• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Roman Reviews "Star Trek: William Shatner" [Spoilers]

Trent Roman

Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Or, as it is subtitled, Captain’s Glory. In this book, the heroes of two generations must stop Shatner’s ego from imploding, creating a super-massive black hole that will suck all existence into itself. Well, actually, it was about an invasion by sentient dark matter, but that’s the plot the book should have had. From the cover to Kirk’s position vis-à-vis the messianic storyline, Shatner really outdoes himself this time in terms of sheer self-aggrandizement. Still, if you can set aside discomfort with the masturbatory impulse behind the text and remind yourself that the overblown plot won’t have any impact on the rest of novel line thanks to these books being wisely shunted aside into their own continuity, Glory actually makes for a good read. The pacing is strong, despite a number of plot oddities, and the idea behind the Totality is actually quite intriguing.

The book has most of the “Shatnerverse” hallmarks: a grave crisis threatening to tear the Federation apart which only Kirk is in a position to solve; characterization that always feels slightly off; a Starfleet that always seems slightly sinister, even when acting reasonably, so that Kirk can be the ‘lone wolf’ hero type; a notable disconnect from what came before it, as Shatner seems to move on quickly from one idea to the next. McCoy, Scotty and Joseph are practically non-entities in this novel; the first two reduced to speaking guest roles, the latter vanishing for most of the book, reappearing only at the very end. Oddly, in a book about the Totality invading the Federation, most of the action is not Kirk vs. Totality—which, perhaps, is a result of making the Totality a little too powerful as a villain—but Kirk vs. Kirk’s counterparts, whether Picard or his son. In fact, almost a third of the book seems devoted to a battle of wits between Kirk and Picard, all over something that becomes irrelevant almost as soon as Riker steps in. In this and in the climax, where Kirk battles Joseph, the way the plot has been massaged to create dramatic tension by pitching Kirk against friends and family is far too obviously artificial.

On the positive side, the book shows the Reeves-Stevenses’ usual attention to continuity, including matching the crew of the Titan to the novels’ roster, and most impressive (to me), Leybenzon and Kadahota on the ENT-E. Since this novel actually came out last year, and I assume nobody spliced in those characters between the hardcover and the paperback release, that’s some tight editorial oversight there.

I also quite liked the Totality as a villain in this book, after finding their supposed threat rather ho-hum in the previous two installments. While Norinda never really manages to break out of the femme fatale archetype, the gradual reveal of the Totality’s nature is fascinating. I like the notion of sentient dark matter, stretching like a lattice throughout the supposedly empty vacuum between galaxies; I like the idea that the Totality has had just as hard a time figuring out our form of life as we have theirs in the last few books; I like the idea of villains who must be fought multi-dimensionally, emerging from warp drives but crippled by gravity wells (not to mention the fanboy thrill of having the ENT-E and Kirk’s ship acting like a makeshift Interdictor); I also like that, while the book could easily have gone the way of saying the Totality’s ‘we bring you love’ shtick was a ploy, we instead get a very different kind of villain, one acting out of a misdirected desire for unity and apparently genuine concern for us lonely light-matter life-forms rather than personal profit or sadism—finally, not so much villainous despite all the harm they cause, but simply too arrogant or limited in worldview, incapable of going beyond the cultish belief that their way of life is naturally the best and all should be eager to embrace it… They’re like a happy-happy, joy-joy version of the Borg, or maybe a subtle rebuke of current ideological imperialism; in either case, they seem to make a good case for the Prime Directive and non-interference in matters you don’t understand.

