^^Oh, definitely. The Choblik even have nanotech "chromosomes" that govern the replication of some of their bionic parts.
However, I'm not sure if they're UFP members.
However, I'm not sure if they're UFP members.
Sxottlan said:
Very interesting comments so far!
Brendan Moody said:
The continued emphasis on past continuity rather than moving the fiction forward.3. And what specifically have you disliked in regards to the Trek book line of the last year or so?
Nearly every book published recently has been a sequel to an episode, a movie, or another book, and/or been about filling in some continuity hole.
8. What changes would you like to see in the Trek book line? Be it production choices or story editorial decisions?
More pure invention rather than elaboration.
Great observations. I agree.
Loaded with established characters as well as a few new creations, and the first two books are a sequel to a movie and another novel. But as I said, the recent Titan books are a model of what I'd like to see more of.RedJack said:
TITAN.
Again, full from the beginning of established characters, and aimed at elaborating the culture of a well-known race. I like the Gorkon/Klingon Empire books, but they're exactly what I'm talking about.GORKON.
Strikes a tolerable balance, you're right, but I was thinking of the novel line rather than the e-books.CoE.
A tightly-plotted series, devoted to an ongoing story that runs parallel to established Trek and involves some familiar races as well as new ones. Not quite what I'm looking for, though it's closer than a lot of other stuff I could name.VANGUARD.
JD said:
^You're not sure? I thought you were the one who came up with their whole appearance and backstory.
captcalhoun said:
the Denobulans are UFP members at least by 2268/9-ish when the U.S.S. Defiant was lost in the Interphase because MIrror-Phlox mentions to Mirror-T'pol that the Humans, Denobulans and Vulcans are all members of the Federation and equals in IaMD pt 2
I read plenty of original SF, thank you. I just don't think it's unfair to expect the Trek universe to expand its breadth as well as its depth.Christopher said:
And Brendan, if you're not happy with elaboration on existing material, maybe you should read more original SF. It's kind of the nature of tie-in literature that it, well, ties in to familiar elements to at least some degree.
Ah, I see. My apologies, that came across as a little more snippy than I meant it to be.Christopher said:
JD said:
^You're not sure? I thought you were the one who came up with their whole appearance and backstory.
Yeah, but I don't remember at the moment whether I established anything on their UFP-membership status. It's been a couple of years, and I've written a lot of stuff since then, so I'd have to check my notes to refresh my memory.
Brendan Moody said:
I read plenty of original SF, thank you. I just don't think it's unfair to expect the Trek universe to expand its breadth as well as its depth.Christopher said:
And Brendan, if you're not happy with elaboration on existing material, maybe you should read more original SF. It's kind of the nature of tie-in literature that it, well, ties in to familiar elements to at least some degree.
Anyway, your last comment is a bit misleading. Of course Star Trek fiction has Star Trek elements; the question is of proportion. I refer you back to my comparison to actual televised Star Trek, which managed to be recognizably Star Trek (by dint of, you know, having the characters and the ship and all that) without the degree of interconnectedness and continuity porn of the current fiction. Even the arc-based series like DS9 and the last couple years of Enterprise found time for standalone stories and new guest characters alongside the metanarrative. Orion's Hounds is actually not a bad model for this; in a minor sense it's a sequel to "Encounter at Farpoint," but even I wouldn't diminish it by calling it just a follow-up- the canvas is substantially widened beyond 'look, it's the star-jellies again.' That sense of wonder is part of what I think is missing from a fiction line that's dominated by "wouldn't it be cool to learn more about this?" Well, yes, it would; but sometimes it's also cool to show us what else is going on in an awfully big universe.
1. How do you feel the Trek book line has done in the last 12-15 months?
2. What specifically have you liked in regards to the entire Trek book line in that time?
3. And what specifically have you disliked in regards to the Trek book line of the last year or so?
4. Were there any trends or recurring themes emergent in the last 12 months or so that you liked?
5. What trends or recurring themes evident in the last year did you dislike and why?
6. What changes or additions to the Trek book line have you liked editorial-wise (i.e. ebook mini-series, focus on one series over another)?
7. What editorial decisions from the last 12-15 months have you not liked?
8. What changes would you like to see in the Trek book line? Be it production choices or story editorial decisions?
Aw, thanks!Also, Keith R.A. DeCandido continues to write for it. As I told him in an email I sent him a few months ago...I've read much of his work (though - I will admit - not his TNG relaunch book or A Burning House yet) and been entertained by most of it.
And hey, if it makes you feel any better, Q & A is completely Borg free!
1. How do you feel the Trek book line has done in the last 12-15 months?
2. What specifically have you liked in regards to the entire Trek book line in that time?
3. And what specifically have you disliked in regards to the Trek book line of the last year or so?
4. Were there any trends or recurring themes emergent in the last 12 months or so that you liked?
5. What trends or recurring themes evident in the last year did you dislike and why?
6. What changes or additions to the Trek book line have you liked editorial-wise (i.e. ebook mini-series, focus on one series over another)?
7. What editorial decisions from the last 12-15 months have you not liked?
8. What changes would you like to see in the Trek book line? Be it production choices or story editorial decisions?
Thanks for adding a few more straws of pressure on the camel's back that is the Destiny trilogy.
and, assuming there's still an Enterprise and a Federation after Dave gets done with them, hopefully beyond as well
In regards to Voyager, abysmally. I find I have lost all momentum after the last published of the "String Theory" series (Mar 2006), and I have no interest in reading Voyager characters cherry-picked and inserted into other series stories. I love Voyager and I want to read Voyager stories set either post "Endgame" or in the DQ time, like "String Theory".1. How do you feel the Trek book line has done in the last 12-15 months?
2. What specifically have you liked in regards to the entire Trek book line in that time?
3. And what specifically have you disliked in regards to the Trek book line of the last year or so?
4. Were there any trends or recurring themes emergent in the last 12 months or so that you liked?
5. What trends or recurring themes evident in the last year did you dislike and why?
6. What changes or additions to the Trek book line have you liked editorial-wise (i.e. ebook mini-series, focus on one series over another)?
7. What editorial decisions from the last 12-15 months have you not liked?
8. What changes would you like to see in the Trek book line? Be it production choices or story editorial decisions?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.