Spoilers TNG: Before Dishonor by Peter David Review Thread
- Thread starter Defcon
- Start date
Just started reading Before dishonour yesterday, so far so hilarious, it reminds me of a Carry On movie or the Benny Hill version of a Star Trek show minus the scantily clad ladies (my fellow Brits will understand). Its already canon that Starfleet is run by idiots, too many human admirals who are absolutely, down right stupid. I liked Jellico in the TNG show but in this book he comes across as a patronising, racist, pompous ass in regards to Seven. Maybe he redeems himself later on. The new characters, well what can I say they are only following orders but after what happened in Resistance where Picard turned to be correct you would think they learned their lesson. T'Lana is so dogmatic, how the hell can she counsel anyone, Leybenzon too trigger happy and down right scary (being willing to torture a fellow officer????). and Kadahata, well I did not see that coming from her. Picard should have busted them down to Cadet status.
I guess when it comes to the Borg, humans act stupidly, here's looking at you oh so righteous Admiral Janeway.
P.S I am on chapter 37, I believe Mr Peter David was as high as a kite, drunk or in a taking the piss mood, when wrote this book, if so I salute him!
I guess when it comes to the Borg, humans act stupidly, here's looking at you oh so righteous Admiral Janeway.
P.S I am on chapter 37, I believe Mr Peter David was as high as a kite, drunk or in a taking the piss mood, when wrote this book, if so I salute him!
Last edited:
The latest episode of the Literary Treks podcast is up, covering Before Dishonor:
Literary Treks 281: The Next Evolutionary Step of the Borg. Check it out, and let us know your thoughts!
Literary Treks 281: The Next Evolutionary Step of the Borg. Check it out, and let us know your thoughts!
I listened to your Podcast and I agree with you Kertrats the book Before Dishonor that it was a confusing messy story. I didn't like how Picard was written so goofy and offbeat and totally off the wall in this novel. I didn't care for this book at all when I read it years ago.Like you said I can see why Peter David didn't enjoy writing this book and the editors kept asking him change the story with Janeway and the borg story line constantly.
Last edited:
I've also just posted my review of Before Dishonor. If you listened to the Literary Treks episode from a few days ago, you already know how I feel about this novel. Not... the greatest.
I voted "Below Average" - I know I am a TrekBBS noob but if anyone is interested I've posted a full review of the book here
I just finished this book and was curious if there was one that dealt with the immediate aftermath.
Greater than the Sum is the book that is set afterwards. Basically setting up the Destiny trilogy.
Ah, I read that out of order.
I admit to being late on reading this one despite the fact I read its sequel, GREATER THAN THE SUM before it and still haven't read Peter David's VENDETTA that this is a sequel to as well. The nature of Star Trek books is that they're often read out of order and any continuity can seem pretty loose to an amateur like myself.
The premise of this book is that there's a dormant Borg Cube and it absorbs Kathryn Janeway before radically altering the way Borg assimilate things before moving to annihilate Earth for a third time. This is before STAR TREK: DESTINY and I actually tend to think I prefer the Borg here a bit versus the Reaper-like presentation of the ones there (not that I didn't enjoy those books for what they were--they were a better Mass Effect ending than Mass Effect ever gave).
I understand this book to be quite controversial and can see why with the death of a major character (despite them later getting better) and three popular OGs going against Jean Luc Picard. Really, despite knowing the reasons behind their actions, I was full of righteous indignation on behalf of our captain.
Still, I do think this book suffers from some issues that make it less enjoyable than, say, New Frontier for me. Basically, it's a little too ovethetop and silly (and this is me talking about that). Several of the jokes don't land and there's some questions of characterization that I feel fans of the more sedate TNG would not enjoy. Basically, if you don't like the kind of flawed rebellion Picard of Insurrection (let alone Picard Season 3) then this will make no sense to you.
I do.
Some observations:
1. T'Lana is fantastically hateable in this volume and I can understand why people are angry at that characterization because, well, you don't want to have a character the readers want to strangle. However, I actually feel like that made a great impression and I was very sad she never shows up again. Her conversation with Spock where she goes, "how did you deal with being right all the time?" was delightful. I would have watched a whole season of her as the Federation's worst ship's counselor.
