• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

I recommend Star Trek: Vanguard

TAS is, according to both Roddenberry (before he died) and Paramount, not canon.

I didn't say TAS was canon. Neither are the Trek novels. The only thing in Trek considered canon are the shows (not the rpgs either, which is too bad).

What I agreed to was that the ship is cannon because it now shows up in Charlie X.
 
Open Secrets

FYI,

Star Trek Vanguard: Open Secrets by Dayton Ward is out. For those following this superb series.

n283022.jpg


@ Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Van...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241400315&sr=1-1
 
I read all of the Bantam Novels, and liked about 2/5s of them. I tried reading the novelizations of the animated series, but couldn't get past the imagery of Toon-Trek. I read one or two of the novelizations of the 1960's show, but found Blish's artistic license to be "idealized" endings. Example; his Doomsday episode has Decker living, or so I recall. I then read some of the Del Rey "Timscape" novels, but wasn't too impressed with them either. I think I got to the third ... maybe fifth book in the series, before I put them down, then picked up others and read them sporadically.

I briefly read some passages of one of the novelizations that came out when TNG and DS9 were all the rage. Although the prose read well, I felt the whole franchise had been so bastardized by then that I simply couldn't take in anymore Trek.

An "acquaintance" of mine loaned me some of his Vanguard/other-original-era/series Trek books, but again, it's all tailored by marketing data, and not stories that authors conjured because they thoght they were important. But stories manufactured by higher ups based on what marketing data tells them readers want. To me it's pretty obvious when you read one of those.

I might give one a chance, but probably not for a while.
 
Last edited:
An "acquaintance" of mine loaned me some of his Vanguard/other-original-era/series Trek books, but again, it's all tailored by marketing data, and not stories that authors conjured because they thoght they were important. But stories manufactured by higher ups based on what marketing data tells them readers want. To me it's pretty obvious when you read one of those.

I might give one a chance, but probably not for a while.

Mood counts for a lot. I wouldn't recommend you try Vangaurd if you're in the mood to read Conan or Bond or the latest John Grisham novel.

But, for those in the mood for some good, old school Trek (with a bit more bite than the original series), then Vangaurd is a damn good series.
 
Mood counts for a lot. I wouldn't recommend you try Vangaurd if you're in the mood to read Conan or Bond or the latest John Grisham novel.

But, for those in the mood for some good, old school Trek (with a bit more bite than the original series), then Vangaurd is a damn good series.

Funny you should mention Conan, because I did read the first volume by Robert Howard; unabridged in the order of publication. I personally think Conan is a criminal, and am not a fan of the character.

Old school Trek, to me, is about right and wrong melded with character and principle. This is not what any of the new wave of Trek books, regardless of era, are all about.
 
Funny you should mention Conan, because I did read the first volume by Robert Howard; unabridged in the order of publication. I personally think Conan is a criminal, and am not a fan of the character.

Old school Trek, to me, is about right and wrong melded with character and principle. This is not what any of the new wave of Trek books, regardless of era, are all about.

It's not just Trek; much of the 60's & 70's TV can bee seen as a series of morality plays: Trek, Bonanza, every cop show of the era, even up to Buck Rogers and (original) Battlestar Galactica.

The 80's, 90's and 2000's have been marked by a consistent move away from morality plays. (Going into all of the reasons why violates board rules. It's not just the end of the TV censors.)

The 1920's to 1940's saw a similar trend in literature, followed by a societal backlash against such in the late 40's and the 50's, and then a counter-revolution in the 60's and early 70's.

It's cyclical. I'll be happy when the current trend towards shades of gray and moral relativism fades. I miss my morality plays.
 
"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore!"

It's not just Trek; much of the 60's & 70's TV can bee seen as a series of morality plays: Trek, Bonanza, every cop show of the era, even up to Buck Rogers and (original) Battlestar Galactica.

The 80's, 90's and 2000's have been marked by a consistent move away from morality plays. (Going into all of the reasons why violates board rules. It's not just the end of the TV censors.)

The 1920's to 1940's saw a similar trend in literature, followed by a societal backlash against such in the late 40's and the 50's, and then a counter-revolution in the 60's and early 70's.

It's cyclical. I'll be happy when the current trend towards shades of gray and moral relativism fades. I miss my morality plays.

Which is what my stuff is all about.

Which is why I truly dislike Star Trek in all its recent forms, even claims to harken back to "classic Trek": Reason; because in Classic Trek, the characters wouldn't squabble over whose psychological genitalia is larger than the other guy's (sentient, sophont ... whatever Trek-geek-speak term you want to use).

When I cracked open one of the new market-driven "let's turn back the clock to classic trek" books, and I think it may have been a Vanguard book, I was pretty repelled by, again, market tailored "literature". The prose reads well, in fact far superior to what I could write in terms of combining words, but the story is vapid to the core.

One of the great stunts that Roddenberry pulled off was to take some real world issues and draw parallels to men's personal lives. The closest New Era Trek ever got to that was ... (kicking the rust off my gray-matter) ... an episode about "warp pollution", but even that was ostensibly ham-fisted.

I think we're living in a great era of sociopathic moral/market corruption, and all the market tweaked drama you see on TV, in the movies, read in books, all falls into that zeitgeist.
 
Last edited:
It's not just Trek; much of the 60's & 70's TV can bee seen as a series of morality plays: Trek, Bonanza, every cop show of the era, even up to Buck Rogers and (original) Battlestar Galactica.

The 80's, 90's and 2000's have been marked by a consistent move away from morality plays. (Going into all of the reasons why violates board rules. It's not just the end of the TV censors.)

The 1920's to 1940's saw a similar trend in literature, followed by a societal backlash against such in the late 40's and the 50's, and then a counter-revolution in the 60's and early 70's.

It's cyclical. I'll be happy when the current trend towards shades of gray and moral relativism fades. I miss my morality plays.

[RANT MODE ON]
Just to make myself feel better, and hammer home a point, because I think your's is worth reiterating, we're seeing stuff on television today that would NEVER have been considered for production, much less a concept, being aired and posted on Youtube. I'm not talking about so-called "adult" entertainment, but stuff that's pure ⌧ographic-sensationalism minus the sex. Heck, if it had sex in it that might make it interesting.

The net, ideally, as envisioned by those designing it in the 20s and 30s, was meant to be a commercial endeavor to be sure, but also meant to be a conduit of information. Which it is. Regrettably those who have the most free time, punks, now dictate that which gets translated into entertainment.

Think about all the raunchy jokes and ideas you and your friends had when you were school boys. That sensibility used to be truncated about mid high-school, because you were expected to grow up. Now it's considered to be mainstream and "cool" to have degraded tastes and moral relativism.

Call me a prude, old fashioned, an idiot, moron, "paranoid", whatever, but I quit reading mainstream books and watching mainstream TV in the early 90s because of the shift in market focus. Blue humor's always been around, even on broadcast, but even the blue-humor of pre 90s television was in far better taste than today's. Not to sound too glib, but the adult humor was, well, more adult.

Today the entire focus of the internet, to me at least, seems to be what we in middle school called a giant "slam book". Broadcast news is sensationalized, online news, to me at least, reads very simply and doesn't give any kind of in depth analysis. That, and the headline news is usually tabloid news.

Again, the sense of right and wrong is completely lost. I don't think society is going to crumble. Au contraire, it'll flourish as always, but will be all but unbearable for those of us with a sense of purpose.

So it is that I end this rant.

*steps off soapbox, calls for the crier to summon Doctor Franklin from Liberty Hall*.
[RANT MODE OFF]

p.s. truth of the matter is that mainstream entertainment is now on a pay-per-view basis, so us poor folks get stuck with ghetto-television.
 
Where is the "Like" button on this thing?

Recently the missus and I started watching the old Dick Van Dyke show with the kids, and I am surprised at how refreshing it is. A civilized show, for a more civilized age.
 
What surprises me is how sophisticated even the "trash" shows of the past look compared to current content.

I know it's not just me, and not just because my own kids agree with me. When friends of theirs raised in more conventional households come over, watch Beverley Hillbillies with us, then go on for half an hour about the plot twists and interesting ideas raised in the show compared to the predictability of present shows, it begins to seem to mean something.

Back to my plate of mashed potatoes, now...
 
It's not just Trek; much of the 60's & 70's TV can bee seen as a series of morality plays: Trek, Bonanza, every cop show of the era, even up to Buck Rogers and (original) Battlestar Galactica.

The 80's, 90's and 2000's have been marked by a consistent move away from morality plays. (Going into all of the reasons why violates board rules. It's not just the end of the TV censors.)

The 1920's to 1940's saw a similar trend in literature, followed by a societal backlash against such in the late 40's and the 50's, and then a counter-revolution in the 60's and early 70's.

It's cyclical. I'll be happy when the current trend towards shades of gray and moral relativism fades. I miss my morality plays.

Though if you don't see what you want, then write it. How open do you think MWM would be to licensing Traveller for television? It would make a great 3D program, the back story is already well developed and the new networks are putting out calls for new material. I have a contact there with one of the networks, though something has to be presentable first. Everyone bemoans commercialism, but we are a market driven society, hollywood is just a part of that, think of the movie "Local Hero". Selling Traveller is also making Traveller live.
 
I don't bemoan commercialism. I bemoan predatory marketing with mercenary attitude. More later... lunch break is over.

*EDIT* Didn't one of the Imperium game people make the same claim and try to sell a Traveller movie and/or TV series?

Truth be told I'm wondering if morality plays are marketable. My most vivid magazine reading experiences was some ten to fifteen years ago about Ultima Online, and the quest to kill Lord British. Apparently the Ultima online developers tried to put in some incentives and safeguards against improper or "non-heroic" conduct in their game world, but the whole thing didn't take. What they discovered was that people in the online world really didn't care about right or wrong. Makes sense, because it is after all a game environment. But I'm wondering if that doesn't translate to TV and movies. I like to think not, but I wonder.

Truth is, I don't care, because I know what I like, and moral issues are important to me on all scales. "Dancing with the Stars", "The Biggest Loser", "America's Got Talent" or "Survivor" or "Big Brother" (is that even still on), none of this BS programming is worth the digital storage space it's on, but people love it. Voting someone off an island in a mock simulation because you don't like them as entertainment? Wow. Certainly not of any moral caliber.

Turning back the clock, you can say what you wants about the Hay's office (of which there is ample material) when it was enforcing its code back in the 50s, but man, these days, what's next in terms of lowering the bar for entertainment? Rhetorical question, because we have Youtube to cater to those people.

Anyway, enough ramblings here.
 
Last edited:
When friends of theirs raised in more conventional households come over, watch Beverley Hillbillies with us, then go on for half an hour about the plot twists and interesting ideas raised in the show compared to the predictability of present shows, it begins to seem to mean something.

I get your point, but... Beverley Hillbillies?

:eek:o:
 
...these days, what's next in terms of lowering the bar for entertainment? Rhetorical question, because we have Youtube to cater to those people.
Some years ago the producers of the Danish version of "Survivor" made a game show based on the choosing of that year's contestants. I thought to myself that that was the absolute nadir possible in inane entertainment[*], until half a year later they proved me wrong by broadcasting "The making of the game show to choose Survivor contestants"!!!

[*] No, I didn't actually watch it. For all I know it was a masterly tour de force.

But I doubt it.​


Hans
 
Back
Top