This thread was originally started on the 'NextGen' board (see under 'Marissa Stories 2') and I thought it would be fun to expand it under this one.
What do you consider the worst Trek novel, short story, novelty book etc. ever? (No fan-fiction, please - that's been covered very well over at 'NextGen'.)
Thus far the nominees include 'Contagion', 'Power Hungry' and 'Dyson Sphere' from the NextGen series; 'Ice Trap' and 'Chain of Attack' from the Classic; and anything by Diane Carey, Gene DeWeese and L.A. Graf.
Anybody else?

Why L.A. Graf? I happen to like their style of writing, and DS9: Time's Enemy is one of my top 3 Trek novels.

Marshak and Culbreath's 'The Fate of the Phoenix'. Once Kirk joins forces with the villain in order to save the universe from the duplicate of the villain that inhabits a clone of Spock, the book hits a level of über-badness that I've never previously encountered, leading to a perverse enjoymeny of its very awfulness.
And if I hadn't been reading it on a coach, Keith Sharee's 'Gulliver's Fugitives' (NextGen) would have gone out of the window.

Well, "Masks" is written pretty badly, but the whole mask concept is intriguing. My vote for worst definitely has to go to Dyson Sphere. And all the Voyager novels, with exception of the Furies one, are horrible.

Sarah, I had a feeling I shouldn't have included Graf in that list - since I haven't read their newer stuff, including 'Time's Enemy'.
But their two Classic novels I have read, and besides being full of gratuitous violence, they feature lines like "McCoy looked up [at Kirk] and wondered just when it was he had decided he would die for this man..."
As I say, they may have improved since...but at the time...errrk.

Gotta agree that I hated Diane Carey's books. Recalling those, it was the first time I understood what a "Lt. Mary Sue" story was. The thing I remember the most was that everybody was so neurotic and frustrated, always in italics.

In my point of view, I figure she is the queen of Mary Sue's. I don't like alot of her novels either. One thing that always had me frustrated, was that it took probably took eight to ten novels, before she spelled Chekov's name right. It was Chekhov for the longest time.

I usually give a rating to every Trek novel I read, and looking back at my list I see the utterly lousey 'Price Of The Phoenix' and equally wretched 'Fate Of The Phoenix' each get a big, fat, well-deserved zero out of five, while others I really disliked are 'Uhura's Song', 'How Much For Just The Planet?' and 'Timetrap'.
I've read a half dozen TNG's, one DS9, and no Voyager's, but I've been satisfied with what I read, sticking to big ones like 'Crossover', 'Q-Sqaured', and 'Vendetta'.

while others I really disliked are 'Uhura's Song', 'How Much For Just The Planet?' and 'Timetrap'.

WHY in the world did you dislike UHURA'S SONG, the BEST Trek novel EVER?????????

Maybe he doesn't like cats?
But seriously, Will, I'm a little curious too. 'Uhura's Song' is imaginative, funny, perfectly characterized, and widely conceded to be the best of the Pocket novels by fans and critics alike. Why the low rating?

Much that you can chalk me up to the "Uhura's Song" fan club, and agree that I think it's the best Star Trek book written, and a fan of Janet Kagen's work, Will Spencer is entitled to his opinion. Not everything will win everyone over. I must admit, this is the first time I read that a person disliked "Uhura's Song" and I myself, quite curious why you disliked it Will. I am just curious, that is all. I have my reasons why I loved it, what turned you off to the book? There must have been something missing, that you look for in stories you like to read. I also liked "How Much For the Planet?" because for it's hilarity, and inginuity, and as for "TimeTrap", ah well, I'm with you on that one. I did not care for that one either.
Like I said, to each their own.

I just happened to be cleaning out my to-read bookshelf and found dozens of ST books I've bought over the years and not read yet. I was planning on getting rid of all of them, but I'll check the "best" list before I do so. Too late, I think I already read the worst ones!

Why don't you list the books here and check the prevailing opinions on them?

I actually liked "How Much..." once you get past the fact that everyone is completely out of character, it's a fun romp. And the Shakespearean ending is hysterical!

Ed, I'll consider it, don't have time now...

I think the two worst original series novels are "Black Fire" and "Windows on a Lost World". In "Black Fire", I feel that the author has Spock act in ways that are completely out of character (besides which, I just don't like the whole premise of the book very much). For many years, it held the position of worst ST novel on my list. (I once heard it referred to as the "Spock's Brain" of Star Trek novels!) But then, "Windows on a Lost World" came along, and took over the position. I mean, Chekov & Kirk jumping through these windows & becoming crab creatures? Sounds like a B-movie script, not a ST novel!
I've read mainly original series & DS9 books. I've been disappointed in a lot of the DS9 books but none (in my opinion) are quite as bad as the two Original Series books mentioned above.

