SPOILER ALERT -- Review Myriad Universes: Infinity's Prism

[DarthPipes]

Just finished reading Seeds of Dissent and I have to say that Myriad Universes batted three-for-three. Another excellent AU story and the society of genentic supermen was very well-done. Good job, Mr. Swallow.

I can't wait for the second book in this series.

 

[Reanok]

This is a great book I'm almost finished with Seeds of Dissent quite adark story with the Khanite group they're really nasty villians in this story.I like Rain Robinson and the other characters like Shannon 'O Donnel and Kira and Ezri . that Julian had doubts about their history and has questions about his orders.Looking forward to getting book 2 soon.Can't wait to read KRad's Ds9 Kira story and Therin's story.

 

[Sci]

Random question, re: A Less Perfect Union.

Sometimes the Coalition's formal name seemed to be "the Interstellar Coalition," and other times it seemed to be "the Interplanetary Coalition." Which one is the proper term for them?

 

[William Leisner]

Random question, re: A Less Perfect Union.

Sometimes the Coalition's formal name seemed to be "the Interstellar Coalition," and other times it seemed to be "the Interplanetary Coalition." Which one is the proper term for them?

It should be "Interstellar Coalition" throughout. Could you let me (and/or Marco) know which pages "Interplanetary Coalition" appears on?

 

[KRAD]

On the subject of alternative histories, someone recently recommended Stirling's Peshawar Lancers to me and I was thinking about picking it up...

FWIW, I can also strongly recommend Peshawar Lancers. Damn fine piece of alternate history. In fact, Steve hasn't hit a wrong note with any of his alt-histories, particularly the ones published by Roc.

 

[Sci]

Random question, re: A Less Perfect Union.

Sometimes the Coalition's formal name seemed to be "the Interstellar Coalition," and other times it seemed to be "the Interplanetary Coalition." Which one is the proper term for them?

It should be "Interstellar Coalition" throughout. Could you let me (and/or Marco) know which pages "Interplanetary Coalition" appears on?

I don't have my copy with me at the moment and won't have access to a computer again until tomorrow, but I'll be happy to PM you the pages that had me confused tomorrow.

 

[JD]

I'm just starting it, so if you want I can keep an eye out too.

 

[Gatekeeper]

In "Seeds of Dissent," I was left with the impression that someone had read S.M. Stirling's Drakaverse novels.

Never read them. Are they good? On the subject of alternative histories, someone recently recommended Stirling's Peshawar Lancers to me and I was thinking about picking it up...

To be honest, Stirling's Drakaverse novels are a real dark AH — very good, IMO, but dark. It essentially revolves around an AH where the United States is locked in a life-and-death struggle against an African-based slave power (the Draka) that's looking to remold the entire world in its image.

Regarding the Peshawar Lancers, I haven't read any of that material, but have heard it recommended by other Stirling readers.

Overall, Stirling's not bad. I'd recommend him based on the Drakaverse novels alone.

Gatekeeper

P.S. I also enjoy some of Harry Turtledove's AH works.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Wouldn't it be interesting to "watch" that process in action? (Of course, from what I understand, it cannot be observed without causing it to settle into one of its many states, correct?)

Well, the gist of Many Worlds (or technically, the Everett-Wheeler interpretation of quantum mechanics) is that the particle doesn't really settle into a single state at all; it exists in all states at once, but the universe reacts to each one separately. You, the observer, also exist in many states at once, but there's no interaction between the states, so each facet of you perceives itself as though it's in a universe where the particle "collapsed" into a single state. Harry explained how that works on pp. 310-311 of Places of Exile.

(And in the other interpretation Harry discussed, the one I favor in real life, the particle still exists in all states at once, but the many particles making up the brain or measuring device react individually to it by going into different compound states that average out to a single macroscopic state, so the brain/device, and by extension the universe, reacts to the particle as if it settled into a single state, even though it didn't.)

I know I've said it before, but I'll say it again: This is absolutely fascinating stuff. FWIW, it'd be great if the Many Worlds theory became fact ... but I'm sure that day, if it ever arrives, is far off. Quantum physics is one heckuva dizzying field to be involved in, IMO.

Is that related to the "braided-rope" method of timelines that I've read about from other sources (i.e. the timelines are like threads of rope, each individual, but if they're close enough in similarity, they form a "rope" of sorts)?

Not familiar with that. Though it does sound vaguely similar to the "sheaf" model I used to delineate the three main time tracks in the novel.[/QUOTE]

It's entirely possible the "braid" was method used to explain to me by someone else how the Many Worlds theory works.

And, just to keep this conversation somewhat on track (heh), let me just say that "Myriad Universes" is a great start to AH Star Trek. Heh. Some in the AH community would probably call it "alternative future history," or something like that ...

Gatekeeper

 

[Mistral]

Peshwar Lancers is excellent. The Draka books are so dark you need a flashlight to read them-and a strong stomach at times. There is a sequel to Lancers in a book ed by Turtledove-can't remember the title but its a good novella.

Regarding the Everett Many Worlds theory-anybody know that E from the Eels is Everett's father(was-he died.)?

 

[Idoliside]

Fantastic book. I unexpectantly loved Chris L Bennetts Voyager tale. I was never keen on Voyager stories but this one i found brilliant. The other two stories were brilliant aswell and can't wait to read the next set.
This is def the Golden Age of Trek Lit

 

[pookha]

^^You totally missed my point. It's a matter of degree. Look at what they said in the episode: "He was the best of the tyrants and the most dangerous." "There were no massacres under his rule... No wars until he was attacked." So yeah, obviously he wasn't a saint, obviously he was capable of ruthlessness, but the point is that we were explicitly told that there were limits to his brutality, limits that the main-universe Khan did not cross during his brief reign but that the victorious Khan in Seeds of Dissent did cross in subsequent years.

but then history epecially in period that went to dark afterward might have been seen though perception of the historians looking through conflicting or incomplete historical records. ie what scotty ect..might have studied might not have been the brutal truth.

actually one might wonder if john gill had written some of them.