So the plot twists and turns to varying degrees of incredulity, with a showdown on Vulcan. I’m grateful to see that this is one Trek product that knows not all threats to the Federation must also be threats to Earth; that there are other important Federation planets out there. The paranoid reaction of Starfleet in the Sol System, and our heroes’ evident discomfort with those measures, were also good to see, although Picard comes off as incredibly mule-headed, continuously arguing with everybody he meets about acceding to security measures, onerous as they might be—only to turn around and do the same to Kirk and Riker. Whatever; it’s the Shatnerverse. Janeway is here too, in full-on heartless bitch mode, although this time she actually has an excuse, trying to coordinate the battle against yet another greatest-threat-the-Federation-has-ever-faced. But, back to Vulcan: typically for this series, the denouement brings in more elements from Trek’s past, namely the progenitor Ur-Species and the Galactic Barrier, which has, by now, received more interpretations than there are ‘gangster planet’ stories in Strange New Worlds. But what really kills me in all this is when Joseph, a living embodiment of the Ur-Species’ protective encoding, dissipates to re-energize the barrier with the mysterious force that never appears on sensors. So, in other words: the child of destiny, product of a billion-year-old plan, and infused with otherwordly power, sacrifices himself for the salvation of all in the galaxy, and for future generations to come, from the threat of devouring darkness. As messianic storylines go, you don’t get them much clearer—but wait! Who is the Christ-like figure’s father? Kirk! Therefore, Kirk… is God! :guffaw: Yea, and ten score thousand of fanboys did proclaim: “I knew it!” :rolleyes: Sigh. Shatner, Shatner, Shatner. If ego could be harnessed as an energy source, this man could power the whole eastern seaboard by himself.

One thing that I simply must talk about—and I know this is rather anal, but, hey, it’s a Trek board, right? Let he who does not obsess over details cast the first stone and such. The name of Kirk’s ship, the so-called Belle Rêve, is grammatically incorrect. In French, most words are gendered male or female. “Rêve” is male; however, “belle” is a female adjective, and as such does not accord. It should have been “Beau Rêve”. Now, I realize that the gendering of words in French has no rhyme or reason and is difficult to grasp for non-native speakers, and that this is a relatively minor error, but given how often the ship’s name came up, I really wish someone would have bothered to check their grammar with somebody who knew French well. Reading Glory was like trying to listen to an orchestra when the second chair violinist is drunk: a sour note sounds regularly, preventing a truly immersive experience.

So, when one gets right down to it, Captain’s Glory pretty much sticks to the formula established by previous Shatnerverse novels, but with sufficiently different elements in the usual roles to keep the story fresh and interesting, helped by a plot that takes off quickly and doesn’t relent (except for that Kirk-Picard dust-up in the middle, which gets a bit long). Recommendations? If you’ve enjoyed previous Shatnerverse books, you’ll probably like this one. If you thought they were egotistical, overblown, poorly characterized and kinda trashy… well, it’s that too. Caveat lector.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
 
The name of Kirk’s ship, the so-called Belle Rêve, is grammatically incorrect. In French, most words are gendered male or female. “Rêve” is male; however, “belle” is a female adjective, and as such does not accord. It should have been “Beau Rêve”. Now, I realize that the gendering of words in French has no rhyme or reason and is difficult to grasp for non-native speakers, and that this is a relatively minor error, but given how often the ship’s name came up, I really wish someone would have bothered to check their grammar with somebody who knew French well.
Excuse me, Trent, but I'd like to introduce you to the Maison Belle Reve, a bed and breakfast in New Orleans; the Belle Reve Care Center in Milford, Pennsylvania; the Belle Reve assisted care facility, also in New Orleans; La Belle Reve Bridal Salon in Bellvue, Washington; the Oklahoma-based band Belle Reve; and, finally, the fictional Belle Reve Federal Penitentiary in Louisiana from DC Comics.
 
^ Sorry, but those are also wrong (and I notice all situated in anglophone areas; not a coincidence, I'm sure). The fact that this is (apparently) a common error doesn't make it any less of a mistake, and really only more grating.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
 
^ Louisiana is not an anglophone area. It's likely a Creole derivation....
 
KRAD said:Excuse me, Trent, but I'd like to introduce you to the Maison Belle Reve, a bed and breakfast in New Orleans; the Belle Reve Care Center in Milford, Pennsylvania; the Belle Reve assisted care facility, also in New Orleans; La Belle Reve Bridal Salon in Bellvue, Washington; the Oklahoma-based band Belle Reve; and, finally, the fictional Belle Reve Federal Penitentiary in Louisiana from DC Comics.

I'm surprised that you didn't mention the first one to come to my mind, the Belle Reve plantation that Stella and Blanche DuBois hailed from in A Streetcar Named Desire.
 
Here's something I found in Googling, in an analysis of Blanche DuBois in Streetcar:

http://www.grin.com/en/fulltext/anl/6973.html

Since `belle′ is the feminine form of the adjective `beautiful′ in French, whereas `reve′- `dream′- is a masculine noun, it seems probable that the estate was originally called Belle Rive- `beautiful shore′-and that the corruption of the name is symbolic of the tenuousness of it′s reality by the same time it has come down to Blanche′s generation

Perhaps this is the origin of the other "Belle Reve" usages.

