Can you expand upon that? Which characters were advanced in this novel in such a manner that you would call it superb? I don't recall any character advancement nor growth. Every character I can think of remained in place (with the one notable exception all readers are aware of), without value systems being checked, without any moral quandaries.Fortunately, such a scenario does not apply to the superb character study that is Revelation and Dust.
Spoilers TF: Revelation and Dust by DRGIII Review Thread
- Thread starter Sho
- Start date
Fortunately, such a scenario does not apply to the superb character study that is Revelation and Dust.
Would you mind sighting one example of that assertion. Which character was studied? Because I for one am confused and may have read the wrong novel. For example:
We learn more about Bajoran spring wine than we do about the people drinking it. Perhaps the wine will play a major role in the next DS9 novel? Will the spring wine get promoted? Or was the spring wine the assassin that killed Bacco. Maybe the spring wine is really a Bajoran prophet who closed the wormhole and took Kira back in time to invent spring wine, thus causing a paradox where the wine is responsible for it's own birth?
Other than that I didn't see any other character growth beyond that example.
I remember this coming up in regards to Star Wars books - I don't remember the reason, though.
Can you expand upon that? Which characters were advanced in this novel in such a manner that you would call it superb? I don't recall any character advancement nor growth. Every character I can think of remained in place (with the one notable exception all readers are aware of), without value systems being checked, without any moral quandaries.Fortunately, such a scenario does not apply to the superb character study that is Revelation and Dust.
If you don't see character arcs in Ro, Kira/Keva, Sisko, Odo, Bashir, Dax, and Quark -- amongst others -- then you weren't paying attention.
^ Some of them may have had a story arc through it, but known of them particularly developed, every single one of those you mentioned, including Quark, have acted like they did in this story for many many years.
The only thing that seemed to develop over the course of the story was the new station.
The only thing that seemed to develop over the course of the story was the new station.
This is precisely what I mean. Yes, there is "screen time" for all of these characters, but they don't do anything. Their stories don't advance the characterizations. They don't advance the universe. There were a couple of events that were biggies, obviously. But the characters could have been swapped with any old redshirt, and just as much would have happened.
Now, I know some will say, but what about all that introspection that these characters did? The problem is, even the introspection was a rehash that failed to build up to anything.
That's easy to answer. Because Germany is behind. So they get to see the covers in use in the US and have time to then make better looking covers.
I really don't know how you can say there was no advancement to the characters when it's very clear that, for instance, Ro has an entire arc about what the constant catastrophes on DS9 are doing to her state of mind; how Sisko is re-adjusting to family life and to the possibility that his daughter may have some role to play in future situations with the Prophets; how Odo is coping with the loss of the only two things he evert really loved, Kira and the link; how Bashir and Dax are finally moving on from the pain they caused one-another; how Bacco was fighting to overcome her grief at Esperanza's death and yet continue the work of peace-building; how Quark is continuing to adjust to his relationship with Ro; and of course how Kira is learning about her new role from the Prophets.
Now, maybe you don't think there's enough payoff there. My rebuttal to that argument is, "That's what they said when Rough Beasts of Empire came out. It all paid off amazingly in Plagues of Night/Raise the Dawn."
But to say there was neither new introspection, nor character advancement, or to say that it could have been any old redshirt, is just false.
if there was a "like" button, I would push it. Totally agree. Tons of people said the exact same shit when RBoE came out. It's too bad people's memories are so short. Payoff will come. Personally...I can't wait to read more about Raiq. I'm sure I'm not the only one. I don't expect the real payoff for a few books. I love that stuff comes slowly. It makes the reading experience that much more rewarding
This leads back to my previous comment on the matter. Books should be self-contained. Every book has a first page and a last page. The payoff should come somewhere before the end of the last page. If there is no payoff in this book, it's not worth reading. Now, if the book were advertised as "Part 1 of 2" or "Part 1 of 5" that's a different matter entirely. But this book had no such warning. Which is why it's a poor effort, selling itself as something it isn't, which is a complete book.
Speaking of Rough Beasts, I had to go look it up, because it turns out, it was also entirely forgettable.
If details need to be in place for another book, then put them in the other book! I don't need a book dedicated to world building, with little else of merit. Especially when very little is built. A couple of major occurrences do not a book make. Cut out the important bits from this book, put them into the books where they will actually matter, and save me some time and money.
Last edited:
Not necissarily. Plenty of books that are "standalone" have an open or ambiguous ending.
And besides, at this point it should be common knowledge among Trek Lit readers that the books are interconnected, with arcs crossing through multiple books. So it really shouldn't be that shocking or upsetting when everything isn't completely tied up in a neat little bow at the end of one book, especially if that book is being sold as part 1 of a 5 part series.
And besides, at this point it should be common knowledge among Trek Lit readers that the books are interconnected, with arcs crossing through multiple books. So it really shouldn't be that shocking or upsetting when everything isn't completely tied up in a neat little bow at the end of one book, especially if that book is being sold as part 1 of a 5 part series.
Says who? This is a really silly argument when literature is full of inter-connected book series -- everything from Tolkien to A Song of Fire and Ice to Harry Potter to John le Care. Especially for a book that is explicitly marketed as being Part One of an interconnected miniseries.
Hey, listen, if it didn't work for you, it didn't work for you. But acknowledge the subjective nature of your tastes instead of making claims about the content that are false, moving the goalposts, and declaring that all books should live up to arbitrary standards of what constitutes quality.
Last edited:
I'm not saying that a book should tie everything up in a neat little bow. But it would be nice if *something* got tied up before the end of the book. This book only opened threads. Would you pay to see a movie that ended after the first act?
I don't think I've argued that my opinion is objective. I am, however, arguing my subjective opinion about the merits of this book. Isn't what this thread is about? I do not believe I have falsified any of my claims about this book. I'm more than willing to change my mind, and even recant any of my claims, but neither you, nor anyone else has yet made a case to convince me that I'm wrong. And the book was not explicitly marketed as being Part One of a mini-series. My copy, at least, does not have any mention of requiring another book to complete the story therein.
"Books ought to be self-contained" is a statement of objective creative obligations. It uses imperative language that establishes requirements rather than acknowledging diverse creative tastes and goals. If you had said, "I prefer books that are self-contained," your argument would have been more fair.
You claimed there were no character arcs in this book. I cited several. You then shifted the goalposts by moving from claiming that there were no character arcs to claiming that there wasn't enough resolution.
False. The very first blurb announcing The Fall identified Revelation and Dust as the first part of an interconnected mini-series.
Err, it's got a big title banner with Star Trek: The Fall on it, and then the individual book title under that. So that does indicate that it's part of a sequence of books called The Fall. Maybe it's not quite as explicit as a "Part One of Five" subtitle would be, but it's pretty clear just from the title that it's not a complete standalone.
As for marketing, just about everything I've seen online about The Fall has promoted it as a 5-book series.
I think you're doing a good job of splitting hairs here, arguing with the reviewer's language rather than the substance of the review. Considering this is a review thread, I would think it implied that my review is subjective, no?
I stand by my assertion that what you cited were not character arcs. They were the novelization equivalent of screen-time, but there was no arc. An arc involves moving the characters in some manner, if not physically, then emotionally, philosophically, etc. None of the characters in this book did so, save Keev, whose B-Plot I've previously noted was the only part of this book I didn't have a problem with. (Save that it started slowly and was basically unconnected to the rest of the book, but that could be blamed on the rest of the book being so poor.)
Perhaps it did, but my book doesn't identify itself as an incomplete story, requiring other purchases for fulfillment. And now that I look, my booksellers don't list it as such, either. Of course, as a veteran reader of TrekLit, I realize that "The Fall" means it's part of a connected series, just as others before have been. But I still expect a complete story arc each book. As I said in my original review, never before have I felt so cheated by a Trek book. Through all the mini-series that have gone before, at least each book had its own arc.
I think it obviously comes down to our philosophical differences on what a book should be. I believe that each book, no matter the genre, should stand on its own. That's how they get reviewed, so that's how I review them. This book relies on the reader to go out and buy another book to pick up almost every story thread it started. Perhaps this is a decision made by the publisher, I don't know. But it's a lousy decision, and so is the book.
Regardless whether or not you thought it was "good" or not, how can you claim there was no "moving" of the characters in an emotional manner? I cite the reconciliation between Ezri and Julian as but one example. There is a VERY clear evolution of that relationship.
There was no arc involved. One page Ezri frets, the next page they kiss and make up. It plays no role in the novel. And because it plays no role in this novel, it needn't be included in this novel. Save it for the novel where Ezri's relationship with Julian comes into play.
On a broader scale, this novel is ripe with exactly that situation. Things are brought up that have no bearing on anything else in the novel. The constant reminders of Quark's financial situation are but one example. They had no bearing on the events of this novel, yet were brought up by multiple characters on multiple occasions.
I'm not exactly sure what you're saying. How, exactly, does it "play no role in the novel"? Ezri and Julian are two characters with whom the readers are invested. We care about what happens to them. We see a reconciliation between the two of them that has been a long time coming. How exactly is that not playing a "role in the novel"? It's a part of the on-going story of all of these characters! I guess I'm just having a hard time figuring out what parts of the novel you think "play no role," and what exactly your criteria are for inclusion in the "role-playing" parts of the novel.
You say that the things the novel talks about have "no bearing on the events of this novel." I see it differently. I see these happenings AS the events of this novel. I think it can't be studied in isolation. This novel is a part of the on-going story of Deep Space Nine and its characters.
You say that the things the novel talks about have "no bearing on the events of this novel." I see it differently. I see these happenings AS the events of this novel. I think it can't be studied in isolation. This novel is a part of the on-going story of Deep Space Nine and its characters.
Similar threads
- Poll