 

[Christopher]

Well, I prefer to go with the evident intent of "Space Seed"'s writers, that Khan wasn't a cardboard villain but a complex, nuanced, even admirable antagonist. Because that's interesting. Certainly a whole lot more interesting than the scenery-chewing lunatic he was reduced to in TWOK, which totally squandered the real sequel potential of "Space Seed." I can see him losing his way and becoming more tyrannical after many years of absolute power, because that tends to happen, but I don't want to let go of the idea of Khan as a nuanced and complex antagonist rather than a simplistically evil figure.

 

[Sci]

Well, I prefer to go with the evident intent of "Space Seed"'s writers, that Khan wasn't a cardboard villain but a complex, nuanced, even admirable antagonist. Because that's interesting. Certainly a whole lot more interesting than the scenery-chewing lunatic he was reduced to in TWOK, which totally squandered the real sequel potential of "Space Seed." I can see him losing his way and becoming more tyrannical after many years of absolute power, because that tends to happen, but I don't want to let go of the idea of Khan as a nuanced and complex antagonist rather than a simplistically evil figure.

This may be my political bias showing through, but I always wonder how unreasonable it really is to characterize a dictator and a tyrant as simply evil and power-hungry -- whether you're talking about Adolf Hitler or whether you're talking about Huey Long or whether you're talking about Perves Mushariff or whether you're talking about Fransisco Franco.

 

[Christopher]

In some cases, it's not unreasonable. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin -- they were just crazy. But sometimes it's a lot more complicated. For instance, Mao Zedong started out as a populist leading his people against a brutal and corrupt dictatorship and imperialist Japanese invaders. The philosophy that guided him, his own revised, distinctly Chinese form of Marxism, was utopian, idealistic, based on great faith in the perfectability of human beings, and his writings at that early age had a lot of merit in them. He recognized, for instance, that building the utopia he envisioned would require generations of gradual work to peacefully persuade people to learn self-sufficiency and ethical treatment of others so that they wouldn't need a state to force order on them. But as Mao grew older, he lost sight of his earlier wisdom and restraint. Probably he became aware of his own mortality and so, in defiance of his earlier beliefs, he tried to force the creation of a communist utopia within his lifetime, the result of which was decades of misery and death for his people. Late in life, he was guilty of profound atrocities, but that was because he betrayed the values he'd held in his youth. It would be wrong and grossly simplistic to dismiss him as someone who was never anything more than a monster. The real tragedy -- and cautionary tale -- is that he wasn't always that way.

So let's keep in mind that not all dictators are alike in the Trek universe either. Someone like, ohh, Colonel Green, or Kinchawn from A Time to Kill/Heal, can perhaps be understood as a purely malicious and power-mad figure, but that doesn't mean we should assume Khan Noonien Singh was exactly the same as them. He was a much richer and more interesting character than that, at least until Harve Bennett and Jack Sowards ruined him by turning him into a cartoon.

 

[KRAD]

He was a much richer and more interesting character than that, at least until Harve Bennett and Jack Sowards ruined him by turning him into a cartoon.

I don't think he was "ruined" at all. I think, however, that being stuck in a harsh desert for fifteen years would drive anybody binky-bonkers....

 

[ronny]

I've only read the first story so far and I thought it was great.

Haven't ready any of this thread and don't plan to until I'm done with the book but just wanted to throw in a quick thumbs up to what I've read so far.

 

[Christopher]

He was a much richer and more interesting character than that, at least until Harve Bennett and Jack Sowards ruined him by turning him into a cartoon.

I don't think he was "ruined" at all. I think, however, that being stuck in a harsh desert for fifteen years would drive anybody binky-bonkers....

But how much more interesting would it have been to see a Khan who hadn't gone mad, who still had the intelligence and cunning to use the power of Genesis to build a new empire and challenge the whole Federation, instead of just going after Kirrrrrrk and blowing himself up in the process? Or how much more interesting would it have been if we'd actually gotten to see what Khan and his people could've built in a hundred years?

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

... Khan Noonien Singh was exactly the same as them. He was a much richer and more interesting character than that, at least until Harve Bennett and Jack Sowards ruined him by turning him into a cartoon.

Well, let's not forget Nick Meyer in having a hand in subtracting a dimension from the once three-dimensional Khan since it was Meyer who wrote the draft that was filmed for TWOK. And I do agree that Khan in TWOK didn't have the subtle richness and layers that he did in "Space Seed."

 

[DarthPipes]

He was a much richer and more interesting character than that, at least until Harve Bennett and Jack Sowards ruined him by turning him into a cartoon.

I don't think he was "ruined" at all. I think, however, that being stuck in a harsh desert for fifteen years would drive anybody binky-bonkers....

But how much more interesting would it have been to see a Khan who hadn't gone mad, who still had the intelligence and cunning to use the power of Genesis to build a new empire and challenge the whole Federation, instead of just going after Kirrrrrrk and blowing himself up in the process? Or how much more interesting would it have been if we'd actually gotten to see what Khan and his people could've built in a hundred years?

That's a fair point to be sure. I don't think it really hurt the movie though, because Montalbaun's performance still carries it through. I always thought the biggest lost opportunity in Wrath of Khan was not having a face-to-face scene with him and Kirk.