Oh, great - thanks for bringing 'Windows On a Lost World' back into my consciousness, Shirley. I'll send you the therapy bill.

That book really only could have worked if the author had treated the plot tongue-in-cheek, perhaps as a satire on those cheap B-movies. But nooooo...they had to take it seriously. By the time I got to the sequence where Kirk-as-crab communicates with Spock by flashing light-patterns over his abdomen (I swear I'm not making this up!) I was actively squirming.

Anyone who has "The New Voyages" volume two, check out the first story "Surprise" co-written by Nichelle Nichols with the editors. Tell me it doesn't deserve a place on this list. "Snake Pit", the second story, is not far behind.

I can't remember "Surprize", but I do remember a bit of "Snake pit", and I thought it was pretty good. What was "Surprize" again? If ya don't mind refreshing my memory.

It's the one where Uhura plans a surprise party for the captain. Horriffic stuff. I really don't remember much about "Snake Pit" as a whole, I think it's mainly the bad title I'm reacting to.

I agree with whoever said "Dyson's Sphere." That is perhaps the worst TNG novel. Here's a name we haven't heard yet though. Worst DS9 is hands down
"The Laertian Gamble." Awful, just awful.

I don't know what everyone else thought but I found "Rogue Saucer" absolutely horrible. The characterizations were totally inaccurate and the story itself was awful. It's a book I regret having read!
Also, I think "Preserver" was by far the worst Shatner novel. It was depressing and pointless, with the whole universe coming after Captain Kirk yet again. The whole story wouldn't have happened if they had just left him alone in the first place! And the ending SUCKED. I won't spoil it for those of you who haven't read it but prepare to be disappointed. I found the whole Mirror Universe trilogy to be depressing and contrived but this one takes the cake.

I have a new nominee. "Dark Passions." I'm halfway through book 1, and am ready to call it quits. It reads as if it was written at the last minute, over a long weekend. With characters I could absolutely care less about. Ugh! I won't be buying Book 2.

To Brian,
You are absolutely correct, "The Laertion Gamble" is, to use your quote, "awful, just awful"! The plot, for those who don't know, is that Dr. Bashir has to keep gambling on DS9 or the whole universe is going to end (something like that). His gambling somehow causes ships to crash, etc. It makes no sense whatsoever.
To kerriem, I am glad you "appreciated" being reminded of "Windows on a Lost World". :-)
And to D.W Marsh, I also intensely disliked the ending of "Preserver". They could have come up with something a LOT better.

I kinda enjoyed the Dark Passion books, tho I dislike paying for 2 books that are really just one. The Rihannsu books, Swordhunt & Honor Blade, were truly ONE book, they did not even bother to change the Chapter #s( the second book starts on Chapter 6). Buying one lousy story for 7 bucks is bad enough, but having to pay for 2 Books for ONE lousy story is criminal.

"The Laertian Gamble" is not only a •••••• story, it is very poorly written. Usually I'll keep going with a book if the writing is good, but I couldn't get past chapter two in this one because the writing was so terrible!

SLUGBUG, you might want to avoid the Michael Jan Friedman novels 'Reunion'(NextGen) and 'Saratoga' (DS9). Although published as two separate books (one on Picard's past, the other Sisko's), they have - literally - identical plotlines, right down to the character types. All that's changed are the names and a few background details. The authorial laziness on display here is just incredible!

Thanks for all the warnings!
I haven't read many ST novels, but...
I didn't think much of Gene DeWeese's, or the Fate/Price of the Phoenix ones. I read the first ST:New Voyages, wrote to the authors criticizing it and didn't get a reply. Then I read the second and the editors' intro said they got lots of fan mail praising the first anthology, and they got only two, count 'em two, letters criticizing it. Gee, I wonder who the other letter was from?
I don't remember the stories in either anthology much--that's a criticism in itself--but I didn't think much of them.
I wonder what those two are doing now?
I did like "How much for just the planet", and "Uhura's Song."

The live-action and animated sites here keep getting novel-mentionings by me, and I've found irritation by others. So maybe I'll get away with it here.

