The Children of Kings
- Thread starter Man of Steel
- Start date
Re: The Children of the Kings
Oh, The Children of Kings (416p) isn't thick, A Storm of Swords (1216p) is thick . Luckily I'm on the book that comes before it, A Game of Thrones (835p).
Oh, The Children of Kings (416p) isn't thick, A Storm of Swords (1216p) is thick . Luckily I'm on the book that comes before it, A Game of Thrones (835p).
Re: The Children of the Kings
I just got my copy. Looking forward to reading it! Hearing that the book's Pike is a lot like Bruce Greenwood's Pike is a good thing... I loved Greenwood's portrayal of Captain Pike.
I just got my copy. Looking forward to reading it! Hearing that the book's Pike is a lot like Bruce Greenwood's Pike is a good thing... I loved Greenwood's portrayal of Captain Pike.
Garm Bel Iblis
Commodore
Re: The Children of the Kings
That's what i'm worried about. Daedeuls\Childrent and Rosetta were meh. And Cowabunga or whatever it was called left mewith a great big
That's what i'm worried about. Daedeuls\Childrent and Rosetta were meh. And Cowabunga or whatever it was called left mewith a great big
Re: The Children of the Kings
I think it gives a fairly good explanation of why the Orions are a dimorphic species with the Males being so much larger than the females and so incredibly strong. The hormones in their body chemistry basically enhance the development of the sexes differently as they grow to a much higher degree than other species, enhancing pheromones and sexual appeal in females and size and strength in males. So you end up with hulking mammoths, brutes and sexual vixens, seductresses. Basically the Uber-Masculine and Uber-Feminine.
It also touches on the history of the Orions when they were and empire and the issues that caused their society to devolve.
I loved the portrayal of Orions in the Enterprise series. Seeing the "Big Show"Orion Slaver toss people around and manhandle and shake T'Pol like a little doll was classic.
This book does a good job fleshing some of that out with a strong story and some strong character development of Pike's crew. It almost makes you wonder how Dr. Boyce would have interacted with Kirk and Spock.
I'm looking forward to this- an exploration of Orion culture aND history seems long overdue- but sadly it must wait unrtil exam period is finished. I'll have quite a backlog of novels to look forward to. I have glanced througj it, and what 've seen looks interesying.
please excuse my drunkneness. Annual tradition. I'll be myself again tomorrow.
I think it gives a fairly good explanation of why the Orions are a dimorphic species with the Males being so much larger than the females and so incredibly strong. The hormones in their body chemistry basically enhance the development of the sexes differently as they grow to a much higher degree than other species, enhancing pheromones and sexual appeal in females and size and strength in males. So you end up with hulking mammoths, brutes and sexual vixens, seductresses. Basically the Uber-Masculine and Uber-Feminine.
It also touches on the history of the Orions when they were and empire and the issues that caused their society to devolve.
I loved the portrayal of Orions in the Enterprise series. Seeing the "Big Show"Orion Slaver toss people around and manhandle and shake T'Pol like a little doll was classic.
This book does a good job fleshing some of that out with a strong story and some strong character development of Pike's crew. It almost makes you wonder how Dr. Boyce would have interacted with Kirk and Spock.
Re: The Children of the Kings
Not necessarily. There are a number of clear differences from canon here. Garison is a lieutenant instead of a chief petty officer, Pitcairn is chief engineer instead of transporter chief, the Klingons already have a prototype cloak in the 2250s, and there's even a reference to the Ferengi. Plus it's evidently before "The Cage" yet Colt is already Pike's yeoman, rather than the replacement for the one he lost on Rigel VII immediately before "The Cage." I was confused at first, until I read the author's note at the end, where Stern says that the new film continuity "freed [him] of the need to write specifically to one vision of humanity's future" and that the book shows "the Enterprise as it might have been under Captain Christopher Pike." He calls it a "prequel" to the movie, though it can't be, since the movie showed the Enterprise's maiden voyage. So it's not quite in the Prime universe and it's not quite in the Abramsverse. It's apparently sort of a stealth Myriad Universes tale, an alternate take on Pike's captaincy and on the astropolitical situation of the 2250s.
It's an interesting approach. I'd imagine it's a product of the period when the editors weren't sure how to deal with the new continuity and were developing projects adaptable to either timeline, or at least not specifically bound to either one.
Not necessarily. There are a number of clear differences from canon here. Garison is a lieutenant instead of a chief petty officer, Pitcairn is chief engineer instead of transporter chief, the Klingons already have a prototype cloak in the 2250s, and there's even a reference to the Ferengi. Plus it's evidently before "The Cage" yet Colt is already Pike's yeoman, rather than the replacement for the one he lost on Rigel VII immediately before "The Cage." I was confused at first, until I read the author's note at the end, where Stern says that the new film continuity "freed [him] of the need to write specifically to one vision of humanity's future" and that the book shows "the Enterprise as it might have been under Captain Christopher Pike." He calls it a "prequel" to the movie, though it can't be, since the movie showed the Enterprise's maiden voyage. So it's not quite in the Prime universe and it's not quite in the Abramsverse. It's apparently sort of a stealth Myriad Universes tale, an alternate take on Pike's captaincy and on the astropolitical situation of the 2250s.
It's an interesting approach. I'd imagine it's a product of the period when the editors weren't sure how to deal with the new continuity and were developing projects adaptable to either timeline, or at least not specifically bound to either one.
Garm Bel Iblis
Commodore
I'm diggin' this books
SPOILERS
But the death of Captain Pike has me bummed
SPOILERS
But the death of Captain Pike has me bummed
Finally got my copy. It is next in the Trek reading queue.
Children of Kings is a fast paced read and I've really enjoyed the story so far.It's nice to see Enterprise and the Captains and crews of Excaliber and Hood working together to stop the Orions.I liked how Dr.Boyce is finally getting an important storyline in this book. I also like seeing Number and Spock working together as a team to unravel the mysery about the secret building and the attack on Starbase 18.
Re: The Children of the Kings
I would have suggested Penn Books but Borders is one of the flagships and they keep new Trek books out in front on that table but sometimes it's just easier to get it shipped and the store will ship directly to you if you ask nicely. (Well they used to I don't know if the still do that)
I would have suggested Penn Books but Borders is one of the flagships and they keep new Trek books out in front on that table but sometimes it's just easier to get it shipped and the store will ship directly to you if you ask nicely. (Well they used to I don't know if the still do that)
Finished the book a couple of days ago... All in all, TCoK was quite good and featured a nice adventure, but something bothered me about it until just this morning.
I didn't "feel" it as being in the pre-TOS era. Other than using different names, it really felt like TOS to me. I would expect using a specific era for a Trek novel would mean capturing the feel of the series/era. For example, a Titan novel feels different to me than a (pre-Relaunch) Voyager or a series-era TNG novel, though all feature exploration stories.
Here I just gpt the feeling that I'm reading a TOS novel, with the names changed for some reason...
I didn't "feel" it as being in the pre-TOS era. Other than using different names, it really felt like TOS to me. I would expect using a specific era for a Trek novel would mean capturing the feel of the series/era. For example, a Titan novel feels different to me than a (pre-Relaunch) Voyager or a series-era TNG novel, though all feature exploration stories.
Here I just gpt the feeling that I'm reading a TOS novel, with the names changed for some reason...
Re: The Children of the Kings
This stuff about taking minor liberties sold me for this book, which I wasn't sure I would spring for at first. I think a major point is that it is not presented as an alternate continuity, but simply as the work of an author who decided to take a few liberties with "established facts." It's definitely a good thing that the author included an explanation of what he was going for (and it was certainly an interesting read) and I like it as a rallying cry for developing Star Trek material in new ways. I also like the fact that he didn't throw in a "Nero" to explain the changes; it's up to the reader to decide why there are differences (this is not meant to be a slam on the new movie, which I like, Nero and all).
All that being said, a glance at the first review on amazon.com makes me think that maybe that afterword should have been a foreward, that reader went into reading the book without an understanding of Stern's creative philosophical approach, and he's judging the book on it's accuracy to the "Prime" continuity.
This stuff about taking minor liberties sold me for this book, which I wasn't sure I would spring for at first. I think a major point is that it is not presented as an alternate continuity, but simply as the work of an author who decided to take a few liberties with "established facts." It's definitely a good thing that the author included an explanation of what he was going for (and it was certainly an interesting read) and I like it as a rallying cry for developing Star Trek material in new ways. I also like the fact that he didn't throw in a "Nero" to explain the changes; it's up to the reader to decide why there are differences (this is not meant to be a slam on the new movie, which I like, Nero and all).
All that being said, a glance at the first review on amazon.com makes me think that maybe that afterword should have been a foreward, that reader went into reading the book without an understanding of Stern's creative philosophical approach, and he's judging the book on it's accuracy to the "Prime" continuity.
I have a quick question. Does this book go before or after "Inception" chronologically?
Well, they're not quite in the same continuity, apparently, but The Children of Kings purports that Spock has been under Pike's command for only three months, which would make it the early 2250s by either the Prime or Abrams version of Spock's career. Inception is in 2261.
This book is ok but it bugs me how the
how the Starfleet Intelligence aspect is handed. Now what they were doing, that's fine but the aftermath of Pike killing the two Starfleet Intelligence officers. That plotline just stops dead, nobody mentions it, none of the characters seem to care. It's like that was suppose to go further but the author just ran out of pages or ran out of interest in it.
Have to agree with you Joe Zhang. The book kind of stops with some definite threads still unresolved.
