Destiny Opinions - No Spoilers

[David Mack]

Wow... that's three slams in one thread from Dayton3! David, you really hit this one out of the park!!

One of the realities one must accept when writing a book is that no matter what you do, you can't please everyone. You have to accept that some people will not enjoy what you write, and that's normal. I wish everyone would love all of my books, but I know that's not possible. But I don't begrudge anyone their right to say that they think my work sucks.

 

[Deano2099]

I think they're great... what have you read up to now? I mean of other ST books.

A lot of stuff some years ago, got back into it with the DS9 relaunch, read that up to Unity, New Frontier up to Stone and Anvil, the A Time To... books, the TNG relaunch and Titan though still have GTTS and Sword of Damocles to go, and currently reading The Good That Men Do, which I'm really enjoying and finding a real page turner, which is odd as I struggled a bit with the first two Titan books.

I'm certainly going to buy the Destiny books regardless, to form my own opinion. Just since I've been actively avoiding any threads for fear of spoilers I wanted to get an impression of how they worked out.

 

[Daedalus12]

Certain parts of the books are mesmerizing but there are also parts which were either dull or superfluous. There is also one fanboy moment which almost ruined the trilogy for me. The 2nd half of the third book was a bit disappointing due to its predictability and the lost of mystery.

Overall the Destiny books were enjoyable but certainly I've read better trilogies in other TV scifi universes. For example I think the Technomage/Centauri Trilogies in B5 were better stories.

 

[Marie1]

I think they're great... what have you read up to now? I mean of other ST books.

A lot of stuff some years ago, got back into it with the DS9 relaunch, read that up to Unity, New Frontier up to Stone and Anvil, the A Time To... books, the TNG relaunch and Titan though still have GTTS and Sword of Damocles to go, and currently reading The Good That Men Do, which I'm really enjoying and finding a real page turner, which is odd as I struggled a bit with the first two Titan books.

I'm certainly going to buy the Destiny books regardless, to form my own opinion. Just since I've been actively avoiding any threads for fear of spoilers I wanted to get an impression of how they worked out.

Hmm... so you haven't read Warpath yet... (you're missing out!!)

But what you've read already should give you enough familiarity with the characters... that being said, I rarely venture out of the DS9-R (my thread of self control... since if I let my self, I'd spend hundreds of dollars a month on novels- which is why I avoid hardcovers... usually (and I like pretty pictures, but I worry about the dust jackets of HCs) and I didn't get lost at all. Part of that is due to the series- I've retained what I've seen pretty well. I'm rambling... where am I going??

 

[Sci]

Whether or no the plot works for you, I certainly can't address. I can say it worked for me though.

But I really must object to the claim that the Destiny trilogy somehow lacks depth. It's full of thematic depth -- it's about how an entire society of people face their own impending mortality, and about what the meaning of life is in the face of its imminent, mass termination.

Now, I will say that that makes it ground that David Mack has tread before. Wildfire was essentially about that same theme, though on a much more personal level. Mack is brilliant at bringing existential angst into the Star Trek Universe -- a world that doesn't normally lend itself to that kind of pain. The difference between Wildfire and Destiny, though, is that Wildfire is much more personal -- and that while some survive, one of the central characters does not. Destiny, on the other hand, is about social death -- and social redemption.

 

[Dayton3]

Whether or no the plot works for you, I certainly can't address. I can say it worked for me though.

But I really must object to the claim that the Destiny trilogy somehow lacks depth. It's full of thematic depth -- it's about how an entire society of people face their own impending mortality, and about what the meaning of life is in the face of its imminent, mass termination.

Now, I will say that that makes it ground that David Mack has tread before. Wildfire was essentially about that same theme, though on a much more personal level. Mack is brilliant at bringing existential angst into the Star Trek Universe -- a world that doesn't normally lend itself to that kind of pain. The difference between Wildfire and Destiny, though, is that Wildfire is much more personal -- and that while some survive, one of the central characters does not. Destiny, on the other hand, is about social death -- and social redemption.

I never really got that.

Course to me Star Trek is about two things.

Exploring space and starship combat.

Anything additional is just gravy.

 

[Sci]

Whether or no the plot works for you, I certainly can't address. I can say it worked for me though.

But I really must object to the claim that the Destiny trilogy somehow lacks depth. It's full of thematic depth -- it's about how an entire society of people face their own impending mortality, and about what the meaning of life is in the face of its imminent, mass termination.

Now, I will say that that makes it ground that David Mack has tread before. Wildfire was essentially about that same theme, though on a much more personal level. Mack is brilliant at bringing existential angst into the Star Trek Universe -- a world that doesn't normally lend itself to that kind of pain. The difference between Wildfire and Destiny, though, is that Wildfire is much more personal -- and that while some survive, one of the central characters does not. Destiny, on the other hand, is about social death -- and social redemption.

I never really got that.

I would suggest, then, that you weren't paying attention.

Course to me Star Trek is about two things.

Exploring space and starship combat.

Anything additional is just gravy.

So what makes Star Trek interesting to you, then? There are all sorts of sci-fi franchises out there that explore space and have starship combat. Why Trek and not Wars? Or B5? Or Honor Harrington?

 

[Christopher]

Course to me Star Trek is about two things.

Exploring space and starship combat.

Anything additional is just gravy.

So what makes Star Trek interesting to you, then?

One of the great mysteries of our time...

 

[Brendan Moody]

But I really must object to the claim that the Destiny trilogy somehow lacks depth. It's full of thematic depth -- it's about how an entire society of people face their own impending mortality, and about what the meaning of life is in the face of its imminent, mass termination.

Now, I will say that that makes it ground that David Mack has tread before.

It's also ground that nearly every piece of apocalyptic fiction has tread before to one degree or another, in many cases more effectively vis-a-vis total length than Destiny did. I don't accept that the mere act of showing people coping with the prospect of social mortality makes something "full of thematic depth." Deeper than it would be if that side of things went unacknowledged, sure, and I appreciate the thoughtful work that everyone involved clearly undertook to give Destiny thematic resonance. But I didn't find that the presentation was sufficiently novel or nuanced to provide true thematic depth.

 

[Sci]

But I really must object to the claim that the Destiny trilogy somehow lacks depth. It's full of thematic depth -- it's about how an entire society of people face their own impending mortality, and about what the meaning of life is in the face of its imminent, mass termination.

Now, I will say that that makes it ground that David Mack has tread before.

It's also ground that [/i]nearly every piece of apocalyptic fiction has tread before to one degree or another, in many cases more effectively vis-a-vis total length than Destiny did.

Wow. Hostile much?

I don't accept that the mere act of showing people coping with the prospect of social mortality makes something "full of thematic depth." Deeper than it would be if that side of things went unacknowledged, sure, and I appreciate the thoughtful work that everyone involved clearly undertook to give Destiny thematic resonance. But I didn't find that the presentation was sufficiently novel or nuanced to provide true thematic depth.

What would real depth be, then?

 

[MichaelS]

It's also ground that nearly every piece of apocalyptic fiction has tread before to one degree or another, in many cases more effectively vis-a-vis total length than Destiny did.

Wow. Hostile much?

In what way is Brendan's comment hostile? He's comparing the books to others and happens to disagree with the majority opinion. Nothing hostile there that I can see.

 

[Sxottlan]

Loved the first book. Great pacing and engrossing. Book two was also engaging, but I thought the pacing almost completely failed the novel. There's a section set in the past that's just grueling and it lasts for something like 50-60 pages. It did serious damage to my enjoyment of the book. Sorry Dave.

I'll try to post something more detailed when I finish the third book, which I am enjoying more than Mere Mortals.

 

[Marie1]

Whether or no the plot works for you, I certainly can't address. I can say it worked for me though.

But I really must object to the claim that the Destiny trilogy somehow lacks depth. It's full of thematic depth -- it's about how an entire society of people face their own impending mortality, and about what the meaning of life is in the face of its imminent, mass termination.

Now, I will say that that makes it ground that David Mack has tread before. Wildfire was essentially about that same theme, though on a much more personal level. Mack is brilliant at bringing existential angst into the Star Trek Universe -- a world that doesn't normally lend itself to that kind of pain. The difference between Wildfire and Destiny, though, is that Wildfire is much more personal -- and that while some survive, one of the central characters does not. Destiny, on the other hand, is about social death -- and social redemption.

I never really got that.

Course to me Star Trek is about two things.

Exploring space and starship combat.

Anything additional is just gravy.

But-- to get to the exploration- and why we explore, and for that matter, to go to war, you need everything else. I think you may be a bit like me sometimes- you watch Simpsons because its a cartoon, and funny, but miss the political and social commentary? (This is a theory/example) whereas my brother has a decade on me, and gets all that stuff, and is always beating his head against the desk that I don't get it- even though most of it happened before I was born...
Anyway- for the sake of our humanity- for what it means to be human, we can't go blundering around the universe or blowing things up- as cool as those SFX are. The Federation defends itself- from death, but also things like the Dominion, who brought "peace" and "order" but at cost- freedom, and a bit of genocide...
Humans also explore to learn, better ourselves, help others, and those aspects can't be ignored- because if they were- we'd be ignoring them now... which, arguably, we are...

But the point is, if Trek was merely coming up with what could possibly be on other planets, and space battles, exclusively, the exploration would not cancel the war, and I think you'd find that without that morality, something would be lacking- especially in literature... most TV/movie stuff has already sunk.

 

[Stevil2001]

I don't think there's anything wrong with you enjoying The Simpsons "just" because it's funny, or Dayton III enjoying Star Trek for a couple "superficial" reasons. We all enjoy what we enjoy for reasons of our own. I like reading the Lensman novels because they're about people flying around having outer-space adventures and shooting up evil... but if you sit down and think about the novels' philosophical underpinnings, they're actually somewhat repellent. But that's not what I'm reading the books for. I read them for what I want to read them for, and I enjoy them on that level, and I think that's perfectly fine.

(Dayton would probably enjoy the Lensman novels, actually, if he can put up with the Doc's prose style.)

 

[Dayton3]

I do enjoy Star War, Babylon-5, and Honor Harrington by the way.

But Star Trek is something special.