I'm just about 40% through on my Kindle... but I don't quite understand why they don't use f.e. a Betazoid when interrogating Altek Dans. They believe him to be implicated in the assassination and refuse to use advanced technology (in his medical exam) or telepaths to see if he's telling the truth? Laudable for certain, but a Betazoid wouldn't be the same as torture as he wouldn't dig around in Altek's thoughts but just verify if he's telling the truth. Even Troi, a half-Betazoid could do that... and it would prevent them from running around confused as to what to do with him. Overall it's an average book so far - I got bored to tears by the overly long retelling of how Taran'atar got on board to Even Odds but otherwise it's okay, a bit repetitive at times. Just one thing: I'm not sure if that's still the opinion here but I remember years ago the authors claimed quite vocally that every book (within the relaunch) can be read on its own, that everything needed is explained... I was wary of that claim back then, and I think this claim doesn't hold up any longer (if it ever did - because even with Unity which I read because it's noted as one entry-point into the relaunch after not having read Mission Gamma and which featured quite a comprehensive "Previously on"-section I found myself confused by people and events more often than not). The whole Ascendant-plotthread isn't really explained, who are they, what are their motives/goals etc. I haven't read the previous Ascendant books, just the 4 recent parts by DRGIII, so that plotthread leaves me bored quite honestly. That applies even more to the crossover-series, I guess - and while the heavy interconnection whets the appetite of the die-hard reader, the casual ones among which I'd count myself do have troubles keeping up... and new readers? I'm not opposed to book series, not at all - but at least if it's labeled correctly (this is part xy of series xy), you know where you stand. With the recent ST-books you don't have that, there isn't even a previously on or something like that, no way to find out (when you're in the bookstore holding a ST book in your hands) whether it's part of a series, and if so where in the series it's placed. No, you'll have to look it up on the internet, Memory Beta or some timelines by forum users. Which is way too complicated IMO. Anyway, I digressed... *g*
^ The original DS9 relaunch books were written to continue the style of the series, with ongoing plotlines that unfolded over time. DRGIII's books seem to be continuing that style. Except for series like The Fall, which are clearly labelled, the TNG and Titan books these days usually stand on their own pretty nicely. I do see your point about the Ascendants, though. Readers who haven't read all the relaunch books (or who read the earlier ones long ago when they first came out) may not know or not remember about them. On the other hand, plenty of folks here have complained that this book already spent too much time recapping things that we already knew.
I actually started reading the DS9 relaunch several years ago and I wan't as much of a hard-core treklit fan. In my first read-through I skipped around a lot. I only read Section 31: Abyss, Demons of Air and Darkness/Horn and Ivory, This Grey Spirit, Lesser Evil, Unity, Warpath, and Fearful Symmetry. I always felt that the bits I missed by skipping books were adequately covered and I was able to keep up. Part of the reason I skipped around so much was that each book felt like it told a complete story in and of itself. Recently I got caught up on most of the relaunch, reading the books in order. I will admit that while I was not lost with the first read through, this time the story was much stronger. At least in my experience they can be read separately but they are better read all together. With one exception. As I mentioned, on my first read through I skipped the Worlds of DS9 and went straight to Warpath. The book works better with Taran'atar's attack being a cold open rather than a "previously on".
Well, it's a good job my copy of Ascendance is downstairs waiting for me because this ends with a rather evil set of cliffhangers. As to the recaps - frankly, given that it's 7-8 years later, I needed 'em! It's hard to review this in isolation because I suspect this is acting as Part 1 of a stealth 2-parter. Nonetheless, I liked a lot of what it did.
More like part two of three. Revelation and Dust served as both the first part of The Fall and a stealth 'part one' of this trilogy, all at the same time. .
Hmm, yeah-ish - I mean reading R&D I knew it was setting something up, it just had that feel... But tend to count that as part of The Fall, otherwise it all gets very messy.
I finished this book now about a month ago, and I'm looking forward to start Ascendance. Particularly the today-parts - with the wormhole construction site uncovered and the subsequent belief-crisis really worked for me, and of course the Odo-situation. The Kira parts were quite boring. One thing I definitely could have done without: The way Sacraments skipped ahead in time... it totally spoiled Disavowed (not just broad strokes à la "the assassination plot is solved" but by whom it was perpetrated, how it was solved, who was involved etc. There was no need for that whatsoever because except for the fact that it is solved it had no real influence on the story!) which I have now no reason to pick up any longer. Who came up with that crazy idea?
Umm, that makes no sense. Finding out what happened is far from the only reason to read a story. There are lots of cases where we already know the story but still enjoy the book -- e.g. rereading a beloved book from the past, or reading the book that a familiar movie was based on, or reading a book based on a true story or a historical event or myth that you're familiar with. Reading fiction is not something you do exclusively to learn the facts of what occurred. It's something you do to experience how the story was told, to learn the details and specifics of the event, to feel the emotions that unfold with the experience, to enjoy the style that the writer brings to the telling of the story. So it's nonsense to say that there is no reason to read a book just because that one aspect of the experience has been revealed in advance. After all, if you give the same plot outline to a dozen different writers, you will get a dozen very different versions of the story, because each will give it different dialogue and different specific events and pacing and a different writing style and perspective. Each one will be a completely different experience. The facts of the story are just the basic framework. What actually matters, what makes the experience meaningful, is how the tale is told, what specifics the author brings to the raw facts and events. An analogy: Before I saw Star Wars: The Force Awakens yesterday, I had accidentally read something I shouldn't have and been spoiled on what was probably the single biggest spoiler of the movie, the fate of a key character. So I knew that moment was coming before I saw it. But that foreknowledge didn't ruin the scene for me; it just recontextualized it. I wasn't surprised, no, but knowing what was coming actually gave the scene more weight because of the anticipation, and I was focusing more on how the dialogue and events led up to it, how the filmmakers and actors handled it. What mattered was what the execution of the event was like rather than just the raw fact of what happened. That's why so many people have gone back to see the film a second or third time. Surprise is not the single exclusive reason that fiction exists.
Well, "what happens" would only cover that the assassination plot is solved which would have sufficed as information. Discussing the Bashir "betrayal" goes quite a bit deeper - and is absolutely unnecessary here because he doesn't even play a role in Sacraments. Having a whole novel taking place sort of off-screen - and having it solve the main reason for the whole negative attitude of the first half of the story - and then referencing it in the second half of this book is just ludicrous. This structure makes absolutely no sense... and goes even beyond what I've criticized previously about the interconnecting story line. And contrasting your reaction to that one particular spoiler as opposed to this situation - well, let's just say people react differently to being spoiled and to what they consider significant spoilers.
^I'm just saying that there's more to a work of fiction than whether or not you know what happens in advance. That's why people re-read stories or rewatch movies or shows. Indeed, I saw a statement recently that if a story can be "ruined" by a spoiler, then it's not a good enough story to begin with, because the really worthwhile stories are the ones we can return to over and over. If a story's appeal depends exclusively on the surprise factor, then it doesn't have much else going for it. Citizen Kane is still a great movie even when you know what Rosebud is. So, sure, it can be disappointing if you didn't get to experience the surprise, but that surprise is not the one and only source of the story's appeal. Trust me, there's still plenty in Disavowed that's worth reading, and I don't see why any structural issues with Sacraments of Fire would change that.
It didn't spoil Disavowed, it spoiled the rest of The Fall, which came out a year and a half earlier.
It depends on why you read a story, Christopher. Some people care mostly about the whodunnit in stories like that. If knowing now means that they don't feel like reading it, saying their motivations 'make no sense' is kinda insensetive. Each his own, remember?
But if that's what they mostly care about, then wouldn't they be happy to save all the time and just get the answer right away?
If the exclusive thing that mattered about fiction were the raw facts of what happened, you could just read the Cliffs Notes or Wikipedia. But this isn't studying for a test. Fiction is about the experience. Yes, the surprise is part of that, but it's only satisfying because the overall story around it has made us care enough about the world and its characters that the surprise has meaning to us. If it weren't for all the other things that made us care, we wouldn't be so concerned with spoilers. The problem is that we as a culture have become so fixated on the idea of spoilers that we've forgotten that they only matter because of the larger context they occupy. I mean, what does it matter what Rosebud is, unless we've become sufficiently engaged in Charles Foster Kane's story that we, like the reporter, feel a need to find some kind of insight to help us understand him? Why should we care who Luke Skywalker's father is unless we've gotten invested enough in his journey and his view of the world that we can feel how shocking the revelation is? And if all that other stuff made us care enough that the secret mattered to us, then it stands to reason that we can still care about the story even if we already know the secret. We may miss out on the pleasure of being surprised, but there will still be other benefits to the experience. Besides, Disavowed isn't a whodunit. It's a spy thriller.
And still, some people are no longer invested into reading some like The Fall if the ending is basicly explained somewhere else. I might not think like that, you don't. But others do. You can still respect that, if you don't agree with it. And yes, I am completely aware that the OP is talking about Disavowed, not The Fall. I'm just saying giving it as an example.
But respecting someone's right to their opinion doesn't mean I'm forbidden to try suggesting another way of looking at things. Respect and disagreement are not mutually exclusive. After all, this is a discussion board. There's not much to discuss if people don't have differing opinions on things. Debate is healthy, as long as it stays focused on the ideas instead of getting personal. Listening to other points of view can encourage us to try new things or broaden our horizons. So presenting another point of view is an offer, not an attack or a personal dismissal.
Also a good point, however, you started your first response with 'that doesn't makes no sense'. That can come acros as a little insensetive to other opinions.
Actually I said "That makes no sense." Maybe it wasn't the most tactful phrasing, but at least I didn't use a double negative. But it's not that I don't think the speaker should have an opinion, just that I don't see the logic of the opinion that was expressed. As someone who has read Disavowed, it doesn't make sense to me to posit that there is no reason to read it if one already knows the facts of what happened. There are plenty of other reasons to read it, like following the character arcs, enjoying Dave's prose style, experiencing his further fleshing out of the Mirror Universe and its history and inhabitants, etc. If my phrasing was a little harsh, it's because I feel it's kind of arbitrary to dismiss such an important book in Dave's body of work just because it was spoiled. I just meant to encourage her to read it, in my hamfisted way. Although it now seems that the poster wasn't even speaking of Disavowed at all, which means there's even less reason not to read it.
I just read how I quoted you.... I must have really absentminded to have typed it out like that.... Is it ok if I sit in a corner and feel ashamed now? For what it's worth, I do share your opinion. Just because you might know an ending, the book, or movie, or show, or play, but still have enough left to enjoy. To me, yes, it was indeed you phrasing I found a bit too much.