So What Are you Reading?: Generations
- Thread starter captcalhoun
- Start date
I finished Enterprises of Great Pitch and Moment yesterday, and I liked it a lot. The crossover elements between TNG and DS9 were fun, and it was cool to get team up with Picard and Sisko. I'm also a big Klingon fan, so anytime a book deals with them this well, it gets a few extra points for me, especially when it's written by @KRAD.
After that I decided to take a break from Star Trek and I'm giving The Lord of The Rings: The Return of the King another go. I had started it a few months ago, but I was in the mood for a easier read at the time, so that was when I had started my recent Trek phase. I don't mean this as an insult to Trek Lit, I just find the more old fashioned way the LOTR books are written a bit of a challenge compared to stuff in a more modern style like the Trek books.
After that I decided to take a break from Star Trek and I'm giving The Lord of The Rings: The Return of the King another go. I had started it a few months ago, but I was in the mood for a easier read at the time, so that was when I had started my recent Trek phase. I don't mean this as an insult to Trek Lit, I just find the more old fashioned way the LOTR books are written a bit of a challenge compared to stuff in a more modern style like the Trek books.
Nicah Clarke, by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
Doyle hated that he became known as the writer of Sherlock Holmes. He liked the money and the notoriety the stories brought him, but he thought his historical fiction was where he real talents and skill lay. Micah Clarke is one of his historical novels, a doorstopper of a book (180,000 words), written between A Study in Scarlet and The Sign of the Four. In fact, it's somewhat due to Micah Clarke that Doyle wrote Sign; he ran into Oscar Wilde at a party, who praised Micah Clarke, and they were invited at that party to write stories for the magazine in which Sign appeared.
Micah Clarke is an account of the Monmouth Rebellion of 1685.
For those not up on their English history... Charles II died without any legimate children, though e fathered over a dozen children with various mistresses, and the oldest of these bastards was James, Duke of Monmouth. James was popular with the people, a fine soldier (he fought with the historical d'Artagnan of Three Musketeers fame at the siege of Maastricht, which is where d'Artagnan died), and, importantly, a Protestant. Charles' heir, his younger brother James, Duke of York, had converted to Catholicism. Monmouth was exiled to the Continent, essentially for his own safety (as he was a potential rival to his own brother), and there he fell in with a other exiles who wanted a Protestant succession. (Monmouth wasn't really welcome on the Continent, either; his cousin, William of Orange, saw himself as a potential rival for James II's throne, and he didn't want Monmouth interfering with or upsetting his plans.) So, in June of 1685, Monmouth lands in Cornwall with some soldiers of fortune, and they try to raise the west country in rebellion against the Catholic James II. There's some initial success, then at the battle of Sedgemoor Monmouth's rabble is routed in battle by the army of the Duke of Marlborough. Monmouth escapes briefly, but he's eventually captured, brought to London, and is beheaded in an extraordinarily sloppy execution. James makes a number of pro-Catholic moves in the following years, and when his second wife gives birth to a son, James (the Old Pretender of the 18th-century Jacobite Rebellions), the potential Catholic succession becomes too much and, at Parliament's invitation, William of Orange and his wife Mary (a daughter of James II) invades England in 1688 in what is known as the Glorious Revolution.
Micah Clarke covers this story (at least through the aftermath of Sedgemoor) from the perspective of a young man named, duh, Micah Clarke as he learns of the coming rebellion by a man named Decimus Saxon, is encouraged by his Roundhead father to join Saxon and offer himself to Monmouth's forces, and runs off to join the rebellion against the Catholic king.
It is turgid, boring, overwrought crap. If Doyle thought his historical novels were his "real" work, then I'm glad he wrote the Sherlock Holmes stories he hated. I really don't know why Oscar Wilde would have ever praised this, unless he was being sarcastic and Doyle didn't realize his book was being mocked.
It's an episodic book, and some episodes are effective in their standalone-ness. The main character isn't terribly interesting, and even Decimus Saxon, who is the interesting character here (he has an interesting history) really only came alive if I put Patrick Troughton's voice as the Doctor to him, which added some character to the character. (Troughton played Saxon in a BBC Radio play near the end of his life. I've not heard it.)
