are so contrived that it takes no imagination to read one so, 9 or 10 bucks for 3-4 hours of unimaginative reading is not worth it.
But I live in a relatively small town and the SF bookshelf is filling with this stuff rapidly. It is hard to find many new SF novels on the shelf. I also find myself going more and more to used book store. They usually have a better selection.

Posted by Hunter (Member # 611) on :

quote:
(I'm almost certain this was Kube-McDowell, but I also thought I remembered him mentioning it on his webpage, and nothing there appears. So I suppose it could be an elaborate illusion

I believe that your actually refering to Michael Stackpole web page as you can see here.

As to media tie in versues science fiction, James Blish is probabley better known for his TOS novels then his Cities in Flight series.

Of course orginal science fiction might do better if most of it wasnt just Vingean/Banks rehshes. Take Chasm City by Alister Reynolds for instance, there's a sub plot about the Hero and all the nasty things he's done and how he ins't who he says he is. The whole thing comes of as a cheap Use of Weapons rip off. Of course the fact that alot of the classic stuff isn't in print dosen't help, I mean I've been lucky in the fact that the used book store near where I worked carried some classics and hard to get stuff (The war aganist the Chotorr by David Gerrolds, Fury by knutter, the Flandry Series by Anderson, the Sector General stuff by James white)otherwise I never would have read any of them.

Of course here in Australia the media tie-ins are usually stuck on single half shelf and are about 4 years old means that the public does see the science ficton stuff, expect it's drowned out by multi-part Fansty series.

So are media tie-ins the end of science fiction?
No I'd look eslewhere(Future Shock?)

Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :

Trek books are not IMO as good as non-media sci-fi; some of them can be quite a good read but they're not on the same level as some of the 'hard' sci-fi out there. I'm not sure what it is really; perhaps it's that the characters who work well on TV don't work quite as well on paper. I often wonder what an ST novel written by Stephen Baxter or Kim Stanley Robinson would be like...

One thing I've never really understood; where does all the anti-sci-fi bias come from?

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Those are very interesting points, Hunter, though I confess I'm not quite smart enough to discuss them. I take it you're refering to the Banksian "nastyness"? I can't say I've seen that being overused, but then I'm not as current as I should be.

As for Vinge...are you speaking of the Singularity here? It does seem to be a constant these days, but then a lot of authors (and others) are convinced that any science fiction that's going to be relavent has to address that issue.

Re: popular bias against science fiction: Well, that's sort of what my rant was about. People think science fiction is disposable garbage because that's the most visible sector.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

I know it's not much help, but pretty much the only tie-in novels I pick up now are PAD's, and he's not as good as he used to.

The thing is, fantasy seems to have a similar image, only instead of being swamped with tie-in novels, you're swamped with "Demon Sword: Book 1 in the 'Bloody Fanny' Saga" on every shelf.

Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :

quote:
The thing is, fantasy seems to have a similar image, only instead of being swamped with tie-in novels, you're swamped with "Demon Sword: Book 1 in the 'Bloody Fanny' Saga" on every shelf.

With no end in site, Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series has been going on for years and years.

P.S. Captain Mike did I get the book title format correct this time, I know how anal you are about that.

Posted by YrdMehc (Member # 417) on :

Sol, that was one hell of a long post.... but quite right....

Nobody has mentioned Larry Niven.... and his follow-on writers....

The boob-tube generations need to kick the habit... I am still waiting for a patch for that....

Posted by Hunter (Member # 611) on :

quote:
I take it you're refering to the Banksian "nastyness"?

To a large degree, yes. Admitdley it seems much more prevalant in the new Britsh authors then any where else.Plus there some of them who attempt to mimic Banks writting style. A good example of both is Chasm City by Alastair Reynolds, as I mentioned above. Of course most of them also seem to have left wing politics as well(a reaction to Thatchers polices?)So they all seem a little samey, now in some case thats forgivable such as Ken Mcleod, who I understand is a friend of Banks, but I want something new.

quote:
As for Vinge...are you speaking of the Singularity here?