My list of worsts has to include:
'The Garden'; 'How Much For Just The Planet?'; 'The Siege'; 'Warped' and finally [sorry] 'Spock Must Die!'.

I LIKED 'Windows On A Lost World' and I LOVE 'Star Trek: Preserver'.

I'm a big fan of the mirror-universe, so I'm looking forward to reading the two 'Star Trek: Dark Passions' books.

Really? I enjoyed "Rogue Saucer" somewhat. I have to say that "Laertian Gamble" was pretty bad, although it's what introduced me to DS9, which has become my fave--with TNG--ST series of all time. Some that were pretty bad were:

TOS: "Mutiny on the Enterprise," [only made it 1/4-way through before becoming thoroughly disgusted], "Romulan Way," [45 pages], and "First Strike."

TNG: "Best and the Brightest" I may have liked it; don't remember well. "Fury Scorned" [100 pgs.]

DS9: "Devil in the Sky"

VOY: "Ragnarok"

Badlands series--don't remember it well, but I remember something about hating it.

But I thought "Saratoga" and "Reunion," while similar, were rather good.

GREAT BOOKS: DS9 Millenium Trilogy

Side note: I'm only 16, and I love sci-fi books, movies, etc., and harbor a strong hate for Silicone Queen pop stars, Spice Boy bands, teen books/movies/tv shows/music. I'm really counter-culture.

The Return was enjoyable, but its so-called sequel Spectre leaves me feeling let down. Mind you, its a good story on its own, but I bought it with the assumption it would tell me what happened to Kirk when he was about to die at the end of The Return. (the book jacket said it was the sequel to that book and one other)

I think you'll find that what happened to Kirk at the end of The Return is explained in the book Avenger, which came out before Spectre.

Cynical-Chick: I will admit that the quality of writing in 'Reunion/Saratoga' is fair enough - it's the lost possibilities that bug me. I mean, these are great, momentous opportunities to fill in the backstory of pivotal Trek figures...reduced to mediocre soap-opera!
And then there's the annoyance of buying 'Saratoga' and realizing I was being charged another $8 for the exact same plot by the same author - aaaauuuughhh!
BTW: Welcome to the discussion!

The Avenger before Spectre point was not printed on the Spectre book jacket. It simply stated "The exiting sequel to Avenger and The Return. I suppose this makes me obliged to pick up a copy of Avenger.

Thanks for the welcome. I get 95% of all my books at a used bookstore, where the condition is great, and prices wonderful. I got Spectre, which I liked; that series-Spectre, Dark Victory, Preserver-I liked--for only $3.25. Paperback, that is.

I'm currently 57% of the way into "Hannibal," and it's rather good. I'm not a type that can be scared, but I really like it. I picked it up about a week after finishing "Silence of the Lambs."

lol@ SNL bashing Britney Spears and G.W. Bush. Hell, I do that constantly.

I thought Spectre was rather imaginative, and I really liked it. It was funny, intelligent, and the story was interesting.

I could never finish "Three Minute Universe", and I couldn't get halfway through "Probe". I don't know if either story in its entirety is good, but I don't usually finish novels that don't spark interest by Chapter 2.

TCapp, "Probe" isn't that bad. However, I understand your sentiments... It took me five tries to get past the first chapters of "Dune".

For the worst Trek fiction, how about those awful Star Trek comic books in the 70s? Can't remember the publisher, but it wasn't DC or Marvel. This was before there were any movies, and it was all we had, except for a few novels. (Does anyone else even remember "Spock Must Die" or "Spock Messiah"?)

I remember one comic book story dealing with the Vulcans' emotions. They were monstrous creatures which the Vulcans had cast out of themselves and the Enterprise was transporting them.

Awful, awful stuff.

You mean the Gold Key comics?

I've tried reading novels other than ones by Peter David, and NONE of them do it for me. I tried reading Bloodletter(DS9), Guises of the Mind(TNG), and none of them have the ability to bring the story and characters to life like Peter does. Even the jam novels Peter's done with Michael Jan Friedman and Fred Greenburger simply don't have that zip! that Peter's solo novels do (though I did like the episode Resistance(VOY) by Friedman).

(Does anyone else even remember "Spock Must Die" or "Spock Messiah"?)

Had them both. "Spock Must Die!" was actually pretty good (though it's obviously horrendously non-canon, as the Klingons are sentenced to non-spaceflight by the Organians), but I thought Spock Messiah was a bit weak.

Those Bantam novels were fairly goofy...'Spock, Messiah!' being exhibit A.

