The guy didn't write all that much for print (or that was published), from what I can tell.
But I am really enjoying at the moment the novelization of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, purportedly by Gene Roddenberry.
I hate to question the intellectual property of so great a man (in my worldview), but I have become fairly skeptical of "ghost writers"
I need to do some research into the matter, as I am doing while I am blogging today, but whatever the matter, the matter stands that Gene Roddenberry had quite a hand in this book and film and I can feel fairly confident it is truthful to how Roddenberry viewed things.
This novelization is a few decades old, and as such doesn't "jive" well with the current Trek universe, the one I've come to know. Such disparity strikes me as jarringly as if the author wrote in different laws of physics than I know are accepted.
Actually, it's a bit refreshing. But, moreover, I have been made to see, thru this book and others, especialls Echos and Refractions, that Captain Kirk as a character has been handled quite inconsistently. Remember Kirk's son, David? I (like many fans I imagine) had let that memory slip to the back of my mind, and didn't consider Kirk's lingering pain over the loss. Or was there lingering pain? It wasn't discussed. And the novelization talks about Kirk as a lover of books, a visitor of historical sites, someone who enjoys research in a museum for pleasure. That's not the Kirk that's been shown to me, that I can recall. I mean, there are glimpses and suggestions, but few things that bring that to the fore, except that Kirk always seemed quite well-read and wise as far as strategic decisions go.
Well, then again, this is all all all fiction and entertainment and storytelling by many different people. So, it hardly matters to much, except insofar as my own entertainment goes. It DOES matter to me, but not in a universal way that really matters, if that makes any sense.
Memphis in the Meantime
21 hours ago