Again yes. The problem I have with a lot of the stories around it is that they have touch of almost religous overtones, in the sense that with the right technology there will be a new heaven and a new earth, not to mention a new humanity. They also seem to grossly over state the ability of the technology i.e. Nanotech is the most offten abused in that it is fast,requires no power or supplies, produces no excess heat or allows magical abilites(Trek does the same thing adimttdly). Something else that bothers me about it is how they forget about physical limatons. A good example is Moore's law, which is often used to prove how close we are to the singularity, states that proccesor speed increases every eighteen months and gets cheaper(actually by now its closer to twelve months)which means in about 15 years we should have a proccesor wilth more connections then a human brain. The only problem is that in about a deacade (less due to various factors) the pysical limit to chip size will be reached. Whilest there optronic and quantam computing may alivate that problem they're bound to have physical limits of their own.

quote:
I often wonder what an ST novel written by Stephen Baxter or Kim Stanley Robinson would be like...

As long as it's Baxter form his Xelee-Anti Ice-Voyage-Timeships period and not from his Titan-Wholly Mammoth on mars peroid, then it might be fun.It would probaley cover the univerise and have something to do with the laws of physics. So something about supersymmetry breaking down due to warp dirves and wierd alien life from subspace? As for Kim Stanley Robinson can't say I paricular like him (I have heard that his lates Alt-histroy thing is good) but a colony peice might be intersting.
It might be possible to get a hard science writter in to trek some have done it before i.e. Greg Bear, James Blish, George Zebrowski. One of the easiset to ask would probably be David Brin, who I think is a Trek Fan(is it in Startide Rising about all engineers being scottish?) and has done some trek work I think.

As to fantasy, would I be stoned if I said I have all of the WOT Books and am looking forward to the next one [Wink]

? Personaly there does seem to be to much of it on the shelves and lot of it is the same(expilitly so in the case of David Eddings, who has far as I tell has written the same trilogy three or four times.)Beside there are Fanatsy medi-tie ins, I mean I've seen alot of people reading those Fellowship of the Rings movies novelazations [Razz]

I cant speak of Larry Niven, as I think that I've only read one short story of his(About a hotshot pilot who is hired by an earth spy to find out why ships have been disapering before reaching earth. it turns out to be a short guy from a high grav world who cant get laid and is therfore using his pet black hole to destory earth ships). As to turning off the tv I have seen reports that tv use among 18-25 year olds is falling as they are logging on to the 'net more.

As to Star Trek novels I have read worse origanl science fiction. I've never wanted to burn the book or at the very least have the bad guys massacre the "Good Guys" from reading them. Nor have I found them to be exercises in "I have a degree in Physics and you don't" like some books(Cosm by benford? about a reascher who makes a proto universe and then does nothing for large portion of the book)with very little plot. Which I suppse is the point, no point doing something outrageous id it is all invaldiated in nex weeks episode. Of course the recent stuff seems better in that respect as there are new episodes to worry about.

Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hunter:

quote:
[QUOTE] I often wonder what an ST novel written by Stephen Baxter or Kim Stanley Robinson would be like...
As long as it's Baxter form his Xelee-Anti Ice-Voyage-Timeships period and not from his Titan-Wholly Mammoth on mars peroid, then it might be fun.As for Kim Stanley Robinson can't say I paricular like him (I have heard that his lates Alt-histroy thing is good) but a colony peice might be intersting.

Actually, I thought Titan was quite good, although slightly farfetched. I couldn't actually bring myself to look at the mammoth books...

Perhaps the story of the Trek universe's Martian colonisation programme...

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :

Personally, I can't stand Robert Jordan's writing style. And be careful about heaping all Trek and Star Wars books in the same pile. I personally love the original Han Solo trilogy by Brian Daley, as well as quite a few Trek books over the years. A Stitch In Time is one of the best I've ever seen from the franchise.

--Jonah

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :