Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decwrl!chabot@miles.DEC (All God's chillun got guns)
From: chabot@miles.DEC (All God's chillun got guns)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Star Trek novels
Message-ID: <227@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 29-Aug-85 17:39:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.227
Posted: Thu Aug 29 17:39:33 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Aug-85 06:56:21 EDT
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 115

>>> You misconstrue the issue.  
>>
>>No, you let yourself wide-open for this one
>>> > I have been told by a fairly knowledgable source that anyone who
>>> > writes Star Trek novels has basically sold out and probably can't
>>this is kind of nasty------------------------^                    ^
>>this implies that Paramount won't let them------------------------^
>>   or that they're incapable of it
> 
>If it implied that Paramount won't let them, there would be no qualifier
>like "probably."  Either Paramount does or does not.  Why don't you
>stick to reading what it says, not what you want it to say?
>> > sell non-Star Trek material.  Apparently Paramount holds all the
>> > rights to Star Trek stories and pretty much has such writers at
>> > their mercy.
>this ------^
>  sounds like the "slavery" clause we thought you were claiming--why else
>  "mercy": hacks can always find work
>
> 
>"at their mercy" as in authors have no bargaining power as Paramount
>holds all the rights.  Of course, you went right ahead and compounded
>your earlier error.

What about your error, Rick?  You're the one who proposed some ludicrous
nonsense about these writers.  You're the jerk who can't even be bothered
to walk into a bookstore to verify your bizarre hypotheses.
 
>>> 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.  So who does?  Simply those who can't write anywhere
>>> else...  in general, anyway...  if not in every particular...
>>>  
>>> 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...
>>
>>Look, just don't get nasty.  Vonda McIntyre has sold a lot more fiction that you
>>have, unless you're publishing under a pseudonym, and you originally said
>"...probably can't sell non-Star Trek material."  You've been given other 
>>examples of authors who've published non-ST material: John M. Ford, Diane 
>>Duane, A C Crispin, Greg Bear, Barbara Hambly (and she even has non-science-
>>fiction-fantasy stuff published, and fantasy, and I think even non-fiction), 
>>Lawrence Yep.  Now, that's 7 authors: how about you, or your knowledgeable
>>source, come up with a list of those who aren't published elsewhere.
> 
>Who's getting nasty?  I'm simply repeating a statement made to me
>and checking it out.  My, aren't you the sensitive one.  Is Vonda
>McIntyre your grandmother or what?  And where do you get off defending
>her when you admit you haven't even read any of her ST schtuff?

When did I say I hadn't read any Vonda McIntyre?  Not up there, not to you,
and certainly not within the past 8 years to anyone.  I haven't read her
Star Trek stuff, but I have read other things.  No, I'm not related to *any*
Star Trek authors.
 
>Probably saying that these people couldn't get published was giving
>the wrong slant to it.  In an ideal world, they couldn't.  Sadly,
>in this day and age, you make a pittance on some ST novel and other
>publishers figure you must be good and start publishing.  Kind of
>reminds me of prime time TV.  You need to hunt pretty hard to find
>anything that rises above the dreck.

What is this?  You get a thrill from posting assinine comments.

Okay, I understand: you don't think you like Star Trek novels, so you decided
to post stuff to net.startrek guaranteed to annoy a lot of people.

Rick, listen: read Jerry Boyajian's article--he lists plenty of examples of
authors who published fiction well before they sold a Star Trek novel.  *Both*
of the authors of the two Star Trek novels I've read sold books before they
sold Star Trek novels (John M. Ford and Barbara Hambly).
 
>>If your issue was just to say nasty things about those who've published ST
>>novels, well, you've done that.  Congratulations.  We've given you 
>>counter-examples: what do you say to that?  Perhaps they're not to your taste.
>>Oh, well.  What *do* you like and KNOW about ST: let's talk about that instead.
>>
> 
>Not for the sake of being nasty.  Just letting a little light shine.
>If the net votes for (and thereby recommends) a book that I think
>is lousy, I'm going to let someone know.  The same goes for the idea
>of the ST novels in a larger sense.
> 

You did nothing of the sort--you said nothing about a specific book you didn't
like, you just dumped on ALL Star Trek novels, *without*even*saying*you'd*read*
one*you*didn't*like*.

>It appears to me, sad but true, that there are lots of good ST fans
>out there willing to put up this inferior stuff that you are defending
>so vigorously.

I said I'd read two good ones, I said there were some good ones, but at no time
did I say ALL of them were good.  There's a couple I've glimpsed at that I
wouldn't want to be caught with them in my hands.  This doesn't mean that 
they're all that quality.

What the problem is that you said that Star Trek authors "probably can't"
get published elsewhere, and several of us listed cases indicating that
Star Trek authors probably can get published.  Now, of course, you can't back
down, because, after all, you got pretty seriously flamed; so then you explain 
that the stuff they publish is bad, to which several responded listing things
that they thought were good.  "Willing to put up with this inferior stuff"--
Rick, some people like that stuff, they don't just put up with it.  If you
think the Star Trek novel you read is bad, then go ahead and post a review and
explain why it's bad--don't say all Star Trek novels are bad because it's not
true.

What is this: you've read a Clarion anthology or so and now you think you're
knowledgeable about just how it's all pap.  Whatsa matter: Clarion turn you
down?!

L S Chabot   ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot