Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucdavis.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!ucdavis!ccrrick
From: ccrrick@ucdavis.UUCP (Rick Heli)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Star Trek novels
Message-ID: <32@ucdavis.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 28-Aug-85 03:16:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucdavis.32
Posted: Wed Aug 28 03:16:17 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Aug-85 07:22:47 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: University of California, Davis
Lines: 84


>> You misconstrue the issue.  It is not that Paramount would seek to
>> prevent writers from writing non-Star Trek related materials, only
>> that their restrictions are so bad that no writer would want to
>> write for them.
>
>Is that right? Well, how about I re-quote your first posting back at you:
>[Capitalization is mine and used to indicate italics]

To indicate italics, huh?  But not emphasis?

>
>> > I have been told by a fairly knowledgable source that anyone who
>> > writes Star Trek novels has basically sold out and PROBABLY CAN'T
>> > SELL NON-STAR TREK MATERIAL.  Apparently Paramount holds all the
>> > rights to Star Trek stories and pretty much has such writers at
>> > their mercy.
>
>If I misunderstood, it was because you you didn't express yourself well.

You persist in failing to see logical results, Mr. Spock.  Given 
A.  Writing under Paramount's restrictions is a bad deal and 
B.  A writer can write about anything in the world or out of it
then the following is probably true
C.  No one writes ST novels unless he has no other choice.

Now why would a writer have no other choice?  Only because of a lack
of talent.

And don't tell me that they do it because they love the characters.
Most authors are such individualistic and creative types (as artists
are) that they would always prefer to create their own characters
and settings.  I don't believe there is an author alive who doesn't
think he can create characters more interesting that Kirk and Spock
and company.

>
>
>only) time authors, the percentage doesn't reflect your contention that
>Trek authors can't get work elsewhere. Sorry, but numbers don't lie. If
>you insist, I can fairly quickly give you bibliographies of non-Trek
>material published by Trek novel authors. I can guarantee that the list
>would be longer than you ever thought possible.
>

So if it isn't a new hack, it's an old one that's run out of steam
and run out of creativity...

>> And, PUHleeze, don't hold up Vonda McIntyre as an example of good
>> SF writing...  or even good Star Trek writing...  not to me at any
>> rate...
>
>Whether you think McIntyre is good or not is irrelevant. She's published
>a good amount of non-Trek material, and that's what is being questioned
>here. As for the quality of her work, I can't argue opinion, but I'll
>point out:
>

Hasn't had an original idea in years...

>(1) Most folks that I know who have read the Trek novels rate hers among
>the highest. I confess that I haven't read any Trek novels other than the
>novelizations, two of which were by McIntyre. I thought both were very
>well written.  

And what kind of highly respected SF author has to stoop to "novelizing"
a movie producer's screenplay...  twice!

>
>(2) Her non-Trek material is highly thought of in the sf community. Some
>of her work has been nominated for Hugo and Nebula awards, and a couple
>she has won. Even those stories and novels that weren't so honored have
>been well-praised by the reviewers and critics.
>
>(3) *I* will hold her up as an example of a fine sf writer --- DREAMSNAKE
>alone (at the very least, the first section, which was published earlier
>as "Of Mist, and Grass, and Sand") makes her such, in my eyes.
>

You can see my notes on "The Entropy Effect" in a previous posting
in net.flame.
-- 
					--rick heli
					(... ucbvax!ucdavis!groucho!ccrrick)