Exhibit B is David Gerrold's interesting-in-the-attempt-but-reallyreally-dull-in-the-execution try at translating Trek to 'hard' sci-fi, 'The Galactic Whirlpool'. That one I could hardly finish.

The Gold Key comics have been immortalized at this magnificent site which provides a detailed plot summary of every single issue of this legendary mag. The story Goog was referring to was issue #11 "The Brain Shockers", and the summary has to be read to be believed. Not even Brannon Braga or Stephen Ratliff could have come up with this premise.

http://www.oz.net/~fur/comics/startrek/default.htm

I got Diane Carey's Wagon Train To The Stars book (Book 1 of New Earth) and found it just so badly written that I couldn't get past about five pages. I think the books should go back to stand alone ones now, the multi-book stories are beginning to grate a bit now because you've got to pay a lot for one story. (Although, saying that, the Gateways thing coming out this year looks quite good ...)

New Earth Books, SUCKED BAD!!!!!!! Gateways actually has MORE NEW EARTH STUFF!! Oh Boy, How much you wanna bet NOONE demanded more of that?
Gold Key Trek?? LMAO, I have em in the Old Enterprise Logs Colectted editions, BAD TREK, Just bad.
Has anyone here SUFFERRED threw Genesis Wave Book II? Harkens back to the WORST of Bantam Or Gold Key, small sample of Picard dialougue(from a small part of the book where he actually appears)
" I catch your drift, Troi." Mostly Non_regulars doing nonsensical stuff while supposedly Fighting an ENEMY which is semi sentient moss............. yes moss.. And no, they are Moss, we do not know how they think, and are never given more than baseless speculation on why they act as they do. Coming SOON, BOOK 3?????????? Please , let this be a joke.

Haven't read any of the New Earth books, and I don't plan on starting. I did read book 1 of the Gateways series, which picks up at the end of the TOS episode "That Which Sutvives." It was pretty good, but book 2 takes place in the New Earth series, so I have no intention of reading it.

I have a new addition for one of the worst - "Q Squared". I know some people really liked that book but I really thought it was awful. I had heard it was really funny but I didn't see it. I didn't like how it jumped around from time to time, and the things he had the characters do. I had a hard time even finishing it at all. And I do like some of Peter David's books, but not this one.

I am one who liked Q squared, and not only that it explains a lot about gary mitchell and the border of the galaxy. As for the time jumps you just have to not think so linearly. :-)

Temporal paradox approaching. please be prepared to be your own great grandfather.

"Cry of the Onlies" tells what happened to the kids on Miri's Planet. It seems Starfleet was testing a prototype spaceship on their planet, apparently within walking distance of the kids, and the kids steal the spaceship. And Miri dies in an insurrection. And...I counted 11 nits in the premise alone.
The only good idea was at the end when the immortal Mr. Flint becomes a mentor to the kids. Otherwise, a waste of time.

'Cry of the Onlies' is one of those books you pick up, intrigued...then you read the back cover blurb and toss it back PDQ.

I mean, who thought continuing the story of 'Miri' without Miri would be a good idea in the first place?

Luigi: I hear you about Peter David - but there are other good ones out there, trust me. Next time you could maybe try Doctor's Orders(TOS) and Dark Mirror(NextGen) by Diane Duane, Uhura's Song(TOS) by Janet Kagan, or Dragon's Honor(NextGen) by Greg Cox.

I laughed like crazy at How much for Just the Planet. It didn't seem out of character for any one to act the way they did. Even if things were stretched just a bit for the humor. It could have been worse. Doctor's orders was another very fine book that had the characters right on. Some others that I liked were Yesterday's Son, The Romulan Way, Dreams of the Raven, and Time for Yesterday. Cry of the Onlies wasn't that bad but I did find it a bit off from the rest of the universe.

The worst TOS novel I ever read was "convenant of the crowd" It was terrible I could not get half way through that dribble. I rememer the phoenix books were readable, of course I read those 10 years ago. I have enjoyed the Shatner novel because I find the premise of an old fat bloated kirk that kicks everyone around to be entertaing.


Someone mentioned the millenium series of DS( and I agree it was excellent.

by the way has anyone read TOS novel Corona, I am a third of the way through and I am still not sure if it is good or not.

What is the "Millenium Series of DS( ?"

Could you be referring to DS9?

(I think you forgot to release the CAPS, Mr. Hammer...the "(" is the CAPS version of "9")

yes that is what I meant I am sure most people knew that and your explanation was not needed, but I think you for pointing out my minor errors.

Before I saw Star Trek for the first time, (Xmas 1975). I read British reprints of the Gold Key comics. I have to say they made me want to watch the series, BUT they are hysterically funny.
However, stories like 'Day Of The Inquisitor' and 'The Mummies Of Heitus VIII' are almost proper Trek

My favourite though is 'The Enterprise Mutiny', where the (alleged) Klingons capture Kirk and replace him, Spock's realisation of which Kirk is the duplicate is, dare I say, flawlessly logical.

"Shadows on the Sun" (TOS) was fairly wretched and I didn't much like "Home is the Hunter" (TOS) either. Although I haven't read it yet, the premise for "Planet X" (TNG) seems so awful I'm not sure I even want to attempt it.

Home is the Hunter wasn't really really bad in my opinion it just seemed to have an interesting premise that didn't quite work out. It seemed kinda like it wouldn't have been out of place in the third season of the show's run. The Battlestations/Dreadnaught combo was a pair of books I didn't quite get into. Nothing really wrong with the plot and all just not one of the better books.

Hello, I haven't done much Star Trek nitpicking (I'm mostly over on Buffy), but I have read a few Trek books, so ...

I agree with whoever said "Black Fire" was bad, I wouldn' nominate it for Worst Novel Ever but I was really disappointed by the ending (oh, by the way, everything was pre-arranged - NEVER end a novel like that!).
I don't know what everone dislikes so much about Diane Carey. I've only read one of her novels, "Final Frontier" (not related to the awful film) and it's brilliant, one of my favourite Trek novels ever! It's all about Kirk's father and the first Enterprise. Apart from the fact that it's a bit too convenient that Kirk's father served aboard the first ship, and apart from the expendable frame, it's really were well-written.

I also think that Q^2 is fabulous, but that has been said before, I think. Peter David's other efforts I didn't like that much - Q-in-Law was okay and Dark Mirror, too. I was really disappointed by "I, Q" (written in cooperation with John de Lancie) because it was not written from Q's point of view at all. It sounded as if Peter David had written a normal novel and then replaced all the "Q did and said" with "I did and said". Also, I was never much of a Picard fan, and I don't see why Q, omnipotent and everything, would think that highly of him. Half the novel is about how great a man Picard is, which just doesn't fit in with the perspective.

There are two candidates I'd like to nominate (after this lenghty introduction :-)). The first is "Prime Directive", written by a couple whose names I can't remember. It's not that badly written, actually, but I was very disappointed. It starts out with Kirk being on the run because he's held responsible for murdering an entire planet, and with his crew shattered and all - only at the end, it turns out that pretty much everything was a mistake and everything is back to normal. Now, of course, in writing Star Trek you have to take care of some conventions, but I do think that topics like the above shouldn't be introduced if you can't deal with them in a manner that's at least halfway realistic.

The worst Trek novel I ever read is "Vulcan!" by Kathleen Somethingorother. It's amazing how many dumb things you can include in a book that short. A friend of mine bought it and I read it only because she said it was so very bad. I can confirm that. The only witty thing about the entire book is the introduction (written by someone who thinks a lot higher of the author than I do). Everyone is acting out of character all of the time, there's a ridiculous planet full of spider people called Arachnae or something, McCoy in particularly is acting like a moron. Worst of all, there is some female scientist with personal issues so big that she'd never ever get a job with Starfleet, who hates Vulcans until it turns out that it's really a question about Sex. Really. I'm not kidding, I wish I were.

Also, come to think of it, I'd like to nominate The Wounded Sky by Diane Duane. I love her other work but I have no freakin' idea what this book is about. Anyone read it?

Peter David didn't write Dark Mirror, Diane Duane did.

Really? Oops. Been some time and I haven't got the books with me at the moment.

"Vulcan!" is by Kathleen Sky, by the way.

Spcok Messaih was about the worst drivel in the trekness I can think of having had the unfortunateness of having read it. Thw wounded sky was cool. But did remind me of a bad trip.

Netrat is right, "Vulcan!" is a bad novel. A very bad novel!

Slugbug, I thought that Genesis Wave 3 was terrible, but 2 (at least as an audio book) was great!

Hammer, the book you are refering to is "Covenant of the Crown," not Crowd.


My nominations: Planet X- ugh, I'd forgotten about that one... (don't get me wrong, I like both Star Trek and X-men, but they do NOT belong together.)


Also, the Bajor segments of "Captain's Peril."

The past segements do fill in Romulan tech history interestingly though, and hint at interesting things to come...

I had to do some air travel this week so I dug out a book that had been sitting in my "to read" stack for a while. It is a Star Trek (original series) book titled The Lost Years by J.M. Dillard.

For several years I bought every ST novel that came out -- that doesn't mean I read them. At one point I realized I had about 60 of them (I buy a LOT of books!) and I said, "I am neither interested nor do I have the time to read all those" and promptly boxed them up for a garage sale. Of course in ST books The Big Reset Button has to be pressed at the end to make everything exactly like it was before. Can't have any character development or major changes in the premise! Before putting them in the box, I skimmed the blurbs and saved ten or so that sounded promising.

The Lost Years is the first in a saga of four books (at last count). It was written in 1989 and I know it's been sitting around a while because I have a first edition paperback printed in 1990. I took it along for the plane ride and was soon rewarded with the first of many gems this book provided. Here's a quote:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Earth, it was early afternoon on a weekday, but the Enterprise corridors, though brightly lit, were deserted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What's wrong with that sentence? Perhaps if the preceding scene had taken place somewhere on Earth it might have worked, but everything was happening on the Enterprise in the preceding section.

Later on I read this, describing a scene where Spock's mother calls him on Vulcan from Earth:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But her face, her eyes, the tilt of her head, told Spock that something was terribly, urgently wrong, even if the fact that she wakened him four hours before Vulcan's dawn did not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, it's dawn on Vulcan -- the entire planet.

This is the story of the end of the Enterprise's five-year mission. Unfortunately, most of the important and most interesting events are told in flashback. The rest of the time, the characters are described in terms of what they "don't" do.

"Kirk didn't smile."
"Uhura didn't nod."
"McCoy didn't answer."
"Scotty didn't turn, and didn't react."
"Spock didn't bake cookies."

Well, except for that last one, you get the idea. Sure, you can describe a character in terms of the million things they "aren't" doing, but hey author, how about telling me about what they "are" doing?

I have read a few good Star Trek books in the past, but I think I've read many more mediocre, and some downright awful (**cough**Diane Carey**cough) books in that line.

I finished it with the same horrified fascination I had since about page 50. It's the first fiction book I've had the "pleasure" of reading in weeks, hence my vitriolic reaction to it.

Just to get the bad taste out, I started the second in the series -- "A Flag Full of Stars", and what a difference! Some very interesting scenes and additional characters. I realize I could have (and should have!) skipped that first one and jumped right in here.

Why does everybody get harping on Diane Carey? I happen to like her Trek novels. Best Destiny is one of my top 6 (the others being the first 4 New Frontier books, and DS9 Fallen Heroes)!

This is quite entertaining, even though I haven't read most of this stuff. I'd like to mention something myself: the novelization of Star Trek: The Motion Picture written by none other than Gene Roddenberry himself. I guess since I never made it through the whole thing and I don't remember it being all that bad, I probably shouldn't put the whole thing in the "All-Time Worst" category. But still...there are some scenes that weren't in the movie. Like where Kirk meets Vice Admiral Lori Ciana (an old flame apparently, who also ends up being the other victim of the bad transporter with Sonak) before heading to the Enterprise. Gene throws in a line about "the pressure of his genitals responding to those memories." Ugh...

Anyone read the DS9 novel "Fallen Heroes" by Dafydd ab Hugh? That mostly kicked ass but did we REALLY need that part about Molly O'Brien peeing her pants, and the other situations that arose from this event?

Star Trek S.C.E.: Foundations.

Good lord. Don't get me wrong, some of the plot was slightly interesting, but it drove me nuts that every three sentences involved one or more of the characters laughing, chortling, giggling, chuckling, etc. Usually at something that wasn't all that funny.
By about the tenth time it happened, I knew that this was one of the wrost Trek Novels I'd ever read.


Also, "The Making of City on the Edge of Forever" by Harlin ellison (sp?).