But Keith is right: it may be a grammatical error strictly speaking, but its commonality as a place name makes it valid as the name of a ship. The ship would presumably be named for one of those places, rather than for the original phrase, so as long as it uses the same form that the place name uses, it's a correct reference.
 
Trent Roman said:
...and most impressive (to me), Leybenzon and Kadahota on the ENT-E. Since this novel actually came out last year...
That is impressive, and I didn't even notice. I'll have to go back and find the references. One question-- was it the Kadohata and Leybenzon from Q & A, or the Kadohata and Leybenzon from Before Dishonor? ;) :lol:
 
Christopher said:
Perhaps this is the origin of the other "Belle Reve" usages.

But Keith is right: it may be a grammatical error strictly speaking, but its commonality as a place name makes it valid as the name of a ship. The ship would presumably be named for one of those places, rather than for the original phrase, so as long as it uses the same form that the place name uses, it's a correct reference.

Sounds more like Steinbeck goofed, honestly. Not every apparent error is in fact a clever literary ploy; sometimes a slip is just a slip. As for commonality of place name... perhaps, but I've never heard the expression before and searching seems to turn up the same locales again and again, so saying it's common is rather exagerrated; and the book never mentioned that the ship was named after a specific location either (unless I missed it). Keith's suggestion that it stems from Louisiana Creole French sounds better (my own knowledge of the LCF variant is strictly incidental), maybe as an expression that gained currency despite being grammatically incorrect because it's phonetically more appealing than 'beau rêve'.

Turtletrekker said:
One question-- was it the Kadohata and Leybenzon from Q & A, or the Kadohata and Leybenzon from Before Dishonor? ;) :lol:

Haven't read Before Dishonor yet, so I'm not quite sure what that question means. For what it's worth, the appearances were relatively brief and uninvolved, but I didn't think they came off particularly different from what we saw in Q&A.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
 
Trent Roman said:
Sounds more like Steinbeck goofed, honestly. Not every apparent error is in fact a clever literary ploy; sometimes a slip is just a slip.

Funny you should say that while attributing a Tennessee Williams play to novelist John Steinbeck. Of course, I assume you have some clever purpose behind it. ;)
 
^ Er... would you believe: 'demonstrating how easily errors can happen'? :o :brickwall:

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
 
Re: Roman Reviews "Star Trek: William Shatner" [Spoilers]

I loved this novel - makes for a fine "finale" to Kirk's life, IMO, as it began with "Where No Man Has Gone Before"...

Not the perfect novel, but quite good, definitely.
 
Re: Roman Reviews "Star Trek: William Shatner" [Spoilers]

Haven't read Before Dishonor yet, so I'm not quite sure what that question means.

Did they come across as worthless scum? ;)


Shatner is fluent in French...
Was he involved in writing this? (writing not plotting)
 
Last edited:
Re: Roman Reviews "Star Trek: William Shatner" [Spoilers]

^ Sorry, but those are also wrong (and I notice all situated in anglophone areas; not a coincidence, I'm sure). The fact that this is (apparently) a common error doesn't make it any less of a mistake, and really only more grating.

And yet Kirk and Teilani's offspring was capable of swapping genders, IIRC, due to the unique physiology and the effects of Teilani's planet. Sounds a fitting name for the ship to me. :cool:
 
Re: Roman Reviews "Star Trek: William Shatner" [Spoilers]

Shatner is fluent in French...
The only thing Shitner is fluent in is a peculiar language known as "me, me, and er, oh yeah, me."

Read the Ashes of Eden and swore off buying the rest of the Shitnerverse books.

And no, there are no typos in this post.
 
Re: Roman Reviews "Star Trek: William Shatner" [Spoilers]

Did they come across as worthless scum? ;)

Well, it's been a while now (Holy Thread Necromancy, Batman!), but from I recall they were depicted as professonial Starfleet officers in their brief cameos, and not demented plot devices on the rampage.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
 
Re: Roman Reviews "Star Trek: William Shatner" [Spoilers]

If anything, for all those who read it, wasn't the Finale part of the book fantastic? I thought it was the most appropriate finale for a Star Trek story, and in the case of the Shatnerverse, its quite fitting.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top