Star Trek (#24) "Killing Time" by Della Van Hise

[Damian]

I was lucky enough to pick up a first (unrevised) edition of this book at a used book seller. I don't think they realized what they had or I'm sure they would have charged more than the $3 or $4 I got for it (the amounts I see online are ridiculous but I could see someone trying to get $10 or $20 for it).

But anyway, I've had it for a while and finally decided to sit down and read it. I'm about halfway through and figured I'd post some thoughts thus far since this is such an infamous novel. Basically the story is about the Romulans trying to change history so the Federation is never formed by killing the 3 men most responsible for it's creation (remember this is pre-TNG). They succeed and the story moves to the parallel universe (or altered universe I guess in this case) where there is no Federation, but an Alliance run mostly by Vulcans which is pretty similar to the Federation. However the Enterprise is the Shikhar, Spock is in Command and Kirk is an Ensign who has a history of trouble. Chekov is first officer but the others are largely the same.

Now, for salacious stuff . First of all, I want to point out, despite everything I've read I tried to approach it with an open mind. What I mean is I didn't assume every sentence had an homoerotic overtone. I tried to approach it as I would any Star Trek novel. At this point in the story it's pretty minor. For all I've heard about the homoerotic overtones, I frankly noticed it more when I read the novel "The Price of the Phoenix". There's a few minor references that could be interpreted to be homoerotic but if I knew nothing about the book I'm not sure I would have picked up on it. Van Hise noted at least twice to Kirk and Spock being like brothers, and close friends, and I know for myself that's how I always thought of their relationship, as brotherly love. Granted, I'm halfway through the book so it may get more, um, racy later on. There was a more racy scene in the book between Nurse Chapel and another female character who's described as similar to a canine in appearance. The closest I got was one scene where Kirk is talking to Spock in his quarters and Spock had his shirt off since it was late--and Spock feels like Kirk could undress him down to his marrow. Now the sense I got from that was because Kirk and Spock have a connection and I took it metaphorically and not sexually. There is another scene where Kirk has a fight with his roommate and he accuses the roommate of probably playing with dolls and wearing lipstick growing up (which is one of the altered scenes in the revised edition). But this altered universe Kirk is undisciplined and looking for trouble. I took this as simple immaturity and taunting by Kirk and not anything homoerotic. The character Kirk was fighting with was a bully and I gather Kirk was trying to attack him for not being "man" enough.

One thing that is unusual about Van Hise's writing style is her detailed description of character appearance. Normally, for example, an author my describe a scene as follows: "Kirk's hair was wet with sweat, running down his face". Van Hise's style is more like "Beads of sweat matted Kirk's golden brown hair down his smooth, clean shaven face".

Otherwise it's an interesting story. I've always liked altered universe stories so we'll see how this plays out.

 

[Christopher]

The "racy" stuff in Killing Time is really exaggerated by the legends. It's important to remember how much more homophobic people were back then, so that even the slightest hint of something that would seem innocuous today would've been scandalous at the time. Even so, the decision to recall and re-edit the book was something of an overreaction. As you say, the Phoenix novels had more blatant homoerotic elements. So it's odd that the reaction was more severe to this one. (If it had been during the era when Richard Arnold oversaw the novels, that sort of thing would fit right in, but it was a few years too early for that.)

 

[Damian]

The "racy" stuff in Killing Time is really exaggerated by the legends. It's important to remember how much more homophobic people were back then, so that even the slightest hint of something that would seem innocuous today would've been scandalous at the time. Even so, the decision to recall and re-edit the book was something of an overreaction. As you say, the Phoenix novels had more blatant homoerotic elements. So it's odd that the reaction was more severe to this one. (If it had been during the era when Richard Arnold oversaw the novels, that sort of thing would fit right in, but it was a few years too early for that.)

I did read somewhere that the recall of this novel would eventually lead to the Arnold/Rodenberry 'approving' novel content down the road. That this novel led someone in the Rodenberry circle (if not he himself) to believe the novels had too much freedom.

