Finally read TOS Crucible Trilogy (Spoilers)

[RonG]

as part of my renewed Trek Lit reading, I've recently finished reading all 3 novels.

First of all, to DRG - I think that overall, this trilogy ranks as one of my all-time favorite TOS stories, and even one of my favorite Trek stories (of all series). For this (though not surprising, considering your earlier Trek novels) - kudos

I'm usually a sucker for all-encompassing epics, filled with pathos, twists and the "Holy $#!^" moments (hence my love for the DS9 Millennium Trilogy ). But once in awhile comes along an introspective "drama" of a novel, a quiet, personal piece. It might even compare to a quality Hallmark mini series as opposed to a sci-fi blockbuster.
In this case, it was Crucible:McCoy .

I think this one novel may be my favorite TOS novel ever, and what a rich, fulfilling read it was! The two lives of Leonard McCoy had me equally enthralled, and the death(s) of McCoy had quite an emotional impact (especially the end of the novel with McCoy's death in 2366, a nod to DeForrest Kelley's death in 2006, perhaps?).

Crucible:Spock continued the "personal journey" theme begun in the 1st book, even though I could not connect (emotionally)to Spock the same way I could with McCoy. But I think that maybe that was DRG's intention: to try and highlight Spock's duel nature - human and (thoroughly) alien - and one that we (human) readers cannot completely connect to... With that said, the novel did leave me with a better unerstanding of Spock, though its themes were already explored in previous novels like Vulcan's Heart, Spock's World and The Lost Years .

Crucible:Kirk was, IMO, the weakest of the three novels, but that is only a testiment to the power of the first two stories. The choice to go with a sci-fi action plot (and the Generations setting, as that's more a TNG movie, to me, at least) seems a bit jarring, when seen in the context of the first two books. However, I think the novel captured Kirk's personality as few novels did (and do). Moreso, I think both the writing and the plot were "designed" in a way to compliment Kirk's personality, with its fast-moving pace and action-oriented plot. It's very similar to the way Crucible:Spock was written to compliment Spock's character.

All in all, I think that the series was a success, both as a Trek series and in a meta-textual way, and a ferfect fit for the franchise's 40th anniversary. As for the financial side, I have no idea, so if anyone has information on the Trilogy sales figures, I'd love to see that.

I think that the decision to move away from established Trek lit "canon" proved to be smart and effective in making this trilogy a good draw for the casual Trek reader, as well as the hardcore fan. With the new movie approaching, this series is the perfect set (IMO) to compliment the future of the Star Trek franchise.

Comments?

 

[RonG]

I see comments are in rare demand

everyone agree with me?

oh well

 

[ATimson]

RonG said:
everyone agree with me?

Maybe with its regard for the casual fans. But for the "hardcore" fans who've been reading the books for years, it offers nothing new with regards to the characters.

 

[RonG]

Well, I think that the intense focus on the spotlighted character (coupled with the writing itself, which IS top notch), especially in the first book and to a lesser degree the second one, offered a good solid character study.

While on the surface, book 3 deviated from the rest in that regard, I think there thematic reasons for it (a possible explanation is the one detailed in my first post).

 

[AN_D_K]

I got halfway through Crucible:McCoy and I had to stop. It was like slowly wading through treacle. Which is fine if you like treacle... but I found it dull, laborious and very unsatisfying.

 

[RonG]

AN_D_K said:
I got halfway through Crucible:McCoy and I had to stop. It was like slowly wading through treacle. Which is fine if you like treacle... but I found it dull, laborious and very unsatisfying.

So I take it you didn't try and read the other novels?


From what I read online, Crucible:McCoy is loved by the majority of Trek readers, Crucible:Spock less so, and Crucible:Kirk is a bit more "controversial" among readers.

Anyone who read all three novels want to share his\her opinion?

 

[Art Vandelay]

^ I've read all three.

I absolutely love the McCoy novel, as I have said numerous times I consider it to be the best Trek novel. It's at the same time epic and personal, sometimes dark, at other times fascinating and at the end deeply touching. Wonderful prose.

The Spock novel was more of the same, yet it did not dig as deep and was not as sprawling. Nonetheless, the ending was utterly perfect and very emotionally satisfying. Not to be missed.

