Absolutely loved it! Even more than The Persistence of Memory. Here's my review. (Warning: my review contains SPOILERS!)
Last edited:
TNG: Silent Weapons by David Mack Review Thread (Spoilers!)
- Thread starter Sho
- Start date
Thanks for that in-depth and highly complimentary review, Dan! 
Thanks for that in-depth and highly complimentary review, Dan!
My pleasure, believe me! I read this one too fast, though... it's going to be a long month waiting for The Body Electric.
The kindle version is out
I am just getting into it now so I can get my review up, interesting so far.
I can't read your review yet! I have to finish it first lol
Most of the spoilers are for The Persistence of Memory. The spoilers for Silent Weapons are for events and moments in the book, but not really their outcomes. That said, I'd read it first too!
I went for Above Average. I enjoyed it without loving it, perhaps because I'm still not sold on the Breen as an interesting adversary. Possibly because the character stuff didn't work for me that well - I didn't really believe in Crusher and La Forge's issues or at least thought they were overstated.
That said it was still very good with some great moments - Chen in charge of the bridge was a lot of fun and at last gave her some more to do in a Mack novel as he has generally sidelined her.
Looking forward to number 3.
That said it was still very good with some great moments - Chen in charge of the bridge was a lot of fun and at last gave her some more to do in a Mack novel as he has generally sidelined her.
Looking forward to number 3.
Tom Riker
Lieutenant
Good job shippers! You Picard\Crusher fanatics who wanted them to get together has now ruined the career fo Jean-Luc Picard. hopefully he becoems resentful of her for making him abandon his career cuz she's a whiny harpy and it leads to the divorce we saw in All Good Things.
About a quarter of the way through: loving it, a classic Mack book with a style and sense of continuity that goes right back to his A Time to... duology & Wildfire (as well as including more of his Orion work from Vanguard too). Despite being standalone, this volume links really well to The Persistence of Memory: the sense of trilogy or mini-series is good. Also, it feels like it will have HUGE consequences. And how great is it to have Data back, or new-Data present: he's different and familiar. And written so well.
I read it last night. One nitpick:
A Unitarian Church? You had to go and make Esperanza a Unitarian of all things?
Good grief man, what happened to the Holy and Undivided Trinity in the 24th Century?
Were the Presbyterians not available?
Even if you're joking, that sort of religious bigotry is completely uncalled for. Why not Unitarians in the 24th century? (And what, exactly, are wrong with Presbyterians?)
... what?
I read it last night. One nitpick:
A Unitarian Church? You had to go and make Esperanza a Unitarian of all things?
Good grief man, what happened to the Holy and Undivided Trinity in the 24th Century?
Were the Presbyterians not available?
Even if you're joking, that sort of religious bigotry is completely uncalled for. Why not Unitarians in the 24th century? (And what, exactly, are wrong with Presbyterians?)
There is nothing wrong with Presbyterians, that's my point. A Unitarian is explicitly not a Trinitarian, which is the belief position of every other church you can think of today. That is a problem if, like me, you take the Trinity seriously.
I read it last night. One nitpick:
A Unitarian Church? You had to go and make Esperanza a Unitarian of all things?
Good grief man, what happened to the Holy and Undivided Trinity in the 24th Century?
Were the Presbyterians not available?
Even if you're joking, that sort of religious bigotry is completely uncalled for. Why not Unitarians in the 24th century? (And what, exactly, are wrong with Presbyterians?)
There is nothing wrong with Presbyterians, that's my point. A Unitarian is explicitly not a Trinitarian, which is the belief position of every other church you can think of today. That is a problem if, like me, you take the Trinity seriously.
But why exactly is it a problem to show someone who has different beliefs from you? Just because you take the trinity seriously, why does it follow that Esperanza has to? There are Unitarians today, and personally I think it's kind of cool that they are shown to exist in the future.
As an atheist, I am offended by both the eulogy and the preceding conversation.
I read it last night. One nitpick:
A Unitarian Church? You had to go and make Esperanza a Unitarian of all things?
Good grief man, what happened to the Holy and Undivided Trinity in the 24th Century?
Were the Presbyterians not available?
Even if you're joking, that sort of religious bigotry is completely uncalled for. Why not Unitarians in the 24th century? (And what, exactly, are wrong with Presbyterians?)
There is nothing wrong with Presbyterians, that's my point. A Unitarian is explicitly not a Trinitarian, which is the belief position of every other church you can think of today. That is a problem if, like me, you take the Trinity seriously.
You're not trying to get the point.
What is the problem, exactly, with Trek depicting someone who has a belief system different from your own? Would you be making the same complaint if it turned out that the character in question was, say, Jewish?
Or would you prefer that Trek novels be all about efforts by American evangelical Christians to convert all the heathens out there, starting with the Romulans and their pagan Elements?
I'm an atheist, and I couldn't care less what someone's religion is depicted as. It's a part of culture, and different religions exist. It lends a verisimilitude to Trek that I rather enjoy.
There are many things that will annoy many different groups of people the world over. Should writers stay away from any topic for fear that some segment of the readership will be "annoyed"? I don't know about you, but to me that sounds like it would be some pretty drab prose.
I'm a Canadian. I go to the United Church if you must know.
Keeping religion at an arm's length was an established part of Trek's "veneer of the future", if you will. Everybody has an opinion on present-day religion. Mentioning the Roman Catholic Church would have a much, much larger reaction, and it's just best not to mention it for the same reason. A fire salute over the grave with rifles is also just a bit too present-day and IMO just a little too precious. Again, it rips the "veneer of the future" away too much.
Every work or series of works in Science-fiction has a set of self-consistent conceits that allow the reader to suspend their disbelief and accept the fantasy world. Not saying much about present-day religions is an established part of Trek's conceit system. Silent Weapons got away from that system more than I prefer.