Your copy is obviously from a alternate timeline where the rules of English syntax are slightly different. Please remain wherever you are at this moment, and await the arrival of the nearest available DTI agent.
This book is so good that I wouldn't mind re-reading it almost immediately. If I do so, I will note down the exact points where I spotted copy-editing errors.
But I think I'm going to re-read The Wounded Sky first.
But I think I'm going to re-read The Wounded Sky first.
Picked it up today and I'm three chapters in. Enjoying it so far. But I do want to say that before I even started the book, the dedication to Margaret Clark got me in the feels.
130 pages into my re-read. I think I already blew by one of the syntax errors that threw me out of the story like I'd been hit with what hit Wesley on page 117, without noticing it this time. (The whole time I was reading it during my vacation, I was never more than 30 seconds away from a pad of Post-It Notes; why the Hell didn't I flag a blooper that hit me that hard?!?)
Shouldn't that be
instead? It reads like she was acting on the side of the Romulans!
I'm 2/3 of the way through, and it's probably going to get an average rating from me.
The antagonist has a motivation similar to Annorax from "Year of Hell," which is sympathetic enough that I can see why she would not get the harshest punishment imaginable for her temporal shenanigans.
I'm not super thrilled with a lot of decisions made in streaming-era Trek, which is not Dayton's fault. However, since these new books are required to be consistent with what the shows have done, I will be much more selective in my future book purchases.
The antagonist has a motivation similar to Annorax from "Year of Hell," which is sympathetic enough that I can see why she would not get the harshest punishment imaginable for her temporal shenanigans.
I'm not super thrilled with a lot of decisions made in streaming-era Trek, which is not Dayton's fault. However, since these new books are required to be consistent with what the shows have done, I will be much more selective in my future book purchases.
That seems silly.
That's far more kind of a word than I would have used.
I don't understand your objections here.
To be more specific, things like the decisions made with Beverly Crusher and her son, along with almost all of the Borg stuff in the show PIC, rankle me. There was some wonderful work being done on the show and in the novels, but overall, it just is not for me.
I picked this one up out of a love for Wesley and in the hope that it would make me feel better about Coda. To an extent, the book succeeded. I still would rather read about the characters in their pre-streaming appearances, though.
I picked this one up out of a love for Wesley and in the hope that it would make me feel better about Coda. To an extent, the book succeeded. I still would rather read about the characters in their pre-streaming appearances, though.
I wasn't asking about your objection, I wanted to know what was "silly" according to @Tuskin38.
I can't speak for @Tuskin38, of course, but I agreed with the "silly" post because issuing a blanket "presumption of guilt until proven innocent" of all current ST literature without giving specific reasons seemed silly to me, too.
Your subsequent post broadcasting your specific reasons doesn't seem particularly silly. No sillier than my objection to Borg or Dominion stories that don't say anything new, or to Section 31 stories, period, or to anything involving gratuitous use of the "eye-scream" trope (and I'm hard-pressed to find a use of that trope that isn't gratuitous, whether it's in ST, or in The World According to Garp, or in biographies of Louis Braille).
I'm rather infamous around here for my condemnation of "revisionist Oz," but I give specific objections (contradicting the Baum Canon more than Baum contradicted himself; contradicting fundamental aspects of the Baum Canon; creating a "tail wagging the dog" situation with the results of either or both of the above). I very publicly recused myself from reviewing Last Best Hope without prejudice because I found the idea of a totally hopeless tragedy not only personally abhorrent, but entirely contrary to the spirit of ST (essentially a "Kobayashi Maru" that's in-story real). And I have given specific objections to "The Man Trap" (and to whoever recently questioned my opinion that it goes against everything ST stands for, in spite of being the first episode aired, and one of the first filmed, it still managed to go against Roddenberry's stated goals).
And even though I refuse to give author, title, or any other identifying information about "The Book I Refuse To Name" without an NDA (outside of a few comments on review sites that already identify it), I still manage to voice plenty of specific objections to it, that would only identify the opus to somebody else who's had the misfortune of reading it.
Your subsequent post broadcasting your specific reasons doesn't seem particularly silly. No sillier than my objection to Borg or Dominion stories that don't say anything new, or to Section 31 stories, period, or to anything involving gratuitous use of the "eye-scream" trope (and I'm hard-pressed to find a use of that trope that isn't gratuitous, whether it's in ST, or in The World According to Garp, or in biographies of Louis Braille).
