It's insightful stuff, and I was pleased to see the author writing some direct academic analysis of tie-in fiction and its place in the franchise.
I always find with these kind of analytical works there's some content I concur with and other elements I don't. But those nitpicks aside, the book makes for some interesting reading.

What is "late" Star Trek? A rather unfortunate label for an epoch in the Star Trek saga at a meta level.

Kotsko is a superfan and an active member of not only the academic community but also various Star Trek fandoms, online and off. As a Trekkie myself, I was impressed by the sheer breadth of knowledge the author draws on here. Going over the series requires knowing the series at all levels: the shows and movies and how they were made and by who; the fandom; the expanded universe; the world-building and characters; the timeline, in and outside of the diegesis. The only thing missing here is the video game representation, I think.

What escaped me was the motivation for this work. Star Trek has waxed and waned since its inception, and the recent past is no exception. I did learn a bit more about why this was the case and how the latest resurgence has continued to have its ups and downs, somewhat. We don't really get direct access to the creators' perspectives ... just Kotsko's best reading of the situation. I will say that I experienced several waves of nostalgia and a keen desire to subscribe to watch the latest series on Apple+, heh.

On the writing, it was largely excellent but I was put off by the endless sentences and paragraphs. Find a period, already!

This is absolutely brilliant.

For context of my review here: I was a huge Trek fan in the 90s, but fell off after Voyager, as the franchise moved to events and settings and themes that didn't appeal to me. So when I saw that Kotsko had written a nearly 300-page analytical essay of all the seasons I HAVEN'T seen, I thought it was a great opportunity to familiarize myself beyond the general fan discussion that kept crossing my path.

What Kotsko has done here is not just an incredibly thorough summary and deep-dive of each individual franchise piece (movies, novels, comics, new shows, cartoons, etc), and calling out what each does well and what each does badly, he goes into depth about WHY each franchise seemed to make the choices they did, drawing on their various in-series references as well as out-of-series interviews, discussions, etc. You will walk away from this with a general sense of what the series did, what they were TRYING to do, and Kotsko's opinions on their successes or failures, all stated in a way that leaves room to agree or disagree with him as you like on the elements of success or failure.

On top of that, he manages to keep his tone both academic and engaging. Despite being a full length novel-sized essay, I found it incredibly easy to read and actually difficult to put down; each summary made me want to see his thoughts on what he was describing, and once we got through that I was interested to see what connection he'd make next, moving me cyclically through 25 years of Star Trek without feeling the need to stop reading at any point.

The only part of it I had any quibble with at all is at the end where he suggested that Trek might benefit from a more Columbo-like existence (or biblical, or mythological) where each episode didn't have to square away with the entirety of the rest of Trek canon but simply exist with the characters reoccurring to do things unrelated to a greater sense of canonicity. While he's of course right it's a valid form of storytelling, I think personally (as a writer and as a narrative designer) that ship has sailed away at warp drive for Trek--and maybe the difference in opinion we have here is because he's viewing the choice to make these connections as fan service, which I disagree. I think throwing in references CAN be fan service, as can making connections that don't need to be made. But unlike these other stories mentioned, Trek has always leaned on character relationships and character growth. The praise Kotsko had for the TNG finale wouldn't exist without the emotional throughline of Picard's growing and changing relationship with himself and his crew. But to have character growth, you actually have to have a narrative connective tissue that results in characters changing based on events, which requires a consistent understanding of the events in context to each other. I think a Trek series that existed outside of the bounds of required canonicity could absolutely be created -- but it would have to be made so that it didn't include any reference to any previous events in any of the 70o+ hours of tv or hundreds of franchise fiction, and have no characters reoccur from it. The moment a character from Trek canon is mentioned, you then need to know which version of that character it is, ie, when in their narrative growth arc they come from and thus what events they relate to. I'd definitely love to see a completely isolated Trek story devoid of the "now watch x y and z to engage further with this", but I don't think we'll see a Trek that doesn't mention any of the major characters of the world, and at that point we are immediately engaging with that character's storyline and thus connective tissue, narratively speaking.

But that's an academic debate and not a quibble with the book's academic writing itself, and if anything, that big block of text up there is a sign of how much I loved this book and engaged with it.

5 stars, and thank you to the University of Minnesota Press and to NetGalley for an ARC in exchange for an honest review.

My thanks to NetGalley and University of Minnesota Press for an advance copy of this book that looks at the history of Star Trek in the 21st century, from television, to movies, to books and graphic novels, with commentary about what works, what didn't and what the fans felt about these continuing voyages.

When my parents moved my brother and I up to Connecticut from the Bronx, I assume there was a sacred pact that said that every weekend we would have to return to see our grandparents. I loved this as I got comics, grape soda from Pioneer, a local market, peanut butter cups and other treats. And also there was television. Not that we didn't have tv in Connecticut, but these shows meant more in the Bronx. Mission Impossible on channel five, and Star Trek on channel eleven. Followed by Dance Fever, just to age myself. Star Trek at the time was just Star Trek, not original series or anything. I loved the show. Had the toys based on the cartoon, which I missed during its first showing, but that didn't matter. I enjoyed the Next Generation series, and read the novelizations and Marvel comics that came out, and saw all the movies, to mixed feelings. Deep Space Nine was a my secret obsession, always two, sometimes one on my favorite Star Trek. Voyager never hit with me, neither did Enterprise. I followed the shows, but didn't watch them. The updated movies with a new universe taught me more about lens flare in movies, and how not to use it. The new shows from Discovery to the latest never seemed to interest me. I have learned that things are not for me, and can admit that. I'm not a fan service person, and won't hate things because they aren't what I remember as an eight year old watching television. After reading this book, however I feel I might have to start watching Trek again. For better or worse I am missing some fascinating television. Late Star Trek: The Final Frontier in the Franchise Era by writer and educator Adam Kotsko is a look at Star Trek in the 21st century, where intellectual properties are the new gold-pressed latinum, and are treated as such both by creators, the owners of the property and sometimes by the fans themselves.

The book begins with Kotsko discussing how he found himself rewatching Trek, liking what he saw in the classic works and finding new meaning in the show Enterprise, one that seemed to find its footing to late. Plagued by problems in writers, producers and used by Paramount to build a television channel, the show was almost there, when it was canceled, and its finale almost reducing the cast of the show to guest star status. Kotsko discusses the novelizations and graphic novels, stories that kept Trek alive and worked in many ways to fix the numerous mistakes made my writers and creators on the the shows, offering solutions that later shows borrowed. Trek returned to film in the 2009, and Kotsko explains the idea of time travel in the show, offering different storylines for creators to build on. Kotsko discuses the show, up to the Brave New World series, looking at th shows as a fan, as media observer, and as a writer, offering his own take, and the world of other educators, critics, and Internet posters.

A good overview of the Trek legacy, with a bit of gossip, a lot of theory, and breakdowns of strong and weak episodes. This is not an episode guide, there is no breakdown of every show, guest star and mistake like the old Nitpicker's Guide to Trek. This is a balanced view that looks at Trek, and includes a good view of the books, something that even when Trek wasn't that big to me, I still read for enjoyment. Kotsko has his opinions, and does mention a Reddit site quite a lot, but is a good writer and is quite engaging. Most of the problems in reading came from myself trying to puzzle out these shows, wondering how they were made and why they seemed so haphazard. Something Kotsko points out.

A book for fans, and for fans like myself who stepped off the bridge quite a while ago. I do have an interest now in watching some of these. And avoiding others. Though after reading this book, I think I will be giving my Paramount+ account a lot more viewings.

Adam Kotso's Late Star Trek is an interesting look at the current state of the franchise and while I disagree with many of his takes, he wrote a really fascinating one that was at the very least thought provoking and certainly worth any Trek fan taking a lot at.

Special Thanks to University Of Minnesota Press and Netgalley for the digital ARC. This was given to me for an honest review.

This book is a great read and a definite go-to for any new-to-the-canon star trek fan. I didn't get to finish the book before it expired, but I'll definitely be purchasing the title for my nerd shelf!

There is a saying in computing: Garbage In, Garbage out - meaning if you start with bad data you can’t trust the results. That makes sense, right? If your initial principles are wrong or flawed, how can we trust the results?

I really wanted to enjoy this work. I usually like nonfiction about topics I enjoy. But from the very beginning this author showed me he didn’t REALLY know what he was talking about. When he writes in his intro that “Star Trek virtually invented contemporary fan culture, including practices like conventions” he is ignoring the many years of science fiction conventions that predate Trek. Conventions have taken place since at least the 1930s! Worldcons have been held since 1939. So when a book begins which such an obvious falsity in such a basic fact, it is hard to imagine that the author will actually be able to draw any valid conclusions since his research rests on a flawed foundation.

He continues to make bizarre mistakes about basic things. At one point, the author mistakenly defines “retcon” as “retrospective continuity“, not “retroactive continuity.”

So while I very much enjoyed the author’s recapping of the streaming Trek era, and I agreed with all of his takes on Star Trek: Picard, this book really felt a lot like an irritating thread on Reddit (also this author mentions his participation in a particular Trek subreddit way too much!). Also, could the title have been more boring?

Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for an eARC in exchange for an honest review.