If you could take the concept of biterness, squeeze it into a liquid, soak a book in it for a year and then condense it into one story... that story would shrivel and burst into flames from being on the same shelf as Elison's scathing text.
The whole book is, bar none, the most passioned, seathing, over-the-top, unending rant I've ever seen. (And this from someone who frequents the religion boards at Nitcentral!)
He spends about half of his time bad-mouthing Gene Rodenberry, and spends the rest of it split between bad-mouthing other people and saying "Look at how great I am! Look at how great my script was! They butchered it!"
Perhaps Harlin Ellison was wronged. but partway in, when he starts talking about how he wept for one of the characters he'd created that would never have the life of literature breathed into him, I started to realise that this guy has problems.
And the superb, award winning script to rival the works of Shakespear and bring art lovers to tears, this never-to-be magnum opus of Trekdome that could be rivaled by none... it wasn't even that good. Kirk and Spock bickered pettily. Everyone was out of character. The reason they arrived on the planet of the Gaurdians (yes, they were origionaly a bunch of old men and a big column of light), was to find an uninhabited planet to execute a crewman on, as per Starfleet regulations!
So, even though it's not a novel, I'd call the rage and insanity that is Harlin Ellison's "Making of the City on the edge of Forever" very high (or would that be very low?) amoung the All-Time Worst of Published Trek.


{Sits back and waits for applause.} :-)

Zarm Rkeeg: If you could take the concept of biterness, squeeze it into a liquid, soak a book in it for a year...
Luigi Novi: LOL!! Well said, Zarm!

Personally, I didn't find the book to be that much of rant so much as Ellison making his case to defend himself from falsehoods he had accused others of spreading about him, such as Roddenberry, but what I do agree with you about him is how disgustingly conceited and egocentric he is. Other examples of this attitude include:

-Years ago, on a panel on an episode of the show Sci-Fi Buzz, that used to be on the Sci-Fi channel, they were talking about Isaac Asimov's novel I, Robot, and Ellison, talking about failed attempts make it into a movie, spoke about how someone had once written a "brilliant" script (or words to that effect) for TPTB that went unused, and when the host asked who wrote that script, Ellison answered that he did.

-In another commentary piece, perhaps on the same show, Ellison remarked on how he had one more awards than any other sci-fi writer (a point he also made quite dramatically in an issue of his comic book, Harlan Ellison's Dream Corridor with an illustration he had the artist make showing a tower of awards), and stated, without irony, and with a totally straight face and tone of voice, almost saying it casually in passing, that this meant that he had worked harder than any other writer. That's right. It doesn't just mean that the award presenters just plain liked his story better, or were motivated by politics or other biases, no, Ellison is under the impression that the presenters somehow had specific knowledge of how much work each writer nominated did, as if they had video documentation of each writer writing the given works.

-And of course, there's the fact that despite constantly lamenting and complaining that the episode was so mutilated by the various re-writers, that it effectively does not resemble his original script any any meaningful way, he has no problem accepting credit for that episode being the favorite among fans of the original series, even including a clipping from the July 1, 1995 TV Guide article on the 100 Most Memorable Moments in TV History, which cited the episode as #68 at the end of his book, stating in a postscript, "Isn't it odd..everyone from Roddenberry on down knew how to "improve" my poor, wretched efforts...but NOT ONE of all the shows THEY wrote without me became one of the 100 most memorable moments in TV history." Putting aside the fact that the man who supposedly types really fast on a typewriter without making mistakes (IIRC) put a period instead of a question mark at the end of that sentence, does anyone else here see how the logic in this comment works? When talking about the episode, he abdicates authorship of, but when it concerns accolades for it, he suddenly wants to claim at least partial parentage for it, totally ignoring the fact that episode as it aired, which he has adamently stated isn't his, is what got the accolades, and not the one he actually wrote. He glosses over this point by then asserting that oh, he "helped" write it, and implies that that fact alone is responsible for its legacy as a favorite, when for all he knows, the fans' reaction to the episode may be derived from aspects of the episode written by those who rewrote it rather than aspects Ellison created, and when for all he knows, a filmed version of the orginal script he wrote might not have had the same reaction.

Personally, I find it surprising that Peter David claims Ellison as such an influence, and that (IIRC) his style is attributable largely to Ellison. As much as I love anything Peter writes, I've read Ellison's Dream Corridor, and didn't think much of it, nor was that interested when I flipped through the first pages of his Spider Kiss.

I like Ellison's non-fiction, "rant"-y type stuff. But I'll be danged if I can recall much of any of his fiction (and I know I've read more than a little, at his urging).

The Deathbird shorts.

BTW, Ellison prostituted himself several years ago when the Geo line of cars first came out, pushing them on TV ads.

"I, Robot" isn't a novel... it's a collection of short stories. (pickpickpick)

The classic original Gold Key Star Trek comics, in which Kirk, Spock and the rest of the Enterprise crew have some of their goofiest adventures, are currently being reprinted in large paperback form. Now these camp classics are availible to a new generation of readers!

