^^ I totally agree about numbering books!! It may help people collect sets, but equally it disuade readers from getting books in a long-numbered series?
But really, I do wish there was a lot less explaining of past events in Trek books in general! Perhaps it is a silly annoyance, especially as new readers do need some explanation - but there are some other long-form tie-in fiction series where explanation is kept to a minimum, if at all used. For example another series that James Swallow contributes to - Black Library's flagpole Horus Heresy
line (as well as several of their other lines) all seem to have minimal continuity explanation.
Of course this isn't always the case. I really loved The Crimson Shadow
. Didn't it have very few continuity explanations (or indeed any explanations) of past book events? I think one just was assumed to probably have read Revelation and Dust
, A Stitch in Time
and The Never-Ending Sacrifice
, as well as perhaps The Lotus Flower
. It certainly made a smooth text even smoother. Other authors do the same too, but sometimes there is a lot of historical dumping (for example so heavily, if perhaps understandably, in Revelation and Dust
Sorry for my complaint - it is perhaps unfair, but I sometimes wished the authors were released from obligations to explain
ANYWAY, I can't wait to read Peaceable Kingdoms