Spoilers TF: Revelation and Dust by DRGIII Review Thread

[Thrawn]

Just finished. Slight, but I don't seem to mind much. DRG3 used to write giant novels, and now (as Christopher has pointed out a couple times) there aren't really giant Trek novels being written, so it just takes him more novels to get his stories out than it used to. I have a feeling that Kira's stuff is DS9 setup and not The Fall setup (I don't know why, and I'd love to be proven wrong, but I bet we don't see Taran'atar again until the next DS9 event), but even still: I'm willing to be patient.

Plagues/Dawn, if nothing else, showed that DRG3's stories are surprising enough that the first third (namely, Rough Beasts) can be essential to a phenomenal narrative, but rather off-putting on its own.

I agree this isn't satisfying as a standalone, but I'm also willing to wait for larger stories and judge its worth in hindsight. Certainly, the threads open here - Odo and the Changeling, Cardassian unrest, the Tzenkethi potentially being responsible for Bacco's assassination, Kira's experience, and the return of my very favorite DS9 Relaunch character at the end (can I just get a SQUEE! for just a second? thank you) - are, on the face of it, much more interesting than the threads dangling from the Typhon Pact novels were to me. And he brought those threads all home in style.

Despite the obviously slight nature of the plot, here, this had the perhaps counter intuitive effect of making me more excited for DRG3's next DS9 novel (assuming such a thing occurs) than for the rest of The Fall. I'm sure the rest of this miniseries will resolve a couple of those threads I listed, but I get the feeling DRG3 is settling in for a long game here, and the last time he did that, the finale was one of my favorite Trek novels of all time. I'll give him the chance again - no question.

 

[Sci]

Given how review threads usually go in here, the general tone and comments in this thread are a pretty good indication that it was not as well received as some of the previous books.

Don't mistake a few people talking more than others for a general consensus.

The fact remains that 2/3rds of the people here who rated it gave it a positive rating.

Are you intentionally misunderstanding? I simply used the same metric you're using. I'm not really referencing the thread itself, just comparing the numbers you used to the ones other books here have gotten.

You hold up 2/3rds positive as proof of good quality (or opinions, I suppose),

No. I cite the 2/3rds number to point out to JD that the negative reviews are not a consensus and that therefore he may yet enjoy the book once he reads it.

 

[JD]

I'm thinking I probably will because I tend to fall more in line with the other readers here than on places like Amazon. But now I'm just a little more nervous than I would have been if it got rave reviews everywhere.

 

[JeBuS]

I'm thinking I probably will because I tend to fall more in line with the other readers here than on places like Amazon. But now I'm just a little more nervous than I would have been if it got rave reviews everywhere.

You're going to read it anyway. We're all going to read it anyway. How bad it is pretty much doesn't matter when it comes to the people here.

 

[JD]

Not in my case. I stopped both Before Dishnor and Seize the Fire after only a couple chapters. I'm going to give something a good review just because it's Trek.
The only reason I've loved the Trek books so much, is because they are damn good books. If I don't like a book, I'll say I don't like it whether it is Trek or not.

 

[JeBuS]

Not in my case. I stopped both Before Dishnor and Seize the Fire after only a couple chapters. I'm going to give something a good review just because it's Trek.
The only reason I've loved the Trek books so much, is because they are damn good books. If I don't like a book, I'll say I don't like it whether it is Trek or not.

I'm the opposite, I pretty much always finish a book, no matter how horrible I find it. Over the past two years, I've read about 500 books, but have only quit on one, The Power of the Dog by Don Winslow. The idea of leaving a story untold... anathema to me. I guess maybe that's why I disliked RaD?

 

[JD]

I can see that, but I've got way to big of a to read list to waste my time on something I'm not liking.

 

[Sci]

Not in my case. I stopped both Before Dishnor and Seize the Fire after only a couple chapters. I'm going to give something a good review just because it's Trek.

Same here. In fact, the only Trek novels released this year I've bothered to read at all have been Rise of the Federation: A Choice of Futures and The Fall: Revelation and Dust. None of the others had premises that interested me.

 

[TJ Sinclair]

Good lord, this thread is a mess. Almost as bad as RTD vs. Moff arguments on Gallifrey Base.

In any event, I finished Revelation and Dust a couple of hours ago. Like most of DRG3's books, I truly appreciate the world-building, the vivid description, and proper voice he gives to the characters. But like most of DRG3's recent books, I don't love it. I haven't loved one of his books since Twilight. It seems to be that he needs longer page counts to really tell the story he wants to, and in recent efforts, those stories have been spread out over several novels, or unfortunately condensed in ways that undermine both their structure and nuance.

Reading through the thread, apart from the pissing matches over the book's worth, I'm surprised by a couple of things: the hate that Bacco seems to have engendered in a segment of readers, and the number of people that "didn't get" the ancient Bajor chapters. In the case of the former, I suppose it's just personal taste, but I love the character; in the second, by now, I would have thought readers were used to these kind of metaphorical sidesteps into an alternate life and thus able to see how it relates to the present as the tale develops and not only at the end.

In any case, I'm glad I read it. Since I haven't been interested enough in any of this year's TOS novels to read them, I've been eagerly anticipating this one. Far from perfect, but decent enough. I can't say I was particularly caught off guard by any of the events of the book, except that on the last page, but I enjoyed it well enough. I'll happily read through the rest of The Fall, but at this point, I'm mostly looking forward to James Swallow's Titan entry.

 

[Jarvisimo]

It seems to be that he needs longer page counts to really tell the story he wants to, and in recent efforts, those stories have been spread out over several novels, or unfortunately condensed in ways that undermine both their structure and nuance.

I really agree with this! It kind of felt like we only had one chapter with each character (except Ro and Sisko), and this kind of undercut the sense of continuous development - especially of characters who are still cipherical (like Blackmer). It also made chapters where resolutions happened (esp. Dax and Bashir) feel perfunctory. All of which contrasted with Kira muchos, and which may have added to others' dissapointment

Compression also felt an issue with the prior duology, especially when seemingly key characters were dropped (O Spock, where art thou?).

But still I enjoyed these moments as they happened, but I just wish there had been more time for everyone to breathe, in true DRG style. The Kira narrative was nice, it felt like his McCoy narrative in many ways, in style especially. It has been a long time since I read the Gateways novella in the same era - was it a good fit with that?

 

[TJ Sinclair]

The Kira narrative was nice, it felt like his McCoy narrative in many ways, in style especially. It has been a long time since I read the Gateways novella in the same era - was it a good fit with that?

That part of RaD was clearly at least several centuries later than "Horn and Ivory," but it dovetailed rather nicely. No direct references, but I easily connected to it as part of the same world, which helped me get into what was going on.

I'm not the biggest Kira fan in the universe, tending to prefer her in an action role to a spiritual/introspective one, but having "Horn and Ivory" in memory (for some reason it's really vivid, even after all these years), put me in the proper frame of mind for this one.

As far as most of the characters not getting their due, I certainly agree, though in contrast to Kira, I've always loved Ro so having her front and center was okay by me. Also, I've had to grit my teeth through the Bashir storyline since Zero Sum Game, and having so little of him and Serena was also a welcome break.

 

[Jarvisimo]

The Kira narrative was nice, it felt like his McCoy narrative in many ways, in style especially. It has been a long time since I read the Gateways novella in the same era - was it a good fit with that?

That part of RaD was clearly at least several centuries later than "Horn and Ivory," but it dovetailed rather nicely. No direct references, but I easily connected to it as part of the same world, which helped me get into what was going on.

I'm not the biggest Kira fan in the universe, tending to prefer her in an action role to a spiritual/introspective one, but having "Horn and Ivory" in memory (for some reason it's really vivid, even after all these years), put me in the proper frame of mind for this one.

As far as most of the characters not getting their due, I certainly agree, though in contrast to Kira, I've always loved Ro so having her front and center was okay by me. Also, I've had to grit my teeth through the Bashir storyline since Zero Sum Game, and having so little of him and Serena was also a welcome break.

Ah, i see about Horn and Ivory! I did like this presentation of the Bajora, and having read up on H&I again, I liked how DRG made this period very different (technologically, politically). However, the resistance plotline and style did feel generic too, as someone mentioned upstream. Like a bit of cod-Sebastian Faulks writing.

And as for Bashir - you mean you didn't enjoy ZSG, or you haven't enjoyed his material since ZSG? I think Book 3 of The Fall is well worth looking forward to. Maybe Shar too? I really didn't enoy what Paths of Disharmony suggested about Andorian society - it presented, for me, too simplistic, too binary, a society. And the seperation happened too quick.

 

[JWolf]

At which point does this hunt for new readers(creating jumping on points or defying Trek lore)become detrimental to the whole project?
I haven't yet read this book but the thought of yet another time gap is not filling me with enthusiasm.All these revamps and relaunches are getting hard to keep current with.
I realise that treklits and the tv show are different mediums but at some point the book universe needs to settle down and just get on with it's business.

The time gap isn't an issue as we do get some of it filled in. So really, don't worry about the time gap. It's filled in well enough.

 

[JWolf]

Unless the book is by Michael A Martin; it is ok to think his books are poorly written here. You are only allowed to say that DRG3 books did not work for you. Apparently it is not possible to disagree about the quality of an author's work.

It's OK to say you didn't like Revelation and Dust or it didn't wok for you or you thought it was poor. But it's NOT OK to say it's garbage. That's an insult and defamatory. It's all in how you word your dislike that matters.

Look, enough of the people who said they disliked Rough Beasts of Empire did so in such a rude, overbearing and nasty way that they drive DRGIII from this forum.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

It's OK to say you didn't like Revelation and Dust or it didn't wok for you or you thought it was poor. But it's NOT OK to say it's garbage. That's an insult and defamatory. It's all in how you word your dislike that matters.

Look, enough of the people who said they disliked Rough Beasts of the Empire did so in such a rude, overbearing and nasty way that they drive DRGIII from this forum.

You've attacked numerous other posters over the spoiler issue, questioned their character, motives, and respect for the people who run this site, yet you're taking people to task because they don't like a book? Give me a break! I agree that using a term like garbage is probably over the top, but let's not make more of this than it is. Everyone's entitled to an opinion. Saying that someone's making defamatory remarks after you've gone out of your way to pick fights with people isn't going to win you any friends around here. And it seems I've said that to you before.

--Sran

 

[JWolf]

It's OK to say you didn't like Revelation and Dust or it didn't wok for you or you thought it was poor. But it's NOT OK to say it's garbage. That's an insult and defamatory. It's all in how you word your dislike that matters.

Look, enough of the people who said they disliked Rough Beasts of Empire did so in such a rude, overbearing and nasty way that they drive DRGIII from this forum.

You've attacked numerous other posters over the spoiler issue, questioned their character, motives, and respect for the people who run this site, yet you're taking people to task because they don't like a book? Give me a break! I agree that using a term like garbage is probably over the top, but let's not make more of this than it is. Everyone's entitled to an opinion. Saying that someone's making defamatory remarks after you've gone out of your way to pick fights with people isn't going to win you any friends around here. And it seems I've said that to you before.

--Sran

I am saying that there are ways to say you didn't like a book that is not insulting. Saying it's garbage is insulting. What about that don't you get? Even saying it's lousy is better then calling it garbage. You cannot change what is and what is is that calling it garbage is insulting and always will be.

 

[JWolf]

Given how review threads usually go in here, the general tone and comments in this thread are a pretty good indication that it was not as well received as some of the previous books.

Don't mistake a few people talking more than others for a general consensus.

The fact remains that 2/3rds of the people here who rated it gave it a positive rating.

By that metric, every TrekLit novel is the epitome of literary art.

There are a lot of books that are "literary art" that I would not read because they are just tedious (IMHO). The poll is not about how high-brow these books are, but about how enjoyable they are.

Take Dan Brown for example. His books are not literary art. But are they enjoyable to many people? The answer is yes they are. That's the main purpose of a novel. I've read a number of "classics" in school and most of them I did not like and would not recommend be "force fed" in school. That's the problem with reading. Many kids get their like/dislike for reading from school and when schools force kids to read books that are obsolete, no longer relevant to today's kids, and written in a style that's not easy to digest, it turns kids off on reading.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

I am saying that there are ways to say you didn't like a book that is not insulting. Saying it's garbage is insulting. What about that don't you get? Even saying it's lousy is better then calling it garbage. You cannot change what is and what is is that calling it garbage is insulting and always will be.

There are also ways to talk to people without being condescending. What about that don't you get? And on the subject of what's insulting, I shouldn't have to remind you that repeatedly trying to undermine the mods with your self-righteous, masturbatory rants about the use of spoiler codes is extremely demeaning and uncalled for. There are a number of people who work hard to make this site a fun place to be. You've repeatedly attacked the credibility of this work without any consideration for how the mods or anyone else feels about your remarks. You might try taking your own advice and refraining from making additional insults towards anyone on this site before attacking another person because they've expressed an opinion you don't agree with.

--Sran

 

[JeBuS]

There are a lot of books that are "literary art" that I would not read because they are just tedious (IMHO). The poll is not about how high-brow these books are, but about how enjoyable they are.

Take Dan Brown for example. His books are not literary art. But are they enjoyable to many people? The answer is yes they are. That's the main purpose of a novel. I've read a number of "classics" in school and most of them I did not like and would not recommend be "force fed" in school. That's the problem with reading. Many kids get their like/dislike for reading from school and when schools force kids to read books that are obsolete, no longer relevant to today's kids, and written in a style that's not easy to digest, it turns kids off on reading.

Way to completely miss the point. Seems to be a running theme of this thread.

 

[j3067]

Unless the book is by Michael A Martin; it is ok to think his books are poorly written here. You are only allowed to say that DRG3 books did not work for you. Apparently it is not possible to disagree about the quality of an author's work.

It's OK to say you didn't like Revelation and Dust or it didn't wok for you or you thought it was poor. But it's NOT OK to say it's garbage. That's an insult and defamatory. It's all in how you word your dislike that matters.

Look, enough of the people who said they disliked Rough Beasts of Empire did so in such a rude, overbearing and nasty way that they drive DRGIII from this forum.

MAM gets slammed at least as hard around here without the same indignation. That is the point I am trying to make. Actually I believe you said that Martin 'treated us like idiots' in the Fallen Gods thread.

Just to be clear, I'm not interested in reading more from Martin unless it also says Mangels on the cover but that seems quite improbable.