Ah, this brings back memories. I started Trek novels in elementary school (and did a few book reports on them) and stopped partway through high school. I have at least five dozen sitting on my closet shelf, collecting dust. So, here are a few "best and worst" lists:

Worst Authors:
-John Vornholt: dialogue and plots are sometimes flimsy. Nude scenes frequently included for little or no reason.
-Peter David: this will probably be contested by many, and I will honestly say that the only book of his I recall reading was part of a "Double Helix" novel. Frankly, though, Riker getting out of an escape pod and making a joke about "brown pants" didn't exactly make me want to buy his books.

Best Authors:
Diane Carey: her writing style is more introspective, giving a look at the thoughts of the characters. As a result, the books were more interesting.
Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens: the "Millenium" trilogy for DS9 is my all-time favorite set of Trek books!

Hmmm - I think I liked the couple of Peter David novels I read (no TNG novels though). But I absolutely detested Diane Carey's once I realized what her style was. IIRC, she's the one who had the Lt. Mary Sue stories, where everyone was frustrated (always in italics) all the time.

The Which Way gamebook "Phaser Fight" by Barbara & Scott Seigal.

Terrible artwork, and even worse dialogue.

Avoid this one!

Also, I hated "I, Q". Peter David's writing of Trek is substandard at best, John deLancie's contribution was not very notable.

Plus, it was *booorrriiinnnngggggg*!

"Gulliver's Fugitives" - I just finished reading it as I went through my collection. For the first time, I raise a serious nitpick: the fugitives' books. Where did they come from?

They couldn't be from Earth - they'd never be permitted aboard as colonists' goods.

They couldn't have been published on Rampart - it would violate the colony's founding principles.

They couldn't have come from desk-top or household publishing, because such printing presses would likely be viewed as seditious - best to keep publishing in a properly supervised plant.

So, where did they come from?

Another nitpick is the Dissenters (fugitives) themselves. We are to believe that the Rampart colonist transport had these different ethnicities represented aboard, and still "ethnically" pure? And furthermore, after five or six generations, intermarriage and cultural assimilation did not eliminate their distinctive ethnicities? Think about it.

Either Coyote, Gunabibi, the Nummo twins, etc. are part of a continuous line of dissenters back two hundred years, which raises the question: why did they embark from Earth? If each generation of Dissenters is spontaneous and has little or nothing to do with their immediate ancestors, then why would they still be genetically pure, instead of those ancestors contentedly intermixing?

Other than these quibbles, I found it an interesting variation on the Fahrenheit 451 idea. I wonder if Starfleet followed up anyway, even after the Huxley's captain was recovered? It would be interesting to check out the planet in a couple more generations and see how many and how big the cracks have become in the Rampart regime.


As to "Dark Mirror", I like it better than the DS9 check-ins on the mirror universe. My main quibble was the disruption of a universe by adding the amount of matter. That happens all the time and it doesn't destroy stars. If that was real, then the Empire's full-scale invasion would have doomed the place they intended to invade, occupy and annex as breathing space.

DS9 could have worked with their treatment. I do not find it credible that Spock could have turned the Empire around. Instead, they could have postulated that after a hundred years, the Empire is suffering setbacks - the Klingons and Cardassians have evicted the Empire from Bajor, which then joined the Klingon-Cardassian alliance. Word hasn't quite reached the Empire of that setback, so when O'Brien leads a team there, they find new management, and that they are now prisoners and slaves. Captain Sisko, an opportunist, happily starts serving the Bajoran female he wasn't too unfriendly with before Bajor was able to free itself from the Terran Empire.

Going forward from that theme, many of the same episodes would have still worked, just keeping in mind that the Terran Empire is still out there, still trying to regain its preeminence.

I had issues with the novel, Probe.

Margaret Wander Bonanno has gone on record that she did not write this book. Rather it was taken from her and heavily re-written by someone else, and it shows.

I wonder if this is related to the problem I had with this book. It was supposed to be about the return of the mysterious Probe that we saw in Star Trek IV. However, much of the book is spent on Romulan intrigue. Why? I didn't buy the book to read about the Romulans, I bought it to read about the Probe.

When we do get into the story of the Probe, it's pretty good. During its travels, the Probe ran across beings in cube shaped ships, clearly the Borg. And the Borg may have attacked the home world of the beings that built the Probe, thousands of years before.

I recommend the bits of the novel that deal with the Probe. I just wish they'd gotten rid of the Romulan stuff.