I'm rather infamous around here for my condemnation of "revisionist Oz," but I give specific objections (contradicting the Baum Canon more than Baum contradicted himself; contradicting fundamental aspects of the Baum Canon; creating a "tail wagging the dog" situation with the results of either or both of the above). I very publicly recused myself from reviewing Last Best Hope without prejudice because I found the idea of a totally hopeless tragedy not only personally abhorrent, but entirely contrary to the spirit of ST (essentially a "Kobayashi Maru" that's in-story real). And I have given specific objections to "The Man Trap" (and to whoever recently questioned my opinion that it goes against everything ST stands for, in spite of being the first episode aired, and one of the first filmed, it still managed to go against Roddenberry's stated goals).
And even though I refuse to give author, title, or any other identifying information about "The Book I Refuse To Name" without an NDA (outside of a few comments on review sites that already identify it), I still manage to voice plenty of specific objections to it, that would only identify the opus to somebody else who's had the misfortune of reading it.
It just seems odd to me that saying “I don’t like the direction of streaming Trek so I am less likely to buy books based on it” is somehow objectionable. I mean, if someone casually said to you, “I don’t like Star Trek so I’m not likely to buy a Star Trek book,” would you call them silly, or treat writing a detailed justification of their opinion as a prerequisite for not being called silly?
Yes, exactly. Like most people, I assume, I try to not buy books I know I won't like, and I don't see how that's "silly."
Really enjoyed this one. At the beginning I thought that, well, all ST time-travel books have to be parasitic on what'd been put forward before (and this book has a high entry bar, you need to know your Trek!), while I'd prefer something 100% original, but I do appreciate how the book makes the characters consider some pertinent questions about time travel which -- I guess for plot safety reasons -- the authors normally avoid in similar novels. And it helps that here everything is really nicely tied up.
I would like to understand more about the whole, well, ontological threat that's the background to the whole thing. And is there, in any books, anything concrete established about the existence of a 'True' timeline? (The one where the headquarters of the guys 'taking care' of timelines is, from which they have a bird's eye view of everything: that view evolves, i.e. changes in time, so that time is somehow assumed to be the True time?...)
I would like to understand more about the whole, well, ontological threat that's the background to the whole thing. And is there, in any books, anything concrete established about the existence of a 'True' timeline? (The one where the headquarters of the guys 'taking care' of timelines is, from which they have a bird's eye view of everything: that view evolves, i.e. changes in time, so that time is somehow assumed to be the True time?...)
The "True Timeline" as you put it is simply the Prime Universe as seen in the TV shows and movies.
I'm about halfway through it. (Going through the audiobook version.) I'm glad to see so many people enjoying it, but so far it just seems... boring.
A lot of big things happening that theoretically should be interesting, but it's constantly grinding to a halt recapping events from previous episodes and films or explaining the author's head-canon. Neither is inherently wrong, and sometimes it's welcome or even necessary, but it's been frequent and has often left me wondering how much of this is truly relevant to the story at hand, or at least relevant enough (either in terms of plot or emotion) to justify the effect it has on the pacing.
I also keep running into a personal pet peeve where characters stop for what seems like an extended emotional reaction in the middle of what otherwise seems to be a fast-paced sequence. Or they'll react in a way that seems out of character, especially for Picard, who seems to be in a continual state of reminiscing. Again, sometimes appropriate especially given the story, but the frequency and duration of it is killing the momentum for me.
Nothing against Robert Petkoff's reading in general, but there are some times where I'm wondering if his choices for pacing or emoting are making some of this worse for me.
Anyway, glad a lot of people are enjoying it. I'm hoping it will pick up for me in the second half. A lot of the concepts for this book hit my sweet spots for the types of stories I generally enjoy; I loved Christopher Bennett's DTI books. But I think if I get one more scene of...
...I'm going to scream.
A lot of big things happening that theoretically should be interesting, but it's constantly grinding to a halt recapping events from previous episodes and films or explaining the author's head-canon. Neither is inherently wrong, and sometimes it's welcome or even necessary, but it's been frequent and has often left me wondering how much of this is truly relevant to the story at hand, or at least relevant enough (either in terms of plot or emotion) to justify the effect it has on the pacing.
I also keep running into a personal pet peeve where characters stop for what seems like an extended emotional reaction in the middle of what otherwise seems to be a fast-paced sequence. Or they'll react in a way that seems out of character, especially for Picard, who seems to be in a continual state of reminiscing. Again, sometimes appropriate especially given the story, but the frequency and duration of it is killing the momentum for me.
Nothing against Robert Petkoff's reading in general, but there are some times where I'm wondering if his choices for pacing or emoting are making some of this worse for me.
Anyway, glad a lot of people are enjoying it. I'm hoping it will pick up for me in the second half. A lot of the concepts for this book hit my sweet spots for the types of stories I generally enjoy; I loved Christopher Bennett's DTI books. But I think if I get one more scene of...
Guinan and Kovich standing in a void exchanging exposition
Last edited:
