I certainly don't think it's bad - I am just not finding it particularly interesting and there are other books which are grabbing me...
I just finished his Here There Be Dragons, which was a good story, even though Picard and Data only encountered one dragon and they were forced to kill it (but I guess it was either the dragon or Data and Picard who had to end up dead, and in 1993 I don't see Data or Picard being killed in the books)! But, you know it would be nice to see Carmen Carter, Peter David, Robert Greenberger and Michael Jan Friedman team up again to maybe do a Voyager, Enterprise and New Frontier novel together (of course that would be three different books, not all three crews together).
I loved Immortal Coil and I thought Jeffery Lang had a very good grasp of the Trek universe and wondered what had happened to him. Has he written anything outside of Trek that might be of interest?
S.P. Somtow of Do Comets Dream? That novel seemed like an odd one (and judging from reviews, not so hot).
Somtow had a lengthy career writing science fiction from the late '70s onward (initially under his real name Somtow Sucharitkul). He's had a few works published in the 2000s, but apparently he's mainly focusing on his musical endeavors these days, including writing operas and serving as the artistic director of the Bangkok Opera.
Do Comets Dream? was actually based on a story "The Comet That Cried for its Mother" that appeared in the Summer 1984 issue of Amazing Stories. (I know this because I had a story in the same issue.) Somtow has also written a number of impressive horror novels including Vampire Junction, Moon Dance, and Darker Angels. (Full disclosure: I edited that one last one. It's a small world.) And, yeah, he's very busy with his composing and musical career these days.
That's one thing that has put me right off Trek novels these days. I'm all for continuity and sharing ideas, etc, but not when you have to forkout shedloads of money to buy every single book going now! Anyways, I loved SD Perry's DS9 relaunch.
Do Comets Dream? was downright awful--and poorly edited, to boot. One "one hit wonder" I wish had come back is Lois Tilton, who wrote Betrayal (DS9 #6). She claims writing tie-ins isn't for her, but the evidence belies it in a big way. Betrayal was nothing short of superb--even more impressive with how little DS9 material was available at the time to write from.
Shedloads? Really? A few asides and oblique references to "Gemworld" hardly requires that you "must" read it. Both volumes can be had for 1 cent each, plus postage: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=gemworld+trek&x=0&y=0
Well, I haven't read Gemworld yet, and the numerous mentions of it in Articles of the Federation didn't prevent me from enjoying it thoroughly. Plus I know that if I wanted to, I could just read up on the planet in Memory Beta. I haven't though, because I do plan to read the duology eventually and didn't want to spoil it for myself. But I want to, I don't feel I need to. And personally I'm happy that the novels are weaving a rich, interconnected tapestry of a universe today.
^Same here. I've been reading Trek Lit for a while now, and I've never really come across a book that actually requires you to read another book that wasn't part of it's series. Sure they make alot of references to each other now, but most of the time it's just a passing reference, like for instance in DTI there's a reference to how the Federation was able to survive the Dominion War, and the Genesis Wave. Now that was pretty much all the information that was given about the GW, and while it's cool to see the reference if you've read the book, for those of us that haven't it's just passes right by without really making an impact, and we can move right past it without missing a beat. And to me at least, that's how most of these kinds of refereces happen. Sure they're fun if you've read the book they're referring to, but if you haven't the references is vague enough that it won't really impact you're enjoyment.
Also, I think several authors here have stated repeatedly that from their point of view, if you can't enjoy their book without having read another, they've failed at their job. So I think there's definitely a conscious effort to include all the vital information going on as well.
It always puzzles me when people assume they can't understand a story unless they read every prior work it makes reference to. I mean, name a single work of fiction that doesn't reference earlier events, even when those events were unchronicled. "The Cage," the very first Star Trek episode ever made, is largely driven by Captain Pike's reaction to a prior event we never saw, the battle on Rigel VII where his yeoman was killed and Spock was injured. But we didn't need to actually see that battle to understand why Pike was world-weary and Spock was limping; it was enough to know that it had happened. Same with any other work of fiction. We don't need to witness the reign and murder of Hamlet's father, or see how Hamlet, Horatio, Rosenkrantz, and Guildenstern went to school together, to understand their motivations and relationships in the play. In Casablanca, we don't need to have seen how Rick Blaine established his relationships with Renault, Ugarte, and Ferrari to understand why he relates to them the way he does, or to have witnessed Victor Laszlo's past acts of heroism to understand why Ilsa loves him and supports his cause. There isn't a story in the history of fiction that doesn't rely to some extent on previously established events in the characters' lives that we never get to see. So why fans think that a story referring back to past events is somehow doing it wrong, or forcing them to gain a complete, detailed understanding of those events before they can read the story in question, is a constant source of bewilderment to me.
^ I don't really find it bewildering because I'm a completionist myself: When I know a reference is to an actually existing text, I do feel compelled to go read that text eventually. It's just that I lay the blame for that on myself .
^But that's just about wanting to get the complete picture. I comprehend that perfectly, since I'm the same way. It's not the same thing as believing you can't understand the story you're reading just because it references something outside of it, or believing that it's somehow wrong for a story to reference prior events.