I'm about to start reading this trilogy, and while I've had Book 2 for a few years, I've only recently acquired Books 1 & 3. The write-up on the book seems pretty interesting: the back story of Kai Winn during the Cardassian Occupation. Were any of the back ground details of Winn from this book used in the Terok Nor trilogy from a few years back, since, while Rebels does have framing sequences from the later parts of DS9, the two trilogies appear to tell stories from the same era? Here's the back cover copy from Memory Beta: When Captain Sisko leads the Defiant on a dangerous mission into the Gamma Quadrant to liberate a conquered world, the Bajoran government insists that Kai Winn, the Federation's longtime nemesis, assume complete control of the space station. Left behind by Sisko, Major Kira expects the worst from the Kai's new regime, but even she is caught by surprise when a fleet of alien warships attack Deep Space Nine!
Forgive me, but is it really worth starting three separate threads for a trilogy whose total word count is probably less than some of the single books that have come along in the years since? Is there any real reason to treat the volumes separately instead of as a unified whole?
Yet we have had individual polls for the likes of Destiny, Avatar and the like, why is this any different? Are you suggesting that all trilogies or duologues should just have the one poll thread for the three or two novels respectively?
Last I checked, the trilogy never received an omnibus release, so it is a 3-seperate-book trilogy. Anyway, I've read upto Chapter 3, and this book seems to have a lot of continuity errors. It's almost like it was written after "Fallen Heroes", rejected, re-written to fit in with a later Season, meanwhile "Vengeance" is written and works well with later continuity, and then "Rebels" was approved and published. The characterizations, while they are on with the characters, appear to be, for Kira and Sisko, Season 1 Kira and Sisko, not Season 4 Kira and Sisko. Not to mention, but for some reason Dafyd ab Hugh has an airlock on the Defiant's bridge---and it's on the bridge since everyone was on the bridge and heard Quark pounding on the airlock. Besides "Vegeance", I've also read "Balance Of Power", "The Final Fury" and "Fallen Heroes", and aside from FH (which was written prior to DS9 airing) I never found an Hugh was having as much trouble with continuity as he is in this book and only within the first 3 chapters. So hopefully the book gets better.
Yeah, but that's not really relevant to a discussion of it now, since what we discuss is story content. The question is, does Rebels constitute three distinct stories that have a reason to be discussed independently, or is it just one big story that's more conveniently discussed and rated as a whole? For what it's worth, your posts for Books 2 & 3 have gotten no replies, no votes, and far fewer views than this thread, which suggests it's redundant to have three separate threads.
No, I don't think it's redundant. Sure this is a 15 year old trilogy, but as we've seen with "Avatar" recently, a lot of people remember certain things, or a general idea of the story, but not really a whole lot about either book. Really, your arguments are pointless.
Are you seriously suggesting that in the future when there is a retro review for Destiny or, say the Fall, or another uber cross over event that because they're all one massive story line, they should be treated as one poll?
^ Defcon probably has better memories of this, but IIRC we discussed this in context of review threads for Avatar I & II once and the consensus was that it'd be better to have separate polls per book because you can always combine the data sets after the fact, but you can't split one apart. But this is another case where the forum and my table might have subtly different needs (a single thread might be more appropriate to frame a discussion and add perspective, say) and it's always been my opinion that the table shouldn't act as constraint on the forum (i.e. while it makes me happy the forum likes the table, we should be careful with "you can't do this because of the table" not getting out of hand because it stifles discourse).
^ My reasoning for separating multi-part books for the ranking was that they can vary in quality as well. For example I enjoyed Avatar II considerably more than Avatar I, although they told one big story. But even apart from the ranking in my opinion something that has been published as a separate book deserves its own thread. (BTW. these threads won't show up in the table, as the titles lack the trigger phrase "Review Thread"), right?)
Yep, that's right. (The reason is that I tried to make it so it runs without manual maintenance, so the crawler is strict to avoid collecting false positives. An interesting alternative to requiring a trigger phrase in the title would be using the forum's thread tagging system, which I didn't notice at the time.)
Is that something that can be implemented retroactively? To get back on topic: This trilogy are actually the only three DS9 books I haven't read (yet). Definitely plan to read them somewhere down the road as I'm one of the few who actually enjoyed all of ab Hugh other Star Trek books (and not only Fallen Heroes like most), it's just not a priority at the moment.
^ AFAIK any user can edit any thread's tags at any time. From a code POV it'd mean searching for threads by a tag, and checking that already-collected threads didn't lose the tag. It's a little more complicated than the title version (which doesn't use the forum search engine, which is a bit more complex to interact with programmatically).
I haven't seen that yet, but the Jadzia Dax in this story seems to be acting like the Jadzia Dax from "The Laertian Gamble". Also, in terms of the title for these threads, I wasn't able to put "Review Thread" on as it caused the title to go over the number of characters allowed in the thread title.
Yeah, I had to left out the author's for the DS9 ebook as well to fit in the Review Thread (I guess I could have fit in maybe one last name of them, but I thought either both or none). That's why I find the idea charming to use the tag system to flag review threads.
I'm up to Chapter 12, and I've found that since Chapter 8 the writing style of the book has taken a "left-hand" turn. Chapters 1-7 seemed to read as if the author of "The Laertian Gamble" had written them, while Dafyd ab Hugh took over from Chapter 8.
I just finished the book, and I have to wonder why the cover artist painted the front cover the way they did. Aside from a few scenes, at the beginning of the book, the main story was with the Defiant.
To bring up an old thread but what happened here is so sad. Like imagine if a Winn Adami novel had been written as a complement to the Terok Nor trilogy. A Burning Dreams for that character. Something that could help us understand how popular she was on Bajor, help us love this person it's always been so easy to hate from our vantage point . . . and also that can retcon her Season 7 transition from a credible threat to and foil for Sisko and Kira to a fatuous, credulous, afterthought of a villain. Imagine a book that could have done her justice. And instead we got this thing.