My biggest problem with the book, as mentioned above, is how clichéd Valeris's motivation is - it relies on not one but two over-used concepts within fiction - that of
. It's all makes perfect sense but it's been used so many times in the past, it's just retreading old ground. I can understand why those choices were made as it allows the character to move towards some form of redemption but truthfully it would have been fresher if the writer had moved the character in a different direction where she didn't give a shit about redemption.
I am not sure I would go so far as to say she cared super-deeply about redemption; IMO:
However, I have my own thoughts about how this matter, and I do plan to write about them, to an extent, in my review at TrekMovie.
I enjoyed the book, given the look into the long lost-era between the TOS era and the TNG era... but the more I think about it, the more critical my thinking gets, especially over the closing 100 or so pages.
Look forward to reading the review. The more I think about it, another problem I have with the book (and this is my own bias not necessary a problem for other readers) is that in their current form, Klingons are pretty much played out and that adds to the rather generic feel of the book. It will be interesting to see if the movies takes them in a different cultural direction than we have seen over the last 25 years.