One of its problems from 2025 is that a lot of what it describes is plain obscure. I took classes in the Stuart period in college, I've read for pleasure books on this period in the years since, and even I had to go and look up various names and scour Wikipedia. I didn't remember when and where the battle of Dunbar took place, or the relationship between the Independents and the Presbyterians. Micah Clarke, the narrator, knows all of these things, and he expects his grandchildren (the intended audience) to know all of these things, and maybe the British readers of 1890 would be a bit more familiar with the intricacies of the period between the English Civil War through the ascension of James II than I would be, but that doesn't lessen the frustration of the experience of trying to read it today. Hell, my fourth paragraph here gives more backstory on the novel than the novel does!
In short, Micah Clarke is a turgin, Victorian boys adventure melodrama that is far too long and has no real point. Again, I really do not know what Oscar Wilde saw in this.
If you want to read Doyle's historical works, try Brigadier Gerard. These stories written during the period between "The Final Problem" and "The Empty House" combine popular fiction and historical drama, and Michael Chabon is a fan of this Napoleonic cavalryman.
Doyle hated that he became known as the writer of Sherlock Holmes. He liked the money and the notoriety the stories brought him, but he thought his historical fiction was where he real talents and skill lay. Micah Clarke is one of his historical novels, a doorstopper of a book (180,000 words), written between A Study in Scarlet and The Sign of the Four. In fact, it's somewhat due to Micah Clarke that Doyle wrote Sign; he ran into Oscar Wilde at a party, who praised Micah Clarke, and they were invited at that party to write stories for the magazine in which Sign appeared.
Micah Clarke is an account of the Monmouth Rebellion of 1685.
For those not up on their English history... Charles II died without any legimate children, though e fathered over a dozen children with various mistresses, and the oldest of these bastards was James, Duke of Monmouth. James was popular with the people, a fine soldier (he fought with the historical d'Artagnan of Three Musketeers fame at the siege of Maastricht, which is where d'Artagnan died), and, importantly, a Protestant. Charles' heir, his younger brother James, Duke of York, had converted to Catholicism. Monmouth was exiled to the Continent, essentially for his own safety (as he was a potential rival to his own brother), and there he fell in with a other exiles who wanted a Protestant succession. (Monmouth wasn't really welcome on the Continent, either; his cousin, William of Orange, saw himself as a potential rival for James II's throne, and he didn't want Monmouth interfering with or upsetting his plans.) So, in June of 1685, Monmouth lands in Cornwall with some soldiers of fortune, and they try to raise the west country in rebellion against the Catholic James II. There's some initial success, then at the battle of Sedgemoor Monmouth's rabble is routed in battle by the army of the Duke of Marlborough. Monmouth escapes briefly, but he's eventually captured, brought to London, and is beheaded in an extraordinarily sloppy execution. James makes a number of pro-Catholic moves in the following years, and when his second wife gives birth to a son, James (the Old Pretender of the 18th-century Jacobite Rebellions), the potential Catholic succession becomes too much and, at Parliament's invitation, William of Orange and his wife Mary (a daughter of James II) invades England in 1688 in what is known as the Glorious Revolution.
Micah Clarke covers this story (at least through the aftermath of Sedgemoor) from the perspective of a young man named, duh, Micah Clarke as he learns of the coming rebellion by a man named Decimus Saxon, is encouraged by his Roundhead father to join Saxon and offer himself to Monmouth's forces, and runs off to join the rebellion against the Catholic king.
It is turgid, boring, overwrought crap. If Doyle thought his historical novels were his "real" work, then I'm glad he wrote the Sherlock Holmes stories he hated. I really don't know why Oscar Wilde would have ever praised this, unless he was being sarcastic and Doyle didn't realize his book was being mocked.
It's an episodic book, and some episodes are effective in their standalone-ness. The main character isn't terribly interesting, and even Decimus Saxon, who is the interesting character here (he has an interesting history) really only came alive if I put Patrick Troughton's voice as the Doctor to him, which added some character to the character. (Troughton played Saxon in a BBC Radio play near the end of his life. I've not heard it.)
