I voted average. It had some nice moments, and maybe taken as part of the whole with the other TOS books coming out this year (which I'm guessing will also be focusing on the end of the 5YM) maybe it will feel more substantial. But in many ways it felt kind of limited and light weight. The bits fleshing out Sulu's character were great, and the character "voices" felt on to me but to an extent I've kind of gotten spoiled by the TP stuff where to an extent the stories feel like they matter more. And even with the revelation of who the "new" alien races were it over all just left me feeling at best whelmed.
Spoilers TOS: Allegiance in Exile by DRGIII Review Thread
- Thread starter Sho
- Start date
I don't think that's likely. The TOS books these days tend to be pretty much standalone. There was a bit of overlap last year between The Rings of Time and Forgotten History, but that was entirely because Greg and I were both doing time-travel stories and thus chose to compare notes and acknowledge each other's books. And even that was just a passing mention both ways.
(And of course Forgotten History actually depicted the very end of the 5-year mission and the events leading up to and growing out of it.)
I think it fits fine into the mainstream novelverse with Vanguard, though it contradicts some older works like The Lost Years (I don't remember whether or not that was still compatible with the Marcokradiverse anyways?).
^The Lost Years was superseded by Ex Machina/Forgotten History's version of the end of the 5YM.
Thanks. (This is why I need to get around to doing a reread project to bring my timeline up to date...)
You monsterous superseder of old novels, you.
You monsterous superseder of old novels, you.
I felt free to take a different course because the book's assumptions about the Trek universe, and those of other '80s-continuity books it explicitly tied into, had already been long since superseded by new canon. In particular, VGR: "Q2" had suggested that the final mission of the 5-year tour had been the incident where Kirk saved the Pelosians from extinction (or at least that that was the last event significant enough for Icheb to mention in his report), and I wanted to expand on that reference.
Besides, my version was just one of many. DC had done its own version of "The Final Mission" three years before The Lost Years came out, and then did another in a 1995 story by Howard Weinstein. My version in ExM was the fourth distinct interpretation. And since then we've had several more: one in the Crucible trilogy by DRGIII, one in a Strange New Worlds 10 story, and one in IDW's Mission's End miniseries. So that's at least seven mutually incompatible versions of how the 5YM ended, which is probably a record for differing interpretations of the same event. But the ExM/FH version happens to be the one that's unified with the current primary novel continuity, as well as the only one that acknowledges the Pelosian incident.
Most recently unified, certainly - I thought that The Lost Years was incorporated indirectly by the current continuity, though. (Gateways -> Rough Trails -> Traitor Winds -> The Lost Years)
(Allegiance in Exile? What's that?
)
Well, just because books reference elements of each other, that doesn't necessarily make them in continuity. The middle two Lost Years books, A Flag Full of Stars and Traitor Winds, directly contradict each other in their chronology because they were from different editors and came out during a time when arranging any continuity at all between novels was an uphill battle. And they don't necessarily fit too well with TLY itself for the same reason.
And Traitor Winds isn't really compatible with TOS canon, because it ignores the existence of the Romulan-Klingon technology exchange established in "The Enterprise Incident." I've always thought of it as an alternate-universe tale because of that.
I think it's best just to let the '80s continuity be its own thing rather than trying to shoehorn it into the modern one. The underlying assumptions are too different because so much new canon has been laid down in the interim. And The Lost Years is pretty firmly integrated into the '80s continuity, since it continues character threads from Dillard's previous three novels and directly references the events of Dreadnought! I think it's better to let that stand as its own distinct interpretation of the Trek universe. After all, it's all equally imaginary, so it's not like one version is more "right" than another. Being incompatible with canon, or with the modern novels, doesn't make the '80s books less worthwhile or less valid. It just makes them a different creative direction, one with its own distinct character.
I had no idea there were so many!
I'm a big fan of Enterprise: The First Adventure (and liked parts of DC's version), but I'd be really interested in seeing a modern novelverse take on the five-year mission's beginning.
