Spoilers TF: Revelation and Dust by DRGIII Review Thread

[JWolf]

Kertrats47

You, Sci&co are trying very hard to miss the point.
For a person who buys this book from a library, not dedicated enough to conduct internet searches and without intending to collect future star trek novels, this book is garbage.
It does NOT stand on its own; indeed, it fails miserably at this.
And, even within the larger trek lit, it is boring.

There are ways to say you did not like the book without resorting to insults. Also, you miss a major point there. Why would someone buy book ONE of a FIVE book mini-series without intending to buy the others? That's just ludicrous if you think that's how it is.

You could say the same thing about the first Destiny book. It did not stand on it's own. None of the Destiny books stood on their own. They needed all three to be complete.

I am a little over 1/3rd into Dust and Revelation and so far I am enjoying it. Not every Star trek book has to be earth shaking or move the characters on in some significant way.

And - a 2 page reconciliation with no connection to the so-called plot line of the novel? Or characters just being themselves? Such developments are supposed to make this novel a "superb character study"? Ridiculous.

It's part of the ongoing DS9 plot. So yes, it does have a connection. That plot thread was started in Raise the Dawn and is continuing here.

 

[JeBuS]

Kertrats47

You, Sci&co are trying very hard to miss the point.
For a person who buys this book from a library, not dedicated enough to conduct internet searches and without intending to collect future star trek novels, this book is garbage.
It does NOT stand on its own; indeed, it fails miserably at this.
And, even within the larger trek lit, it is boring.

There are ways to say you did not like the book without resorting to insults. Also, you miss a major point there. Why would someone buy book ONE of a FIVE book mini-series without intending to buy the others? That's just ludicrous if you think that's how it is.

Because this book does not say "Part one of five." It's as simple as that. It is not marketed as a serial novel. Therefore, it is supposed to be a complete novel on its own. That means, when I review it, I review it from the first page to the last. Nothing more, nothing less.

And - a 2 page reconciliation with no connection to the so-called plot line of the novel? Or characters just being themselves? Such developments are supposed to make this novel a "superb character study"? Ridiculous.

It's part of the ongoing DS9 plot. So yes, it does have a connection. That plot thread was started in Raise the Dawn and is continuing here.

The plot thread may continue here, but it is also completely pointless here. Because it does not service the plot of Revelation and Dust, it should not be part of the novel. No doubt, in some future The Fall novel, Ezri-Julian relationship will play a role. That novel is where this little 2-page kiss-and-make-up should occur. Because that is the point where it will service the plot.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

JWolf, only a small percent of the readership is dedicated enough to actually know this is the first of 5 books called 'The Fall' (you stubbornly refuse to understand this); this book was NOT marketed as a serial.
For the rest of the readership (which is the majority), this book will be garbage.

PS - An insult is, by definition, a false assertion. Everything I said in my previous posts is true AKA no insults are present.

 

[JWolf]

JWolf, only a small percent of the readership is dedicated enough to actually know this is the first of 5 books called 'The Fall' (you stubbornly refuse to understand this); this book was NOT marketed as a serial.
For the rest of the readership (which is the majority), this book will be garbage.

And you know that only a small percentage will know that this is part of a mini-series how?

PS - An insult is, by definition, a false assertion. Everything I said in my previous posts is true AKA no insults are present.

There are ways to say you disliked a book that are not insulting. Calling it garbage is insulting. I feel sorry for you that you just don't get this.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

JWolf, only a small percent of the readership is dedicated enough to actually know this is the first of 5 books called 'The Fall' (you stubbornly refuse to understand this); this book was NOT marketed as a serial.
For the rest of the readership (which is the majority), this book will be garbage.

And you know that only a small percentage will know that this is part of a mini-series how?

So - you think the majority of the readership actually searches the internet for trek lit news or collects trek books?
Good luck with this.

PS - An insult is, by definition, a false assertion. Everything I said in my previous posts is true AKA no insults are present.

There are ways to say you disliked a book that are not insulting. Calling it garbage is insulting. I feel sorry for you that you just don't get this.

Saying "For a person who buys this book from a library, not dedicated enough to conduct internet searches and without intending to collect future star trek novels, this book is garbage." is also accurate.
Deal with it.

 

[JeBuS]

JWolf, only a small percent of the readership is dedicated enough to actually know this is the first of 5 books called 'The Fall' (you stubbornly refuse to understand this); this book was NOT marketed as a serial.
For the rest of the readership (which is the majority), this book will be garbage.

And you know that only a small percentage will know that this is part of a mini-series how?

I think, by default, it's safer to assume that unless a book specifically identifies itself as a serial, people will assume it is not. Don't you?

PS - An insult is, by definition, a false assertion. Everything I said in my previous posts is true AKA no insults are present.

There are ways to say you disliked a book that are not insulting. Calling it garbage is insulting. I feel sorry for you that you just don't get this.

Can we skip this discussion here, please?

 

[JWolf]

Saying "For a person who buys this book from a library, not dedicated enough to conduct internet searches and without intending to collect future star trek novels, this book is garbage." is also accurate.
Deal with it.

No, it's not accurate. Not at all. Star Trek is an ongoing series (taken as a whole). I don't know of anyone who would buy just this book (as his/her first Star Trek book) with the thought of never buying another Star trek book ever. That's just crazy.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Fine, JWolf.
Then don't deal with it. Play the 'see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil' game.
After all, your subjective reaction to the discussed fact is quite irrelevant.

PS - Really? Your social circle includes only dedicated star trek fans and non-fans? That's curiously black and white.

 

[JWolf]

I think, by default, it's safer to assume that unless a book specifically identifies itself as a serial, people will assume it is not. Don't you?

Let's say (for the sake of argument) that you are correct. But, what you also don't take into account is that because Star Trek is ongoing, there's noting to stop the next book from finishing off the dangling plot(s).

 

[Christopher]

I think, by default, it's safer to assume that unless a book specifically identifies itself as a serial, people will assume it is not. Don't you?

But it does specifically identify itself as part of Star Trek: The Fall. It doesn't say DS9 on the cover, it says The Fall. It's not hard to guess that that's the title of a miniseries. It's separate from the title Revelation and Dust, so it's clearly part of a larger whole to which RaD belongs; yet the title The Fall sounds like a reference to a specific event or process rather than an ongoing status quo, so it doesn't suggest an open-ended series. So if you see a book titled Star Trek: The Fall followed by an individual book title, it's pretty easy to deduce that it's one installment of a limited series of books focusing on a specific event.

I can sympathize with your argument about wanting a book to be complete within itself even if it's part of a larger arc. I tend to feel the same way, as a general rule (though I haven't read this book yet so I don't know if I'd share your perception of it). But I can't agree with you that this book is somehow hiding the fact that it's part of an arc. The title alone indicates that.

 

[JeBuS]

I think, by default, it's safer to assume that unless a book specifically identifies itself as a serial, people will assume it is not. Don't you?

Let's say (for the sake of argument) that you are correct. But, what you also don't take into account is that because Star Trek is ongoing, there's noting to stop the next book from finishing off the dangling plot(s).

I don't take that into account because it is not relevant to the review of a single novel. If I were to review the ongoing TrekLit universe, sure, this novel would obviously fit into it. But as a single novel, on its own, it is a poor literary work of art.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

I think, by default, it's safer to assume that unless a book specifically identifies itself as a serial, people will assume it is not. Don't you?

But it does specifically identify itself as part of Star Trek: The Fall. It doesn't say DS9 on the cover, it says The Fall. It's not hard to guess that that's the title of a miniseries. It's separate from the title Revelation and Dust, so it's clearly part of a larger whole to which RaD belongs; yet the title The Fall sounds like a reference to a specific event or process rather than an ongoing status quo, so it doesn't suggest an open-ended series. So if you see a book titled Star Trek: The Fall followed by an individual book title, it's pretty easy to deduce that it's one installment of a limited series of books focusing on a specific event.

I can sympathize with your argument about wanting a book to be complete within itself even if it's part of a larger arc. I tend to feel the same way. But I can't agree with you that this book is somehow hiding the fact that it's part of an arc. The title alone indicates that.

Star Trek Titan, Typhon Pact, etc, etc were part of such "series". And they have self-contained books.
Indeed, this is the general rule for published books. Unless you have a book 1 of X on the cover, the book is self-contained.

As such, for a casual buyer/casual trek fan, this book is marketed as a self-contained book, not as a serial. He/she will buy and read it as such - the experience being underwhelming.

 

[JeBuS]

But it does specifically identify itself as part of Star Trek: The Fall. It doesn't say DS9 on the cover, it says The Fall. It's not hard to guess that that's the title of a miniseries. It's separate from the title Revelation and Dust, so it's clearly part of a larger whole to which RaD belongs; yet the title The Fall sounds like a reference to a specific event or process rather than an ongoing status quo, so it doesn't suggest an open-ended series. So if you see a book titled Star Trek: The Fall followed by an individual book title, it's pretty easy to deduce that it's one installment of a limited series of books focusing on a specific event.

I can sympathize with your argument about wanting a book to be complete within itself even if it's part of a larger arc. I tend to feel the same way. But I can't agree with you that this book is somehow hiding the fact that it's part of an arc. The title alone indicates that.

The title alone does so only for veterans of TrekLit. Even with that in mind, this novel does not have its own story arc. As its own entity, it is a poor literary work of art, because it is written as though it is a portion of one continuous serial novel told over separate parts. That is not how any TrekLit novel of recent memory has been written, as far as I can remember. Can you cite any such novels of the recent "mini-series" where if you don't read the previous and next novel, you don't experience a complete story arc?

 

[Scout101]

The Destiny trilogy was like that. I don't think they are complete on their own. But together, all three make a complete story.

True that it doesn't tell the entire story on its own, but it DOES set up and then resolve sub-stories while contributing to the overall arc. The Typhon Pact series also managed to tell stories while contributing to the overall narrative. This book felt more like watching the first 5 minutes of a tv episode (complete with the "previous on DS9" portion) and then shutting it off. Got a couple minutes of story, but didn't GO anywhere towards the greater whole, just started a story and stopped without really getting into resolving anything. After all the flashbacks and the distant past bit, really wasn't even a lot of time spent in the present moving forward.

What about the fact that Revelation and Dust is book one of a five book mini-series don't some of you get? If everything was wrapped up in the first book, there would be no need for the other four books.

done better, it would have resolved SOME things while moving the overall story foward as well. This was all intro and NO payoff.

I cannot answer about whether there is a story arc or not as I've not yet read enough. But I do recall the last time we got DS9 and we had the same lynching until the second book came out and then the lynching stopped.

You seem weirdly aggressive in defending a book that you haven't actually completed yet, no? How do you know whether you're satisfied if you haven't gotten to the end? Seriously, how do you defend being 1/3rd of a way through a book and then arguing about how it finishes with a thread full of people who completed the book? Can't you see that you MAY not have the whole story yet?

And again the Typhon Pact books DID have some individual payoff while contributing to the overall series. this was all intro, and didn't really do much on its own. That's Below Average in my mind. Sure it'll be ok by the end, but doesn't add anything on it's own. If you were to re-read the mini-series at the end, would you even bother with book 1, or just go into the next book knowing the 2 bits worth of setup? Not sure it would be needed to re-read this one.

While you need to watch ROTJ to complete ESB, you can certainly watch JUST ESB and get a measure of satisfaction from what happened there. Don't feel that applied here.

 

[JeBuS]

And again the Typhon Pact books DID have some individual payoff while contributing to the overall series. this was all intro, and didn't really do much on its own. That's Below Average in my mind. Sure it'll be ok by the end, but doesn't add anything on it's own. If you were to re-read the mini-series at the end, would you even bother with book 1, or just go into the next book knowing the 2 bits worth of setup? Not sure it would be needed to re-read this one.

While you need to watch ROTJ to complete ESB, you can certainly watch JUST ESB and get a measure of satisfaction from what happened there. Don't feel that applied here.

I wonder. RaD clearly relies upon the other novels in The Fall to complete it. I don't think anyone here will deny that assertion? But do you think the other novels of The Fall will depend upon RaD for setup? I have a feeling this won't be the case. They will mention the one or two events from RaD, and then move on with their own story arcs. If such a situation were to occur, will it still be possible to defend RaD? If such a situation were to occur, why would RaD need to be published at all?

 

[Edit_XYZ]

If such a situation were to occur, why would RaD need to be published at all?

Easy:$$$

 

[Scout101]

I wonder. RaD clearly relies upon the other novels in The Fall to complete it. I don't think anyone here will deny that assertion? But do you think the other novels of The Fall will depend upon RaD for setup? I have a feeling this won't be the case. They will mention the one or two events from RaD, and then move on with their own story arcs. If such a situation were to occur, will it still be possible to defend RaD? If such a situation were to occur, why would RaD need to be published at all?

Only indirectly. You need to know about the new station, the names of the ancient Bajora, and the big event that took place (see, no gleeful spoiler there!), but there's really no development or plotting you need to have sat through, I think you could safely skip it.

You just need:

-'event' that happened at the station, and that there's some shady setup/missing facts about what really happened.

-there's a prophet/orb thing going on, and that's the backstory for the bit at the very end of book 1 (and Kira is tied up in it)

If you were told those two things, couldn't you really skip this book completely? And if that's all you need to know, was it that good of a book? What am I leaving out that you would have missed? Did anyone grow/change/anything else that would leave them in a different spot than they were when we picked the story up?

While tempting to list things like "Bashir and Ezri make up a little", did it really matter? It was a couple pages, and had ZERO bearing on what happened. If it turns out to be important later, could have easily been written into THAT scene as well without lessening the impact.

Given that criteria, can't really give this book a good grade.

By contrast, you NEED ESB for ROTJ to make sense. Luke goes from farmboy war hero to calm Jedi knight with some control of his powers, there's an obvious progression for the character. Doesn't resolve all of the plots/cliffhanger if you quit at the end of ESB, but you can get a story there with it alone, and it doesn't make sense if you skip from ANH to ROTJ, there was obvious growth/change. Not so with this book. Just knowing the list above makes it skippable, and you won't feel lost at all.

 

[JeBuS]

Only indirectly. You need to know about the new station, the names of the ancient Bajora, and the big event that took place (see, no gleeful spoiler there!), but there's really no development or plotting you need to have sat through, I think you could safely skip it.

You just need:

-'event' that happened at the station, and that there's some shady setup/missing facts about what really happened.

-there's a prophet/orb thing going on, and that's the backstory for the bit at the very end of book 1 (and Kira is tied up in it)

Dang it, I don't want this to sound like I'm creating an echo chamber here, but I truly am waiting for the others with opposing opinions to comment. Before they do so, I'd like to sneak this in, so they can respond all at once.

What DRGIII did for the first half of RaD was an extreme example of the above. When the author dedicates a portion of a book to backstory, a reader expects that backstory to play a role in the book. The problem with RaD was that the backstory played no role whatsoever, or the detail given was so outsized in comparison to its small role, that it overshadowed what it was supposed to support.

In the rest of this series, The Fall, I expect the reader will be shown much more artful use of backstory. The authors will tell the readers the minimum that they can get away with, so that their own novels' story arcs can shine through. DRGIII did the opposite: he gave the maximum amount of detail to the backstory, then devoted nothing to what should have been the story arc of RaD.

 

[KRAD]

But it does specifically identify itself as part of Star Trek: The Fall. It doesn't say DS9 on the cover, it says The Fall. It's not hard to guess that that's the title of a miniseries. It's separate from the title Revelation and Dust, so it's clearly part of a larger whole to which RaD belongs; yet the title The Fall sounds like a reference to a specific event or process rather than an ongoing status quo, so it doesn't suggest an open-ended series. So if you see a book titled Star Trek: The Fall followed by an individual book title, it's pretty easy to deduce that it's one installment of a limited series of books focusing on a specific event.

Not necessarily. One could make the same assumption about, say, the Typhon Pact books (which are, in fact, all more or less standalone) or the Section 31 novels (which are completely standalone), just to give two examples.

(Not taking any sides or making any judgments here, just playing devil's advocate.)

 

[Christopher]

^True, I'm not saying it absolutely proves it's part of a serial. But it does give some indication that it's not a completely self-contained text. And like I said, "The Fall" suggests it's a story about a specific event, whereas the others just suggest stories about organizations.