One of its problems from 2025 is that a lot of what it describes is plain obscure. I took classes in the Stuart period in college, I've read for pleasure books on this period in the years since, and even I had to go and look up various names and scour Wikipedia. I didn't remember when and where the battle of Dunbar took place, or the relationship between the Independents and the Presbyterians. Micah Clarke, the narrator, knows all of these things, and he expects his grandchildren (the intended audience) to know all of these things, and maybe the British readers of 1890 would be a bit more familiar with the intricacies of the period between the English Civil War through the ascension of James II than I would be, but that doesn't lessen the frustration of the experience of trying to read it today. Hell, my fourth paragraph here gives more backstory on the novel than the novel does!
In short, Micah Clarke is a turgin, Victorian boys adventure melodrama that is far too long and has no real point. Again, I really do not know what Oscar Wilde saw in this.
If you want to read Doyle's historical works, try Brigadier Gerard. These stories written during the period between "The Final Problem" and "The Empty House" combine popular fiction and historical drama, and Michael Chabon is a fan of this Napoleonic cavalryman.
Hmp. This was after Shakespeare's time, but it sounds like a rehash of plot beats from several of his history plays (speaking figuratively -- I know it really happened). I came away from my Shakespeare binge watch last year with the reaffirmed conviction that monarchy is more trouble than it's worth, since it's just a bunch of more-or-less distantly related rich people sacrificing thousands of lives over their petty power struggles and rivalries. It's all just the same stuff over and over.
Yeah, that sounds about right. I'm not sure anything's changed in post-monarchy societies, it's just different rich people (and corporations) that the masses suffer and die for.
Yeah, but when democracy works, it keeps the oligarchs at least somewhat in check. At least having a mechanism for the peaceful transfer of power through elections means that seizing power through war or insurrection becomes the exception rather than the rule.
Shakespeare, though, was a royalist (or at least had to act like one when writing plays at the pleasure of Elizabeth I or James I) and tended to portray populist movements as the bad guys. In King John, he erased the Magna Carta from history altogether by compressing the timeline and retconning the First Barons' War into retaliation for the death of Prince Arthur, when they actually happened a dozen years apart.
Well, we're even: DD is one of my all-time favorite ST novelists. And as I recall, Doctor's Orders was actually one of her lesser efforts (she's that good), at least compared with masterpieces like Spock's World. Enjoy.
Don't mince words; what do you really think? (And I've had similar experiences with other authors -- and composers -- who had badly distorted ideas of which of their works were good and which were bad. And of course, with snobs who automatically reject anything that achieves any popularity.)
I sincerely hope that if my novel ever makes it into bookstores, nobody declares it to be "turgid, boring, overwrought crap." Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I'm now almost a third of the way into Roland Allen's The Notebook, having just finished the chapter on Luca Pacioli and Leonardo da Vinci.
Last edited:
You can tell that she meant it to take place in the continuity of her earlier novels but was required under the Richard Arnold-era restrictions to drop all her nonhuman Enterprise-crew characters and make it feel more like a conventional TOS-era setting.
I read Star Wars: Ambush at Corellia which does a lovely job at showing the normal day in the life with our leads. The Luke and Lando side trip I found really funny. The three children are fun together throughout especially when they wonder off at the dig. The ending I found scarily prescient with Han’s home planet turning into a xenophobic nightmare.
I then read Buffy: Coyote Moon I don’t really have much to say really on that it was fun but I don’t really know enough about the history of Skinwalkers to really judge how it handles American Indian traditions I’ll have to look into that.
I then read Buffy: Coyote Moon I don’t really have much to say really on that it was fun but I don’t really know enough about the history of Skinwalkers to really judge how it handles American Indian traditions I’ll have to look into that.
I like Doctor's Orders, but I agree with you that it's one of Duane's lesser works. I hadn't noticed what @Christopher observed about the Richard Arnold-ness of it, but that makes sense in retrospect.
