Anyone read the Eugenics Wars novels?

[Cannibal]

I'm reading "To Reign in Hell" right now and I have to say that it's pretty good. Great insight into the character of Khan Noonien Singh. I might just have to pick up the other novels about his rise and fall on Earth in the 1990's.
If you've read any of these books, please share your thoughts.

 

[Mistral]

Excellent with lots of Trek references. Greg Cox hit a homer, IMO-I was sorry I finished cause there wasn't any more.

 

[Cronos6939]

I was very impressed with both volumes and have read them several times. There are a number of nice references and even some familiar faces. I actually just finished reading (again) To Reign in Hell: The Exile of Khan Noonien Singh, myself.

 

[Dayton3]

Basically they are exercises in name dropping.

Not very good.

 

[casey]

If you are reading To Reign in Hell you definitely need to pick up the eugenics wars books.

I kind of agree with dayton3--there was a lot of name dropping and it did sometimes like a stretch that all of these people will involved.

But that said, it is was entertaining, engaging, and thought provoking. It did a great job of filling accounting for the wars given what we know about history, and was a fun "what if" type story.

I enjoyed them a lot more than I did To Reign in Hell.

 

[William Leisner]

The Eugenics Wars books are among the best 21st century Trek novels thus far.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

There might be a bit of a story in between all the references,

 

[DorkBoy [TM]]

Both answers people have given are correct. They are great books, definitely Greg Cox's best, but they are also a huge exercise in "continuity porn." You will either love them or hate them.

Normally "continuity porn" annoys me but these books were so over the top with it and it was so well done, that the constant references are their primary charm.

They tie in all sorts of references, not only in Star Trek continuity, but also real history, and try to unify the two.

 

[William Leisner]

There might be a bit of a story in between all the references,

And there might be a bit of forest between the trees.

 

[Dayton Ward]

I enjoyed the two EW books but I'm a sucker for Gary Seven and the whole "Assignment: Earth" thing, so I was an easy sell. I also liked Greg's Assignment: Eternity.

 

[Mistral]

Both answers people have given are correct. They are great books, definitely Greg Cox's best, but they are also a huge exercise in "continuity porn." You will either love them or hate them.

Normally "continuity porn" annoys me but these books were so over the top with it and it was so well done, that the constant references are their primary charm.

They tie in all sorts of references, not only in Star Trek continuity, but also real history, and try to unify the two.

This is well stated.

There might be a bit of a story in between all the references,

And there might be a bit of forest between the trees.

I think Dayton3 and Rudolph missed the point-all the references/name-dropping is what made it FUN! I'm with you, Mr. Leisner.

 

[captcalhoun]

i enjoyed them, but in no way accept them as the way the EW went down.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

I found the trilogy to be very enjoyable and very imaginative. I thought Cox was very successful in his attempt to reconcile the fictional history of the Eugenics Wars with the real-world history of the world since 1968. His characterization of Khan was just brilliant. I could totally hear Ricardo Montalbán's voice delivering Khan's dialogue throughout the books. Cox presented him as a totally three dimensional sympathetic character and I found his character arch to be fascinating.

The "name dropping" was one of the weaker points in the books. I do admit to having a lot of fun spotting the references, but--on the other hand--felt it created a large case of Small Universe Syndrome, where everyone we know from 20-21th century Earth was involved in the story somehow. Also, the explanation in the 3rd book, which tried to reconcile the Okuda Chronology with what was seen on screen, for how Khan had been on Ceti Alpha V for 18 years rather than 15 years fell a bit flat. The explanation itself was ok, but didn't explain why Adm Kirk himself, independent of Khan, stated that he had stranded him 15 years ago. There was really no inconsistency to be explained, since the movie is internally consistent about this. It was the Chronology book that was inconsistent and--in my view--should have just been ignored. Though I don't think these flaws outweigh the great story and characters Cox created.

If I had written them I'd have gone a different way, but given the parameters Cox gave himself--or was given--I think the end result was great.

 

[FailedLurker]

I was disappointed that the Eugenics Wars books tried to fit the Eugenics Wars into real 20th century history rather than using Gary Seven and the Chrysalis Project as jumping-off points into AU-ville. Greg Cox did a good job trying to reconcile everything, and the books are a good read, but I'm still left with the desire to someday read the "real" EW story.

Yes, the books go rather egregiously overboard with continuity porn, but that's fine if you just have fun with it and don't take it so seriously. I look at it as more of "Ha! He managed to work that in!" rather than "Grr! It's so implausible that all these disparate elements would be related!"

 

[DGCatAniSiri]

The reference that really felt out of place to me was the Russian woman who feared that she'd be remembered as a character in a trashy spy novel. It seemed to really be reaching for that DS9 character tie-in.

Also, the cyro-frozen woman from 'The Neutral Zone' who died in the nerve gas (I believe) attack seemed a bit of a stretch.

I still enjoyed the series though.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

I was disappointed that the Eugenics Wars books tried to fit the Eugenics Wars into real 20th century history rather than using Gary Seven and the Chrysalis Project as jumping-off points into AU-ville. Greg Cox did a good job trying to reconcile everything, and the books are a good read, but I'm still left with the desire to someday read the "real" EW story.

That's pretty much how I feel as well. If I'd been telling the story I'd have diverged from real-world history early on. Just because I would have done it differently doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the books

 

[Christopher]

^^Well, as I've pointed out before, the EW novels only fit into real history from the perspective of an American who doesn't pay much attention to the rest of the world. I mean, there's no way that the people of northern India would've been unaware that Khan Noonien Singh was ruling over them. And there was that nerve-gas attack on a NATO compound, I think -- that would've been a very public event that never happened in real history.

 

[Herbert1]

^^Well, as I've pointed out before, the EW novels only fit into real history from the perspective of an American who doesn't pay much attention to the rest of the world. I mean, there's no way that the people of northern India would've been unaware that Khan Noonien Singh was ruling over them. And there was that nerve-gas attack on a NATO compound, I think -- that would've been a very public event that never happened in real history.

Written for a mostly American audience who doesn't pay much attention to the rest of world.

I would have preferred that Greg Cox would not have tried to fit the novel into the events of real history and made it seem as though the Eugenics War was secret for most of the population.

I believe that the Star Trek timeline changed sometime in the late 1960s from that of the real world. Perhaps the results of the efforts by Gary Seven? The drunk who killed himself with McCoy's phaser in the 1930s in "The City on the Edge of Forever"? The events of "Tomorrow is Yesterday"?

Otherwise, authors are going to have to say that the events are secret or push them several decades into the future when the date of the original event comes and goes.

It isn't like Star Trek was ever intended to be a technological or political forecast or present a likely history of the future.

 

[JoeZhang]

Normally I don't like small universe books but I though those were very enjoyable and don't remember the references pulling me out of the book.

 

[Christopher]

I believe that the Star Trek timeline changed sometime in the late 1960s from that of the real world. Perhaps the results of the efforts by Gary Seven? The drunk who killed himself with McCoy's phaser in the 1930s in "The City on the Edge of Forever"? The events of "Tomorrow is Yesterday"?

Well, since the ST universe has some fundamental differences from our own in terms of physics, biology, and astrocartography, there's really no point in trying to rationalize it as a timeline branched off of our own. Ultimately, it's fictional, we're not (at least as far as we know). It's just a question of whether you want to make the fictional history look generally familiar to the audience to ease their suspension of disbelief.