I just finished the book, so I can respond to this now:
I'd say it's ambiguous. Some of its details, at least in the brief final chapter, are a little inconsistent with Crucible's version of the end of the 5YM, but not so much that they can't be reconciled if you squint a little. Ditto with the main novelverse -- it makes some assumptions that don't mesh perfectly with the Ex Machina/Forgotten History version of events, but the differences are pretty much matters of nuance, so they can be made to fit easily enough. I'm not sure it entirely meshes with The Rings of Time, though, since they both span a fair amount of the last few months of the 5YM and it might be tricky to fit them both into the available time. But at worst you'd only have to fudge a couple of small details to reconcile them. There are already greater continuity glitches in the novelverse, not to mention in canon itself. Heck, if you wanted, you could even reconcile AiE with the Mission's End comic without much fudging, or with DC's "Final Mission" annual. (It doesn't quite fit with the others. In The Lost Years and the '95 DC version, Kirk has no advance intimations of his promotion, and the SNW10 story puts the end of the 5YM right after "Turnabout Intruder," disregarding TAS.)
Although, given the reference to the bit of novelverse continuity discussed in spoilers above, I imagine that would give the edge to the novelverse as the most likely "home" continuity for the book.
I'd say it's ambiguous. Some of its details, at least in the brief final chapter, are a little inconsistent with Crucible's version of the end of the 5YM, but not so much that they can't be reconciled if you squint a little. Ditto with the main novelverse -- it makes some assumptions that don't mesh perfectly with the Ex Machina/Forgotten History version of events, but the differences are pretty much matters of nuance, so they can be made to fit easily enough. I'm not sure it entirely meshes with The Rings of Time, though, since they both span a fair amount of the last few months of the 5YM and it might be tricky to fit them both into the available time. But at worst you'd only have to fudge a couple of small details to reconcile them. There are already greater continuity glitches in the novelverse, not to mention in canon itself. Heck, if you wanted, you could even reconcile AiE with the Mission's End comic without much fudging, or with DC's "Final Mission" annual. (It doesn't quite fit with the others. In The Lost Years and the '95 DC version, Kirk has no advance intimations of his promotion, and the SNW10 story puts the end of the 5YM right after "Turnabout Intruder," disregarding TAS.)
Although, given the reference to the bit of novelverse continuity discussed in spoilers above, I imagine that would give the edge to the novelverse as the most likely "home" continuity for the book.
MY review of the novel is now online:
http://unreality-sf.net/2013/02/18/star-trek-allegiance-in-exile-review/
Overall a somewhat disappointing, mediocre novel.
http://unreality-sf.net/2013/02/18/star-trek-allegiance-in-exile-review/
Overall a somewhat disappointing, mediocre novel.
I just finished. Nothing good or bad either way. I found the first contact with the mystery race and their antagonists somewhat interesting.
Where are these colonies located, alpha oe beta quadrant?
Where are these colonies located, alpha oe beta quadrant?
I can't recall ever being able to say that about my first reading of a ST novel, although there have been a few re-readings where I've started, but given up.
q.v. my thread in the "Science Fiction and Fantasy" forum, about Moon Hoax. Now with THAT, just about the only thing that kept me reading was the possibility of finding out what would motivate the Chinese to do something so expensive, risky, and generally asinine: no nation-state goes to that much trouble and expense without something a lot bigger to be gained. And I regard the author's failure to provide a believable motivation by the end of the book as a breach of contract.
But I didn't have any trouble maintaining interest in the present DRG opus, although I've already noted places where it feels like it was written for readers who'd never even heard of Star Trek, and thus seems a bit patronizing to the reader.
Presumably, like Bajor, in the Alpha Quadrant.
I'm still mulling this one over; not sure whether I should throw my opinion out there or not. But apropos of nothing, I'll just mention that I think I preferred Schuster & Mollmann's pick for Rahda's first name over the one presented here, which was just another use of the "use the actor's first name" idea.
Similar threads