The Kirk novel goes into quite a different direction, as it is more of an action piece. Its insight into Kirk's persona is limited compared to the McCoy and Spock novels, and I have to say that Generations - the starting point of the story - is not exactly my favorite Trek movie. Also, the plan that Kirk carries out is similar in execution (not in result) to what Harriman did in David's earlier novel Serpents Among the Ruins. All in all, it is still a very good book but has a slight aftertaste of another trip to the same well.

 

[Elemental]

I'm still working on book 2 but had been focusing on the new TNG novels recently.

 

[Therin of Andor]

ATimson said:
Maybe with its regard for the casual fans. But for the "hardcore" fans who've been reading the books for years, it offers nothing new with regards to the characters.

With regard to "Crucible: McCoy", I must strongly disagree. We learn so many new aspects to McCoy, Edith Keeler and Tonia Barrows, plus the whole other life of McCoy, which is like a separate "Depression Era Great American Novel", set within a ST novel.

"Crucible: Spock" was trickier for me to fall in love with, since Saavik gets shunted out of the way quite unceremoniously. A legitimate choice by the author but one which is at odds with the other novels' notion that Spock eventually takes Saavik as a life partner. However, that this novel gives us new scenes with Thelin the Andorian, Spock's replacement in "Yesteryear" (TAS), is worth the price of admission! And we do get a fresh look at Spock's changing outlook on life, and his choices, as the years progress.

"Crucible: Kirk" is a change of pace to the previous instalments and that is probably why it hits so much criticism. People had certain expectations going in, especially if they've already loved the first two. Even David George tells us in the intro that he had a change of heart putting this story together. "Kirk" is a much faster read; I often wonder how casual fans feel who find and read the "Kirk" volume first, and then move onto the others in the trilogy.

AN_D_K said:
I got halfway through Crucible:McCoy and I had to stop. It was like slowly wading through treacle. Which is fine if you like treacle... but I found it dull, laborious and very unsatisfying.

I'm sure it depends on where you are, and how much free time you have to devoting to reading a David George novel. "Mission Gamma: Twilight" took me ages to get through, but I was reading it in very short chunks, having just moved from a job with a three-hour daily commute. Now, I was walking distance from work and, before I knew it, Internet time at breakfast and after dinner were soaking up time that i used to spend commuting and reading in peace. "Slowly wading through treacle" might fit that read, but it wasn't unpleasant.

"Serpents..." I read on vacation at my parents' house, but I had to stick with it, and fend off comments like, "Are you still reading that book?" (It was a bit like the early 80s again, before I'd moved out of home; here I was, nose in a Trek book again, with parents' gentle nagging/teasing as a background soundtrack.)

However, for "McCoy", I was vacationing with friends and I had several days of uninterrupted reading time... I fell deeply into the book and hung on every word. I found it very satisfying, and sometimes - quite often, actually - very surprising.

 

[Yassim]

Therin of Andor said:
People had certain expectations going in, especially if they've already loved the first two. Even David George tells us in the intro that he had a change of heart putting this story together.

I've wondered if the book suffered from the 11th hour change of heart. When I read your quote from DRG, I wished I could read the book he'd originally intended to write. I understand how he might shy from finishing the trilogy predictably, but if the end was in sight from the beginning, changing horses can be tricky...

Especially when the centre of the trilogy was always Edith Keeler, who had very little to do with the third book. I think Kirk's perspective would have pulled it together.

What I found interesting was, the third book was the one, from the beginning, I thought would be the hardest to write. McCoy's book had a great premise, and did some great exploration of the character. Spock's book had a premise that didn't hook me the same way, but did a good job of working through his character. But I always thought Kirk's character would be trickiest, because he's had so many faces at different times. Sometimes he's a "soldier, not a diplomat" and sometimes he's a diplomat. He's been an action hero and an old man, fearing the future. So his character was the one I was most eager to see explored, but his chapter didn't really deliver what I'd hoped for.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Yassim said:
When I read your quote from DRG

Hey, I didn't quote DRG.

 

[ATimson]

Therin of Andor said:
With regard to "Crucible: McCoy", I must strongly disagree. We learn so many new aspects to McCoy, Edith Keeler and Tonia Barrows, plus the whole other life of McCoy, which is like a separate "Depression Era Great American Novel", set within a ST novel.

Except the McCoy of that book, and the Spock of his, aren't the characters we read about in the other books (especially the post-TUC ones). Even ignoring the whole "McCoy is dead" bit, the Spock of the Vulcan's ... books and "Unification", the McCoy of Catalyst of Sorrows, don't seem to me like the characters we see in David's books.

 

[Therin of Andor]

ATimson said:
the McCoy of Catalyst of Sorrows, don't seem to me like the characters we see in David's books.

Why should he be? He is the McCoy extrapolated from what we saw in canonical TOS/TAS/TOS movies/TNG.

 

[ATimson]

Therin of Andor said:

ATimson said:
the McCoy of Catalyst of Sorrows, don't seem to me like the characters we see in David's books.

Why should he be? He is the McCoy extrapolated from what we saw in canonical TOS/TAS/TOS movies/TNG.

He should be if the book wants to add anything new to my understanding of the character. Instead, it... doesn't, giving a different picture of McCoy from that seen in other books (even ones set during the timeframe of Crucible: McCoy, like Ex Machina).

It's a perfectly valid creative choice. It's just not one that gave me any fulfillment as a non-casual reader.

 

[Therin of Andor]

ATimson said:
He should be if the book wants to add anything new to my understanding of the character. Instead, it... doesn't, giving a different picture of McCoy from that seen in other books (even ones set during the timeframe of Crucible: McCoy, like Ex Machina).

How was he different?

If anything, the young McCoy inferred by "Shadows on the Sun" seemed to be quite a variation of the young McCoy inferred by Joanna McCoy in "Crisis on Centaurus", but they are all aspects of canonical McCoy.

I can't see why any of these novel portrayals are so radically different/same as to affect your enjoyment of one new novel? If anything, it's Mrs McCoy and Joanna/Barbara who get portrayed differently with every incarnation, because canon gave us such few leads.

Each new ST novel should only have to be true to canon, and if the readers happen to see interesting overlaps and shades of grey in the novelists' work, so be it. Did you expect David George to have to reread every McCoy novel to get "Crucible" right? And how did his McCoy go "wrong" anyway? What previous crucial novel aspects did he miss?

 

[Christopher]

^^Andrew didn't say David got McCoy "wrong." He said David made a perfectly valid creative choice that Andrew didn't find satisfying. There's nothing there to argue with; nothing's going to satisfy everyone.

 

[Therin of Andor]

^ He did say it was "a different picture of McCoy", but that it also "offers nothing new", so I was rather puzzled. Sounds like a contradiction, that's all.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

Personally I thought the McCoy book was near perfect. No complaints. The Spock book was a strong follow-up, my only complaint being *spoiler*
.
.
.
.
.
.
That he went to undergo the Kolinar a second time, which I felt went against the character developemet seen in the movies
.
.
.
..
.
.
*end spoiler*

The Kirk book was good enough, but didn't really feel like it was part of the same series to me. There was a stylistic disconnect that made it less enjoyable as part of the series. As a stand alone novel I may have been more impressed.

 

[RonG]

I think one of the stregths of the trilogy is that you can read each book on its own, and moreover, you can start the series from any book you choose and read them in whatever order you'd like.

 

[ClayinCA]

You know, when I first read the Spock book, I had the same thought about Spock choosing to attempt Kolinahr again - that it was a backwards step for him, considering the character development he undergoes in the films. But as I went through the book, and as I've thought about it since, I've come to the conclusion that I like this plot element for precisely this reason: in life, we often do make retrograde steps in our individual developments. Alcoholics fall off (and get back on) the wagon sometimes, obsessive gamblers suffer relapses and get better, and even physical diseases have relapses and remissions.

I've said this before, but for me part of the appeal of this novel was watching Spock (who for all his hybrid-related neuroses has always been portrayed as so strong and stable) go through such agony as he tries to recover his balance. As someone who has battled with depression most of my life, to see Spock essentially go through the same process and ultimately emerge with a new sense of peace was tremendously fulfilling, even if his emotional turmoil made the book difficult to read at times (his dismissal of McCoy's friendship is, I think, the single most upsetting thing I've ever read in a Star Trek novel).