It's a Victorian novel written in the 1880s, in the style of a memoir written in the 1720s, about events in the 1680s. I could have writer, "It's a dull Victorian doorstopper," and left it at that, so who's the dull, turgid, overwrought writer now, eh?
I was reading it for research purposes, and Victorian novels can be so hit or miss.
Tchaikovsky! He was not a fan of his own "1812 Overture."
Felix Mendelssohn thought his "Reformation Symphony" was a piece of junk, and it's one of his better works. At least, it's one of my favorite Mendelssohn works.
Creators are often the worst judges of their own works.
Sure, for thousands of years. (And funny, but that’s pretty much what I thought of the parts I’ve read of Roger Zelazny’s Amber series; I’ve never quite understood why it’s so beloved, and I speak as someone who otherwise really likes Zelazny.)
Yes, and Saint-Saens forbade performances of Carnival of the Animals (with an exception for "The Swan") during his lifetime, because he thought it too light, and that it would make him look silly.
Sullivan was the composer; Gilbert was the lyricist/librettist. Sullivan wrote in a great many genres, including overtures, at least one symphony, a cello concerto, serious operas, and ballets, and is also known for a few dozen hymn tunes, the best known of which is "St. Getrude" ("Onward Christian Soldiers").
Unfortunately, Star Trek hasn't hit my TBR lately, and I have a backlog to read.
What I have read this month: Miss Austen, Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, Sign of Four, Miss Austen, and Aftertaste. I also expect to finish Caves of Steel and Emma before the end of the month. For some reason I got on a Sherlock Holmes binge. Miss Austen was a good read. Aftertaste was okay, but I wouldn't recommend it. Caves of Steel isn't great. Any Michael Connelly book would be a better alternative. No idea why it has over 4 on Good Reads.There is zero character development, and it's mostly talking heads. Emma starts off good, but it really drags in volume 2 and 3. And the Sherlock Holmes stuff above is all good. I definitely like Sign of Four more than a Study in Scarlet.
For next month: Radium Girls, North and South, Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, and Remains of the Day. We'll see if I get anything else in next month.
For September: Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Return of Sherlock Holmes and maybe a Stephen King or Michael Connelly book.
For October: Picture of Dorian Grey, Grey Woman, 'Salem's Lot, Hound of Baskerville, and a start of Lonesome Dove. I've been meaning to read this one for a while.
What I have read this month: Miss Austen, Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, Sign of Four, Miss Austen, and Aftertaste. I also expect to finish Caves of Steel and Emma before the end of the month. For some reason I got on a Sherlock Holmes binge. Miss Austen was a good read. Aftertaste was okay, but I wouldn't recommend it. Caves of Steel isn't great. Any Michael Connelly book would be a better alternative. No idea why it has over 4 on Good Reads.There is zero character development, and it's mostly talking heads. Emma starts off good, but it really drags in volume 2 and 3. And the Sherlock Holmes stuff above is all good. I definitely like Sign of Four more than a Study in Scarlet.
For next month: Radium Girls, North and South, Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, and Remains of the Day. We'll see if I get anything else in next month.
For September: Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Return of Sherlock Holmes and maybe a Stephen King or Michael Connelly book.
For October: Picture of Dorian Grey, Grey Woman, 'Salem's Lot, Hound of Baskerville, and a start of Lonesome Dove. I've been meaning to read this one for a while.
When I was 14, I would have wanted to fight over this. Today, I don't think you're wrong.
Why Return before Hound? (Hound was published between the stories in Memoirs and the stories in Return.) Or do you want to read the gothic Holmes novel in the spooky Halloween season?
When I was 14, I hadn't read enough to really form any good opinions.
Science Fiction got a bad rep for not being really good. Now, I get it. But I do like his short fiction. I, Robot is a pretty good collection of his short stories overall. He doesn't seem to be good with the long form or character development in general. And I liked his short lived show Probe. It might be because that was the norm for science fiction at this point in time: ideas over character development.
Saving Hounds to go with the rest of my more Halloween focused reads. I get that it does take place before the Final Problem. But I've also read that it's mostly a stand alone novel.
Similar threads
