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.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
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'
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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."
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