But yeah, so far anyway, it seems pretty mild. Van Hise's writing style is very unusual from usual Star Trek fare in the sense that she seemed very concerned with describing the character's appearances right down to the lock of 'golden-brown' hair that fell on Kirk's forehead, among other descriptions.

The Romulan Praetor, Thea, is a bit unusual too. She was apparently the Romulan commander in "The Enterprise Incident" which was a bit of a shock to me because Thea as described really didn't remind me of the Romulan Commander.

The infamous 'swimming pool' in the Enterprise was mentioned here. And one other thing I picked up on was the garden, or arboretum on the Enterprise actually reminded me a lot of the same garden described in the other book I just finished "Trek to Madworld", right down to how the path as arranged in such a way to give an illusion of space. Quite a coincidence considering they were two books written years apart with no other similarities.

 

[Christopher]

The Romulan Praetor, Thea, is a bit unusual too. She was apparently the Romulan commander in "The Enterprise Incident" which was a bit of a shock to me because Thea as described really didn't remind me of the Romulan Commander.

What seemed off to me was the portrayal of the Romulans as a sexist culture, so that Thea was required to pretend to be male in order to rule. The fact that they even had a female fleet commander in the first place argues against that, and The Making of Star Trek explicitly described Romulans as having complete gender equality while the Klingons were the fiercely sexist ones.

And one other thing I picked up on was the garden, or arboretum on the Enterprise actually reminded me a lot of the same garden described in the other book I just finished "Trek to Madworld", right down to how the path as arranged in such a way to give an illusion of space. Quite a coincidence considering they were two books written years apart with no other similarities.

I'd guess they were both building on The Making of Star Trek's mention of an unseen deck-8 recreation area that created a convincing outdoor feel, and perhaps on Franz Joseph's depiction of same in his Enterprise blueprints. People today have forgotten that TMoST was the Trek reference book back in the day, practically fandom's bible. It's the source of a lot of things that fans and later writers took for granted but were never established in TOS itself -- the 23rd-century setting, Kirk being the youngest captain, the Klingon-Romulan alliance, the forward dish being a navigational deflector, the standardization of the term "mind meld" (which TOS used only twice and TAS never), etc.

 

[Damian]

What seemed off to me was the portrayal of the Romulans as a sexist culture, so that Thea was required to pretend to be male in order to rule. The fact that they even had a female fleet commander in the first place argues against that

Yeah. Van Hise tries to explain in the novel that an earlier time change attempt resulted in the males being more warriorlike and the females being more the brains, hence the reason they were given command of ships. In some ways she describes the Romulans as misogynist and other ways seems to portray males as almost dumb brutes. An odd combination.

This was another of those novels that sort of gives a hybrid feel of the Enterprise (well the first 2 chapters that portray the actual Enterprise before the time alterations take place). Some of it has a feel of being post-TMP and some of it during the series run. At the very least we know it's post "The Enterprise Incident" based on the dialogue thus far, and at times it feels like years later, though I can't put my finger on why that is. But you're probably right about The Making of Star Trek. I just thought it was interesting they both described the same recreation area.

 

[Damian]

One thing I'll add is the story itself has some potential, at least until the big "Praetor reveal". She brings up the parallel universe concept like that was used in "Mirror, Mirror" (and of course later in Star Trek (2009)), but in this case it's an altered 'prime universe', an example where history was changed for our prime characters.

And it has a profound effect on the characters, almost driving some insane because they 'feel' wrong. They find they are not where they are 'supposed' to be. I sort of think of TNG episode "Conundrum" where the officers, even without their memories, gravitate to their traditional sections. And they all have dreams, senses of shadows as they are supposed to be. And Spock speculates this universe cannot survive if it is not fixed and put back. So it has a lot of potential. The whole Thea scene though pulled me out of it a bit. Things were going pretty well until that point as a story goes.

 

[Christopher]

And it has a profound effect on the characters, almost driving some insane because they 'feel' wrong. They find they are not where they are 'supposed' to be.

Oh, yeah, that. I hate it when time travel stories use that trope, as if there were some woo-woo mystical "destiny" to people's lives and they'd sense if it were "wrong." That's utter nonsense and a lazy cheat when a writer can't think of a better way to clue the characters in that their timeline has been altered. At least when they used that gimmick with Guinan in "Yesterday's Enterprise," they could excuse it by invoking her special alien senses (and they eventually explained it as a result of her time in the Nexus, at least in the deleted scenes from GEN), although I still felt it was a cheat.

 

[Damian]

Oh, yeah, that. I hate it when time travel stories use that trope, as if there were some woo-woo mystical "destiny" to people's lives and they'd sense if it were "wrong." That's utter nonsense and a lazy cheat when a writer can't think of a better way to clue the characters in that their timeline has been altered. At least when they used that gimmick with Guinan in "Yesterday's Enterprise," they could excuse it by invoking her special alien senses (and they eventually explained it as a result of her time in the Nexus, at least in the deleted scenes from GEN), although I still felt it was a cheat.

Ok, when you put it that way

In her defense though, I will say the dreams and insanity are a major part of the plot up to the point I'm at. Without that the the plot would be substantially changed.

And perhaps consider it a different way maybe. I was sort of thinking of it less like a destiny and more like this altered universe is 'wrong'. She does mention parallel universes, a much different phenomenon, like the mirror universe, where things may not turn out the same way.

But in this case, the existing "prime" universe (for lack of a better word) was changed. Perhaps changing some universal constants that need to be changed back. The dreams they are having are echos of the life as it should be...in 'this' universe. That they are not having bad dreams and going insane because of anything to do with destiny. But because this altered universe is wrong. That the characters are sensing it is wrong and the dreams are the intrusions of their real lives. Spock even mentions this altered universe is in danger of coming apart. So that plays into the idea that this is a mistake that needs to be fixed.

So I agree with what you are saying. But I'm just reading this particular story from a different angle.

Now I will note that I'm halfway through the book. By the end it's possible I'll see it the same way, as a cheat. But up to this point that's my impression. That this is a changed timeline that needs to be fixed.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I did read somewhere that the recall of this novel would eventually lead to the Arnold/Rodenberry 'approving' novel content down the road. That this novel led someone in the Rodenberry circle (if not he himself) to believe the novels had too much freedom.

The Star Trek Office of GR always had tie-in approval. Susan Sackett vetted the Bantam novels on GR's behalf, and the Pocket ones up until Richard Arnold took over the task (during the writing of Vonda's McIntyre's ST IV novelisation).

What escaped the net was the deal that Franz Joseph managed for the "Starfleet Technical Manual", where FJ was able to license out his original designs for RPGs (in those days called "war games"). The TM seemed to come out during a time when GR and Paramount underestimated the longevity of Trek. Later, Roddenberry used to get angry when fans complained that Trek "needed to use" designs from Joseph's work, or asked him why the movies had ignored specific FJ tech that could have circumvented a problem in a movie. Heritage models produced miniature white metal ships and characters for "Star Fleet Battles" that were not licensed by Paramount, but seemingly had some deal with FJ.

Even ST:TMP managed an (unscripted) voiceover that mentioned a FJ "dreadnought", and starship NCC numbers from the TM - and eventually a Pocket novel was called "Dreadnought!", although it was a design proven a failure in the story. GR did not want Trek associated with "war games" and ships built for war, which of course was the angle that attracted some fans to Trek. He also took great offence to a convention flier naming GoH Diane Duane as "the creator of the Rihannsu" and, although her explanations for Romulus and Remus made a lot of sense, it became a real sticking point for Richard Arnold and, as we know, Duane's Rihannsu novels went on hiatus for a loooong time, and other authors had to stop referencing them. ("We are Romulans", RA would quote from "Balance of Terror", when fans asked about the Rihannsu.)

 

[Damian]

The Star Trek Office of GR always had tie-in approval. Susan Sackett vetted the Bantam novels on GR's behalf, and the Pocket ones up until Richard Arnold took over the task (during the writing of Vonda's McIntyre's ST IV novelisation).

What escaped the net was the deal that Franz Joseph managed for the "Starfleet Technical Manual", where he was able to license out his original designs for RPGs (in those days called "war games"). The TM seemed to come out during a time when GR and Paramount underestimated the longevity of Trek. Later, Roddenberry used to get angry when fans complained that Trek "needed to use" designs from Joseph's work, or asked him why the movies had ignored specific FJ tech that could have circumvented a problem in a movie. Heritage models produced miniature white metal ships and characters for "Star Fleet Battles" that were not licensed by Paramount, but seemingly had some deal with FJ.

Even ST:TMP managed an (unscripted) voiceover that mentioned a FJ "dreadnought", and starship NCC numbers from the TM - and eventually a Pocket novel was called "Dreadnought!", although it was a design proven a failure in the story. GR did not want Trek associated with "war games" and ships built for war, which of course was the angle that attracted some fans to Trek. He also took great offence to a convention flier naming GoH Diane Duane as "the creator of the Rihannsu" and, although her explanations for Romulus and Remus made a lot of sense, it became a real sticking point for Richard Arnold and, as we know, Duane's Rihannsu novels went on hiatus for a loooong time, and other authors had to stop referencing them. ("We are Romulans", RA would quote from "Balance of Terror", when fans asked about the Rihannsu.)

Yeah, I remember both names. I just remember something about they felt the novels had ''too much" freedom so they started to exercise more control for a while. I remember seeing the 'need' to recall and edit this novel as one of the reasons. I'm not saying it's right of course, but I guess maybe the GR people felt they were getting too lax with their oversight.

In retrospect, reading an unaltered version of this novel all these years later it all seems kind of silly. Thinking of the one scene in particular that was edited out where Kirk is fighting with his roommate, who is a bully, and he says he probably wore lipstick and played with dolls. That's not homoerotic IMO. That's an undisciplined person looking for trouble goading someone into a fight saying something that he knows will rile him up. "Captain" Kirk would never say something like that. I agree with that (well unless it had a higher purpose, like Kirk calling Spock a half-breed in "This Side of Paradise", for what we know were good reasons). But this is Ensign Kirk, who's life took a very different turn and he wants to get kicked off the ship.

 

[Therin of Andor]

That's not homoerotic IMO.

It's homoerotic when you know that Della Van Hise was already known for K/S fanfic.

 

[Christopher]

In her defense though, I will say the dreams and insanity are a major part of the plot up to the point I'm at. Without that the the plot would be substantially changed.

Which is part of the reason I thought the plot was silly. That's what I meant.

And perhaps consider it a different way maybe. I was sort of thinking of it less like a destiny and more like this altered universe is 'wrong'. She does mention parallel universes, a much different phenomenon, like the mirror universe, where things may not turn out the same way.

But in this case, the existing "prime" universe (for lack of a better word) was changed. Perhaps changing some universal constants that need to be changed back. The dreams they are having are echos of the life as it should be...in 'this' universe. That they are not having bad dreams and going insane because of anything to do with destiny. But because this altered universe is wrong. That the characters are sensing it is wrong and the dreams are the intrusions of their real lives. Spock even mentions this altered universe is in danger of coming apart. So that plays into the idea that this is a mistake that needs to be fixed.

I find that too fanciful and arbitrary an idea. Changing humans' life experiences doesn't change the fundamental nature of the universe; we're not that important to reality. Alter human history in the past and it would just play out like an alternate timeline, as "normal" in that reality as any other path of history. There's no path of history that's intrinsically more "right" than any other. It's all just cause and effect.

Besides, the characters in "Yesteryear"'s other timeline didn't feel that there was anything wrong with their reality (indeed, arguably it was the Prime reality that was the result of time travel, because of Spock's time loop to save himself, and nobody there ever felt it was wrong). And subsequent Trek stories about altered timelines didn't show anyone other than Guinan feeling that their reality was "wrong." So why would it happen in this case and no other?

Now I will note that I'm halfway through the book. By the end it's possible I'll see it the same way, as a cheat. But up to this point that's my impression. That this is a changed timeline that needs to be fixed.

Yes, it's a given that that's the impression you were meant to get. My point is that it's a contrived way of creating that impression, or rather of making the characters aware of the "broken"-ness of their timeline. Of course a story like that needs the characters to become aware of the need to "fix" their timeline, but if the only way the writer can make the characters aware of that is by giving them some mystical intuition about it, rather than being informed by a time traveler or something, that just makes it obvious that the writer's hand is manipulating the characters in order to force the story in the desired direction. That's why I think it's a cheat.

("We are Romulans", RA would quote from "Balance of Terror", when fans asked about the Rihannsu.)

Well, that was a silly argument on Arnold's part (one of many, no doubt). If you translated, say, Japanese characters' dialogue into English, you'd probably have them say "We are Japanese" instead of "We are Nihonjin." After all, you're translating the rest of the words into English, so it stands to reason that you'd translate the name too.

Thinking of the one scene in particular that was edited out where Kirk is fighting with his roommate, who is a bully, and he says he probably wore lipstick and played with dolls. That's not homoerotic IMO.

It is homophobic and transphobic, though, and it's also implicitly misogynistic to insult a man by calling him effeminate. So I can't say I regret its removal.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I loved this book. I went into it with no idea about K/S and spent much of it reading passages to my Star Trek friends while we laughed our asses off. K/S aside, I thought it was a really good adventure. Later I found out the story behind it, which is HERE. The author now sells K/S-with-the-serial-numbers-filed-off ebooks but I've never read any.

I had a mint condition 1st edition too... then accidently tore the cover off

 

[F. King Daniel]

It is homophobic and transphobic, though, and it's also implicitly misogynistic to insult a man by calling him effeminate. So I can't say I regret its removal.

Wasn't Kirk's roommate meant to be an asshole, though? Had those words come out of one of the hero's mouths I'd agree.

 

[Damian]

I find that too fanciful and arbitrary an idea. Changing humans' life experiences doesn't change the fundamental nature of the universe; we're not that important to reality. Alter human history in the past and it would just play out like an alternate timeline, as "normal" in that reality as any other path of history. There's no path of history that's intrinsically more "right" than any other. It's all just cause and effect.

I guess I was trying to give her the benefit of the doubt. I was somewhat impressed that she did bring up the whole idea of changed history vs. parallel universes. I guess she wanted to get across the idea that this was NOT a parallel universe. And perhaps the technology the Romulans used has a side effect that causes the dreams of the original timeline (ok I know at this point I'm reading into it but it's a possibility). And I keep thinking of what Spock said about this universe basically self destructing if it's not fixed. The impression I got was that the Romulan's time travel or method of changing history was flawed in some way. That it made this 'new' history not normal.

I get what you are saying, but at this point I'm not getting the feel that they are having these dreams and visions based on some destiny, but because this altered universe is wrong and needs to be fixed or it will be destroyed. Almost like a residual part of the original timeline is leaking into this new universe. It's hard to explain. I guess I sort of think of when Dr. Crusher was trapped in the static warp shell and her crewmates outside were trying to break in to rescue her. In this case the unaltered universe is sort of trying to do the same thing.

It is homophobic and transphobic, though, and it's also implicitly misogynistic to insult a man by calling him effeminate. So I can't say I regret its removal.

I get that and agree with it. And it's a dopey line in the book. But I know she was portraying Donner as this hard headed masculine bully and Ensign Kirk calling him those names was intentional goading, trying to get the reaction he got out of Donner. So it made sense in the context of the scene. Captain Kirk would never say something like that but an undisciplined Ensign Kirk?

I will say her writing style is very unique among Star Trek books. Her intense focus on character appearances and the great detail she gives to those descriptions is something I can't say I've ever seen in Star Trek novels, even in Marshak and Culbreath's novels which were arguably more homoerotic then this one. But thus far that is the most unusual thing I can say about Killing Time. And there are some erotic overtones from time to time but so far from other characters, like Chapel and S'T'Kal, the canine creature, and a few scenes here and there that are borderline interactions that can maybe be interpreter either way (though I probably wouldn't have noticed some of those otherwise).

There is one amusing scene when Ensign Kirk is preparing to go on the landing party, he originally pulls out a red shirt, then his roommate goes in his closet and pulls out a blue shirt instead, telling Kirk that on this ship you don't want to go on a landing party in a 'red' shirt. Apparently red shirts are bad luck in any timeline .

 

[Damian]

It's homoerotic when you know that Della Van Hise was already known for K/S fanfic.

Yeah. My main point though is if I was reading this novel without knowing about her or the novel's history, I probably wouldn't have picked up on that just by reading the novel. Her writing style is quite a bit different then other Trek novelists, but I probably would have assumed she was a bit on the vain side and very concerned with how characters appeared physically, as opposed to any eroticism, homo, hetero or otherwise (if you throw in the canine crewmate).

 

[Christopher]

I guess I was trying to give her the benefit of the doubt. I was somewhat impressed that she did bring up the whole idea of changed history vs. parallel universes. I guess she wanted to get across the idea that this was NOT a parallel universe. And perhaps the technology the Romulans used has a side effect that causes the dreams of the original timeline (ok I know at this point I'm reading into it but it's a possibility). And I keep thinking of what Spock said about this universe basically self destructing if it's not fixed. The impression I got was that the Romulan's time travel or method of changing history was flawed in some way. That it made this 'new' history not normal.

And I just had trouble buying that premise. It didn't fit with other time travel stories in Trek or elsewhere. Your idea that it was specific to the method used by the Romulans is an interesting handwave for it, but I don't think it's supported by the narrative. In the novel, they just go back in time in a starship and assassinate a few people. That's a pretty conventional time travel method in the Trek universe, with no unique physics involved. So it didn't feel to me like a plausible consequence of this particular time travel method. It just felt like an arbitrary ticking clock inserted by the writer.

Also, I don't care for the trope of putting the whole universe in danger. It's too exaggerated, an unnecessary bit of overkill to raise the stakes artificially. As long as the characters and institutions we care about are in danger, there's no need to endanger the whole universe. And it's implausible -- given that the universe is ancient and effectively infinite, it follows that if it were possible for sentient beings to do anything that would destroy the entire universe, somebody somewhere would've already done it.

If you think about it, canonical Trek has almost never gone to the "fate of the universe" well, even though it's a widespread cliche in a lot of other sci-fi. The only screen stories whose events were said to jeopardize the existence of the entire universe, as opposed to just the Federation, the galaxy, the timeline, etc., were TOS: "The Alternative Factor" (ick), DS9: "Playing God," and DSC: "What's Past is Prologue" -- three stories out of more than 700. (And, surprisingly, not one single movie.) Yet Trek novels in the '80s dealt with threats to the entire universe surprisingly often, as we discussed a while back in the "Threats to the galaxy" thread: The Entropy Effect, Corona, The Wounded Sky, Killing Time, Time for Yesterday, The Three-Minute Universe, etc.

I get that and agree with it. And it's a dopey line in the book. But I know she was portraying Donner as this hard headed masculine bully and Ensign Kirk calling him those names was intentional goading, trying to get the reaction he got out of Donner. So it made sense in the context of the scene. Captain Kirk would never say something like that but an undisciplined Ensign Kirk?

It's just that the idea of such perceptions of gender roles surviving into the 23rd century at all feels dated and unfortunate now, though it's sadly consistent with TOS's own gender attitudes.

 

[Damian]

And I just had trouble buying that premise. It didn't fit with other time travel stories in Trek or elsewhere. Your idea that it was specific to the method used by the Romulans is an interesting handwave for it, but I don't think it's supported by the narrative. In the novel, they just go back in time in a starship and assassinate a few people. That's a pretty conventional time travel method in the Trek universe, with no unique physics involved. So it didn't feel to me like a plausible consequence of this particular time travel method. It just felt like an arbitrary ticking clock inserted by the writer.

I'll be interested to see how it all plays out. Like I said, up to the point to the big Praetor reveal I was sort of enjoying the story. I noted before I'm a bit more forgiving of older books because they had less continuity to play with and I was reading the dreams a little differently then the normal 'this is our destiny' thing. And yeah, the whole universe is in danger is a bit melodramatic I'll admit. I guess that was a counter to Thea's wish to try to maintain this timeline...that keeping it is not an option. There's something about this universe that is unstable, but if Van Hise doesn't present a plausible reason for that then it would be a miss.

But the Praetor scene with Sarela was a letdown, esp. finding out it was the Romulan Commander. It just didn't seem to fit and like you noted the whole Praetor couldn't be a female didn't really jive with what we knew of Romulans even up to that point. I got the impression it was a subtle (or not so subtle) dig at male dominated society but it just didn't fit well here. So it's very possible by the end of the book what started off with some promise may end up being a disappointment.

Overall it has an odd feel for a Star Trek novel. It certainly reads much differently then what I'm used to, even among older novels. Kirk's portrayal at the beginning, before the changes, present a character not as strong as we are used to. Spock has more feeling then we are used to as well. And McCoy almost feels like an outsider in the early part of the book. That it's all about the relationship between Kirk and Spock and McCoy almost seems like and intruder. To the point Kirk is reluctant to see McCoy. It all felt a bit off.

It's just that the idea of such perceptions of gender roles surviving into the 23rd century at all feels dated and unfortunate now, though it's sadly consistent with TOS's own gender attitudes.

I can't disagree with you there. I can see that in a 20th century story, but 23rd, yeah I have to admit it's out of place. I guess we can chalk some of that to it's an alternate timeline so maybe they aren't so enlightened in that timeline. In some ways, esp. considering Van Hise's odd writing style of being overly concerned with the character's physical appearance (at least in the usual Trek fiction), this is more consistent with a mid 20th century story then something from an enlightened future.

 

[Damian]

Ok, I'm about 2/3 of the way through the book now. Between 1/2 and 2/3 the story has some interesting points, but it's starting to lose me a bit. One interesting point is Spock speculates why the altered universe may be unraveling. Comparing it sort of to an organ being rejected by the body. It's interesting because it's a bit different for Star Trek up to that point when the book was written. I'll give Van Hise credit for trying to give a basis for why things are unraveling and not just resting on that it's an altered timeline and that's why it's wrong. Her premise may not stand up to scientific scrutiny very well, but I'll give an author credit for at least trying to offer some explanation in such a way that narratively it makes some sense if not scientifically.

Where it is losing me is the whole Sarela and Thea plotting to change Romulan warrior culture and them needing to con Spock into helping them by introducing Vulcan tenets. They kidnap Kirk to elicit his cooperation and to top it all off Spock is in the early stages of Pon Farr, apparently triggered by this altered universe somehow. I won't judge a book before finishing it, and hopefully it all gets tied together.

As far as any homoerotic overtones in this book (I only mention this because I have an unaltered first edition so I wanted to share my impressions): There is one scene where Spock basically forces a mind meld on Kirk. It's a bit suggestive in the sense that Spock straddles Kirk in their arboretum and holds his arms apart until he decides it's 'ok' to basically assault Kirk by forcing him to meld (though Kirk does ultimately relent). Again, Van Hise doesn't just initiate the action, she tries to justify it by going through a narrative where Spock justifies his 'assault' to himself in his mind before doing it, but it does seem out of character. I guess something else we have to chalk up to this being an altered timeline and perhaps the creeping insanity. After that it's all pretty mild. There's not much else on that front up to where I'm at (around 210 pages roughly).

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

It seems like ISBN 0-671-52488-7 is the 1st printing (pre-recall) & 0-671-65921-9 is the heavily edited version.

Can anyone verify?