2. The mutiny was something that didn't bother me as I liked the story in the same way that I liked Shaw's portrayal in Picard Season 3 and assume this was what Peter David was going for. The characters are 100% right (Spock's plan doesn't work but Picard's backup plan does and they needed the time to make plan B viable) but the chain of command was clear. Not everyone is going to go with the Captain ala Insurrection and I'm glad we see this more often. Remember, that Riker sided with Pressman against those dirty mutineers in Pegasus *hock spit*
3. The thing is that Jellico and Nechayev aren't idiots and look like them when they kept insisting Captain Picard come back because they had no viable way for the Enterprise to fight the Borg. The Federation council planning to sell Seven and Picard under the bus to the Borg is something I might have believed (civilian authority being complete idiots about military matters is a bad trope we shouldn't encourage but one I had to reluctantly acknowledge had some basis post-2016...and 2004). Basically, "returning will do no good so why are we ordering you to if you have a plan?"
4. Leybenzon threatening to torture Beverly Crusher was beyond the pale and ridiculous, though. Terrible out of character moment for any Starfleet officer who hasn't gone insane.
5. I can also buy Kadohota siding with removing Picard with the right argument but I actually am more concerned about what the rest of the crew was doing. They sided with Picard then Leybenzon then Picard again, I guess? It's good for simplicity's sake they obeyed whoever was nominally in charge but I doubt it would have been that easy.
6. Another joke that didn't land was the Borg killing the Federation ambassador after agreeing to a bunch of terms. That was silly.
7. Eating Pluto was silly but fun. I admit, there's no reason it should eat Pluto, though versus any of the other asteroid belt objects, though.
8. The controversy over Kathryn Janeway's death in the comments section of the threads on BD kind of shows how seriously we take it. I didn't think she would stay dead by any stretch of the imagination (and had this view about Star Trek before Lower Decks did a book on it) but it seems people took it absolutely seriously. I wonder what it must have been like in fandom to believe they'd do something like this permanently.
9. There's a really fascinating bit about "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" that is kind of interesting in hindsight. Kathryn Janeway completely ignores the Q warning her not to go on the ship because she'll die if she does and she just trudges onboard--and dies. Because they were being absolutely sincere and there was no trick or mind game involved. Same when Q introduced the Enterprise to the Borg. It was a warning they assumed was a joke.
I'm surprised there was no Lady Q/Selar joke, though.
10. I like them using the Doomsday Machine to try to kill the Borg. That's the kind of comic book/tabletop RPG plan that player characters at my table would come up with.
11. Jellico deadnaming Seven as Annika is shown to be terrible here well before Shaw and a good bit of Values Resonance.
The premise of this book is that there's a dormant Borg Cube and it absorbs Kathryn Janeway before radically altering the way Borg assimilate things before moving to annihilate Earth for a third time. This is before STAR TREK: DESTINY and I actually tend to think I prefer the Borg here a bit versus the Reaper-like presentation of the ones there (not that I didn't enjoy those books for what they were--they were a better Mass Effect ending than Mass Effect ever gave).
I understand this book to be quite controversial and can see why with the death of a major character (despite them later getting better) and three popular OGs going against Jean Luc Picard. Really, despite knowing the reasons behind their actions, I was full of righteous indignation on behalf of our captain.
Still, I do think this book suffers from some issues that make it less enjoyable than, say, New Frontier for me. Basically, it's a little too ovethetop and silly (and this is me talking about that). Several of the jokes don't land and there's some questions of characterization that I feel fans of the more sedate TNG would not enjoy. Basically, if you don't like the kind of flawed rebellion Picard of Insurrection (let alone Picard Season 3) then this will make no sense to you.
I do.
Some observations:
1. T'Lana is fantastically hateable in this volume and I can understand why people are angry at that characterization because, well, you don't want to have a character the readers want to strangle. However, I actually feel like that made a great impression and I was very sad she never shows up again. Her conversation with Spock where she goes, "how did you deal with being right all the time?" was delightful. I would have watched a whole season of her as the Federation's worst ship's counselor.
2. The mutiny was something that didn't bother me as I liked the story in the same way that I liked Shaw's portrayal in Picard Season 3 and assume this was what Peter David was going for. The characters are 100% right (Spock's plan doesn't work but Picard's backup plan does and they needed the time to make plan B viable) but the chain of command was clear. Not everyone is going to go with the Captain ala Insurrection and I'm glad we see this more often. Remember, that Riker sided with Pressman against those dirty mutineers in Pegasus *hock spit*
3. The thing is that Jellico and Nechayev aren't idiots and look like them when they kept insisting Captain Picard come back because they had no viable way for the Enterprise to fight the Borg. The Federation council planning to sell Seven and Picard under the bus to the Borg is something I might have believed (civilian authority being complete idiots about military matters is a bad trope we shouldn't encourage but one I had to reluctantly acknowledge had some basis post-2016...and 2004). Basically, "returning will do no good so why are we ordering you to if you have a plan?"
4. Leybenzon threatening to torture Beverly Crusher was beyond the pale and ridiculous, though. Terrible out of character moment for any Starfleet officer who hasn't gone insane.
5. I can also buy Kadohota siding with removing Picard with the right argument but I actually am more concerned about what the rest of the crew was doing. They sided with Picard then Leybenzon then Picard again, I guess? It's good for simplicity's sake they obeyed whoever was nominally in charge but I doubt it would have been that easy.
6. Another joke that didn't land was the Borg killing the Federation ambassador after agreeing to a bunch of terms. That was silly.
7. Eating Pluto was silly but fun. I admit, there's no reason it should eat Pluto, though versus any of the other asteroid belt objects, though.
8. The controversy over Kathryn Janeway's death in the comments section of the threads on BD kind of shows how seriously we take it. I didn't think she would stay dead by any stretch of the imagination (and had this view about Star Trek before Lower Decks did a book on it) but it seems people took it absolutely seriously. I wonder what it must have been like in fandom to believe they'd do something like this permanently.
9. There's a really fascinating bit about "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" that is kind of interesting in hindsight. Kathryn Janeway completely ignores the Q warning her not to go on the ship because she'll die if she does and she just trudges onboard--and dies. Because they were being absolutely sincere and there was no trick or mind game involved. Same when Q introduced the Enterprise to the Borg. It was a warning they assumed was a joke.
I'm surprised there was no Lady Q/Selar joke, though.
10. I like them using the Doomsday Machine to try to kill the Borg. That's the kind of comic book/tabletop RPG plan that player characters at my table would come up with.
11. Jellico deadnaming Seven as Annika is shown to be terrible here well before Shaw and a good bit of Values Resonance.
I wouldn't really call GTTS a sequel to BD, just the next installment in the series. It follows up on events and character threads from all three or four preceding books while laying the foundations for Destiny. So it's more sort of a finale for the short "season" of TNG novels between Nemesis and Destiny.
I stand corrected. It's a great book and introduced my all time favorite TrekLit character. I'm sure you can guess who.
I don't have the spoons to reply to this beyond to say that if you read Destiny you will encounter T'Lana again.
Alas, I know her fate.
But maybe her and a bubbly half-Vulcan can find their way into the new EU.
Yeah. A much I very much dislike the entire novel, that joke landed.
That gag badly dated the novel. I couldn't believe that would still be a subject of debate centuries later. I mean, Ceres, Vesta, and the other Main Belt asteroids were originally called planets before science invented a better category for them, and nobody remembers it now. The same goes for Pluto. Despite all the nostalgia for Pluto's planet status (which nobody in the general public really cared about until it was revoked), astronomers were never comfortable calling it a planet; it was too different from the other planets to really belong in the same category, but they didn't have another category to put it in. Even so, there were many astronomers who declined to call it a planet even before the 2006 definition change (e.g. this 2000 site calling it a "huge, close-orbiting, low eccentricity Kuiper Belt object," which is exactly what it is). Once astronomers discovered multiple other bodies of the same size and type as Pluto, it was only sensible to create a new category that included all of them, just like 19th-century scientists had created a new category for all the asteroids they kept discovering. The new category isn't a "demotion" but an improvement, like reassigning a wrestler to the correct weight class where they can finally thrive. More importantly, it's the result of progress in our scientific knowledge, and there's no sense in expecting it to be reversed in the future, any more than it's likely for the Main Belt asteroids to be labeled planets again, or for the Andromeda Galaxy to be relabeled a "spiral nebula" (as it was known before it was discovered to be a separate body outside our galaxy), or for scientists to start believing in Martian canals or luminiferous aether again.
I remember going to the Natural History Museum in New York City in early-to-mid 2001 and being confused by there only being eight planets in their big walk-around display, that's the first time I'd ever heard anyone take a stand against Pluto.
It's not "against Pluto," because science is not about popularity or status, only accuracy. "Planet" is not some prize to be won, it's just a description of a category, one that had no formal scientific definition because it had been applied in antiquity, and thus was lacking scientific rigor. Refining the definition to classify Pluto more accurately is not "against" it, but for it, because it's about improving our understanding of its true nature. Treating it like some kind of beauty contest or political campaign with winners and losers is nonsensical and misunderstands what science is for. There is no "taking stands." Science is not about opinion or belief or rhetoric. It's about following the evidence, period.
As a "planet," Pluto was a footnote, an also-ran that didn't really fit and nobody was really comfortable with. As a dwarf planet, Pluto is the star of the show, the first and biggest member of a large category, like Ceres was for the asteroids. I'll never understand why people see that as a negative. If a middleweight is mislabeled as a heavyweight and can't get their career started, but then gets correctly reassigned as a middleweight and becomes a world champion in that class, how is that a bad thing? