But Carey doesn't ground her nautical references in the Star Trek universe she just treats star ships as if they are sailing ship's. When you read her stuff it's hard to tell she's writing about the future especially as she's so keen to write about all male crews even though with Ship Of The Line for example that goes against what we saw on screen. Of course Ship Of The Line may well be the worst book ever written.
Trek Books that are just horrible -- new and old
- Thread starter Nathan
- Start date
I might be misremembering, but I thought "Best Destiny" got some great reviews.
I always thought Diane Carey was held in high esteem among Trek fans, but the last few months being a member here has taught me otherwise.
Or maybe Carey's books were highly thought of at the time and just didn't age well?
I always thought Diane Carey was held in high esteem among Trek fans, but the last few months being a member here has taught me otherwise.
Or maybe Carey's books were highly thought of at the time and just didn't age well?
I really liked Vonda McIntyre's novels, and TWOK was very enjoyable since it expanded on the characters of Saavik and David.
No, they were always crap from the get-go. I hated every one of them I read, for various reasons, but mostly because of the incessant sailing references and her inability to get the characters right. She might be competent in some other genre, but Star Trek isn't it.
I've no idea. But I don't care about reviews. I make up my own mind whether or not I like a book.
I think you're misrepresenting a specific case as a general one. After all, Carey's first two novels were written from the first-person perspective of a female lieutenant, and the core foursome that lieutenant was part of included two men and two women. She also wrote Fire Ship, a first-person novel from Kathryn Janeway's POV. And my favorite one of Carey's novelizations, Voyager: Flashback, fleshes out the episode by adding a major Kes subplot and giving Janeway a more crucial and active role in the climax than the episode did. Clearly she's not averse to writing female characters. Ship of the Line was an odd case, but its oddities shouldn't be assumed to be universal to Carey's work.
I read Carey's Final Frontier back when it was released in 1988 and I remember really liking it. However I was 16 at the time and that was 26 years ago... In the years since, I've tried several of her other novels but never could get into any of them.
The same goes for Vonda McIntyre. I really enjoyed her adaptations of II-IV, but that was mostly for all of the added plot that she added. I tried her novel Enterprise and could never get into that. But again, I was 15 at the time and my literary tastes are completely different now at age 42. I would probably have a different view today if I retried any of those novels.
The same goes for Vonda McIntyre. I really enjoyed her adaptations of II-IV, but that was mostly for all of the added plot that she added. I tried her novel Enterprise and could never get into that. But again, I was 15 at the time and my literary tastes are completely different now at age 42. I would probably have a different view today if I retried any of those novels.
A few years ago I read Carey's Dreadnought! and enjoyed it - characters, plot, and the cool new starship, of course.
However, Red Sector felt like it was taking ages to read, although the characters were likable, again.
Currently in the middle of Fire Ship. Very nautical.
However, Red Sector felt like it was taking ages to read, although the characters were likable, again.
Currently in the middle of Fire Ship. Very nautical.
In the same vein of out-of-character characters, although in no way engendering the same level of dislike, I always found L.A. Graf's (and Julia Ecklar's in Kobayashi Maru) take on Chekov to be a little unrecognisable.
The cheeky chappie Monkee/Beatle proxy suddenly became this morose, depressed, borderline suicidal Russian (as if those character traits are part of the Russian cultural DNA). Fortunately it was just an oddity, even explained in one novel when novels were standalone and not interconnected, which didn't diminish the stories in any significant way.
I just found it odd.
The cheeky chappie Monkee/Beatle proxy suddenly became this morose, depressed, borderline suicidal Russian (as if those character traits are part of the Russian cultural DNA). Fortunately it was just an oddity, even explained in one novel when novels were standalone and not interconnected, which didn't diminish the stories in any significant way.
I just found it odd.
Though in Dreadnought I couldn't help but think when Piper goes to rescue Kirk and co. And instead find they escaped on their own, that if she hadn't stopped to go on abou her Academy paper no one really cares about she might not have missed them escaping and got left on Vice Admiral nutbag's ship.
Also wasn't a fan of the whole captains have to be humans thing.
So like Wrath of Khan.
I'm Canadian and don't really understand what is meant by "libertarianism." I know there are wild swings in the politics of Heinlein's novels, but I'm curious: Which of Anderson's books are libertarian in tone? I'm most familiar with his Time Patrol stories and some standalone novels. I have some of the Flandry books but haven't read them yet.Christopher said:
Some authors interpret Chekov as young and irresponsible, and others interpret him as young in body and curmudgeonly and morose in spirit. Certainly we see that he's changed when you consider how he was in the TOS episodes (young and sometimes a bit shallow or irresponsible if a pretty girl is involved) to the older, more experienced career-oriented officer in the movies.
I enjoy Julia Ecklar's fiction, but I think she's a far better filker than author.
No no, Wrath of Khan is treating starships like they're submarines. Big difference.
(
)
No, "Balance of Terror" treats ships like submarines. TWOK treats them like Hornblower-era sailing ships firing broadsides at each other from their cannons.
Say what now? I haven't read Carey's early Trek novels, so could you give us a bit more detail on this?
I vaguely remember it as Piper thinks letting her Vulcan friend be in command instead of her (apparently she was the senior command division officer on the tittles Dreadnaught)would be a good idea since he's logical and someone (Kirk over the comm I think) gave some explanation about how humans were the most capable of commanding starships to shoot the idea down.
I personally though it was a load of crap.
I still think Carey's novelization of "Broken Bow" was a lot better than the cheap, sleazy piece of garbage that aired as the pilot episode. (I read the novelization before even seeing the TV version, and Carey had set my expectations high---unfortunately Berman and company aired something that wasn't able to get any lift, and just blew-up on crash landing.)
And with "Flashback", again I read the novel before seeing the episode, so I was expecting a 3-part trilogy on TV (as the book was divided into Parts 1, 2 & 3), not a single episode.
Yeah, that sounds pretty dumb.
Doctorwhovian
Fleet Captain
I think it's possible elements of Dreadnought! might have inspired Star Trek Into Darkness. The rogue Admiral with a powerful new ship (with the same class name) to take on the Klingons element of it at least. Orci and Kurtzman have stated they've read at least some of the novels.
Then again, rogue Starfleet captains and admirals are sort of a cliche in Trek dating back to TOS.
Then again, rogue Starfleet captains and admirals are sort of a cliche in Trek dating back to TOS.
I wouldn't say I hated that book, but I certainly found it disappointing after reading Mike W. Barr's version of Kirk's first mission on the Enterprise in DC Comics' first Star Trek Annual.
Similar threads
