TOS: Allegiance in Exile by DRGIII Review Thread (Spoilers!)

[Mage]

Haven't finished it yet, but I can say it doesn't move me as other DRGIII novels. It certainly isn't bad or anything, but the story itself and the characters just don't do it for me that much.
That said (and as I stated in this topic already) the 5YM is not my favorite period, and the TOS characters don't really do it for me all that much in general. However, David's writing is solid and consistent, and on par with his other work sofar. That is what is keeping me into this novel really. I'll probably finish it tonight or tomorrow, and post my final findings then.

[Patrick O'Brien]

^Agreed, David's writing style is very readable.

[Kertrats47]

Enjoyed this one, but what did I expect with David R. George III penning it? Very readable, as Patrick and Mage have said. Here's my review. Spoilers, especially if you can easily recognize planets by their matte paintings...

[Jarvisimo]

Kertrats, your review has made me want to read this, far more than the certain planet spoilers:

Many people seem to fall into the trap of holding their heroes to too-high a standard, and are very critical when one of them stumbles. To me, however, these circumstances are realistic. Nobody is perfect, and even the characters we love and idolize will make mistakes. It's all a part of being human (or Vulcan, or Cardassian, or whatever).

Great!

[Kertrats47]

Jarvisimo wrote:

---

Kertrats, your review has made me want to read this, far more than the certain planet spoilers:

Great!

Thanks for the kind words! I'm glad it made you want to read it. It's definitely worth it.

[Mage]

Having finished it, I can say I really liked it. Still not a TOS/5YM lover after reading this though.

In any case, the biggest thing about this book is what I realized after having finished it. It's NOT a whodunnit novel, as in, someone mysterious is destroying unknown colonies, we need to find out who!! It's a novel about characters, about people. I was quite amazed at the end how much I cared about the Sulu storyline, how I was intrigued about this side of Kirk we haven't seen much off.

David's style of writing was what kept me in the novel the most though. In one chapter, there is some dialogue between Kirk and McCoy, but we follow it from Sulu's POV, which was very interesting.

All in all, I will say that this is not David's best novel, for me personally. But having said that, I would recommend this novel to anyone looking for something that's not galaxy-changing, not about the big events that change the fate of the universe. This is a novel for people who want to read how the effects of seemingly small events can change people, have a lasting effect on them, and make them look at things in a new way. I liked it. I really, really did.

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Not far enough along to actually put a rating to it, but I do have a couple of observations:

First,

I don't get why it was necessary for the new A&A officer to spend a dozen pages recognizing that a stone blade with no apparent handle, never found with any evidence of its being attached to a shaft, with a spiked butt, was designed to be used as a sort of caltrop. I figured it out within the first page or two. Was DRG trying to tell us that the whole A&A staff was a bunch of idiots?

Second, what's with all the info-dumps, telling us about characters that are already familiar to anybody who'd buy the book in the first place? They read like some of the passages in Mission to Horatius.

That doesn't mean I'm not going to keep reading. Even if I hadn't seen the first ("unexpected continuity") spoiler in this thread, I'd still have plenty of reason to do so. And I'm hoping I'll soon find out why the new A&A officer

. . . likes the idea that being transported turns one into an entirely new person.

But then again, I also managed to plow through Paul Gillebaard's Moon Hoax, hoping that the author would eventually reveal some plausible motive for why the Chinese would go to the enormous expense and risk of a covert far-side moon landing, and the installation of an automated weaponized industrial laser programmed to shoot down anything entering lunar orbit, just to discredit the United States. (He didn't. And along the way, he managed to produce an absolutely stunning example of how not to write and market a novel.)

[Kertrats47]

I think that David R. George's strength really lies in his deep exploration of character. I don't want to necessarily box various authors into their own "niches," but if Christopher is great with the science stuff and David Mack is great with the galaxy-changing "epic" stuff, then DRG is definitely good at taking the characters to places they wouldn't normally go, basically putting them through hell and seeing how they respond. Sisko in his Typhon Pact novels, the "big three" in the Crucible trilogy, and now Sulu (and to an extent, Kirk) in Allegiance. I love his treatment of the characters. We get some great examples of true drama! Love it.

[Turtletrekker]

That was fun. Of course, any Star Trek by DRG3 always is.

The inclusion of the two spoiler species gives me renewed hope of finally seeing certain story-lines in other parts of the lit-line resolved.

As far as their importance to the story goes, the species in question are minor players in the grand scheme. In the end, it really could've been any generic "Species A" chasing "Species B" and the story wouldn't have been that different (Heh. "Species A" and "Species B" actually work in this case).

[Patrick O'Brien]

Enjoyed the book. Another solid story by DRGIII

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Enjoyed how the first part ended, with Kirk clearly wishing there had been an alternative to his act of vandalism, and McCoy wishing he hadn't pressed him on it, and Kirk and Wesley getting together for drinks.

Still, I see a lot of flaws.

[bfollowell]

OK, I guess I'm quibbling, and I certainly don't want to say anything that seems even remotely negative about Mr. George's wonderful writing as I've loved all of his ST novels to date. But...

...I just have one discontinuity/error. OK, when the research crews were down on Ağdam, one pilot or security officer stayed with each shuttlecraft and they were all killed during the missile attacks. At several points, the four are mentioned.

In chapter 4:
"at least four of our people are unaccounted for."
and
"and now four missing down on the planet."

In chapter 5:
"When the landing parties had returned to the ship, the captain had learned that four of the crew had been killed, each of them dying as the result of a missile strike on an Enterprise shuttlecraft."

Then, also in chapter 5 we see:
"But Kirk also wanted more than that. Seven of my crew were killed, he thought angrily. He did not wish to let that harsh fact stand without explanation."
and
"Kirk didn’t know, but he resolved to find out as much as he could about what had resulted in the loss of the city—and in the loss of seven of his crew."

OK, which is it; four or seven? I'm not too much further than chapter 5 and I keep wondering if we're going to find out who the other three dead crewmen are. Can I assume this is a mistake and let it go or will I find out later who the other three dead are?

Other than stressing over this silly little point, I'm thoroughly enjoying Mr. George's latest addition to TrekLit.

Thanks,
- Byron

[Ood Sigma]

^ IIRC, there were 3 killed on the ship, which, in addition to the 4 on the planet, made seven total dead.

[Defcon]

Yeah, the other three died on the ship

[bfollowell]

Defcon wrote:

---

Yeah, the other three died on the ship

Thanks for the replies Ood Sigma & Defcon. That clears it up. Yes, I definitely forgot about the three crewmen on the ship. I just kept focusing on the crewmen that died planet-side, I guess because I think they were only mentioned that one time, but it seemed like they went out of the way to mention the four numerous times.

Thanks for helping me clear that up.

- Byron