You claimed there were no character arcs in this book. I cited several. You then shifted the goalposts by moving from claiming that there were no character arcs to claiming that there wasn't enough resolution.
I stand by my assertion that what you cited were not character arcs.
Complete bullshit. They were character arcs; you just didn't like them.
Meaning you knew full well it was book one of an interconnected miniseries, and it was marketed as such.
I'm not exactly sure what you're saying. How, exactly, does it "play no role in the novel"? Ezri and Julian are two characters with whom the readers are invested. We care about what happens to them. We see a reconciliation between the two of them that has been a long time coming. How exactly is that not playing a "role in the novel"? It's a part of the on-going story of all of these characters! I guess I'm just having a hard time figuring out what parts of the novel you think "play no role," and what exactly your criteria are for inclusion in the "role-playing" parts of the novel.
You say that the things the novel talks about have "no bearing on the events of this novel." I see it differently. I see these happenings AS the events of this novel. I think it can't be studied in isolation. This novel is a part of the on-going story of Deep Space Nine and its characters.
I suppose this is another basic philosophical difference, then. To me, anything that can be removed from a novel without affecting the outcome should be removed.
Chekov's Gun. Their making up served no purpose to the plot of the novel. Nor did the mentions of Quark's financials.
They served the clear purpose of continuing the ongoing serialized story of
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, which has always -- on TV and in the Relaunch novels -- contained character-based B-plots that were not directly related to the main plot. Or are you going to say that, for instance, the Quark/Garak scenes should have been removed from "The Way of the Warrior?"
To answer your last question. If all Garak and Quark did during the episode was talk about root beer, whether amongst themselves or to other characters, yes they should be removed. Besides, that's a poor example, since their arcs in that episode show them feeling one way about the Federation, and then changing that opinion before the episode ended.
A character arc is to move a character from one point of view to another, and show through the narrative how that change took place. None of the characters in this book grew or changed at all. None of them changed from
Raise The Dawn to the end of
Revelations and Dust.
Here's a good example of an excellent and actual character arc. In Star Trek II: TWOK, in the beginning of the movie Admiral Kirk felt he was to old to make a difference. In his opinion, galloping around the cosmos is a game for the young. But at the end of the movie, through the arc and over all theme of the movie he changed that view, stating he feels young again.
Another good example is I, Borg. In the beginning of the episode, both Picard and Guinan hated Hugh the drone and was willing to use him as a weapon to destroy the Borg. But thanks to the arc of the episode, we're shown how and why they changed their mind to seeing him as being an individual.
Hell, let's go back to the last two books, Sisko refused to reunite with his family, yet we're shown through the story that he changes his mind and is reunited with his family.
I do not see one example of a proper story arc in this book, and that's why it's not that good in my opinion. And I like DRGIII's books most of the time.
Raise The Dawn was excellent. He just didn't deliver in this one. Of course I'm no expert, just a reader with an opinion.
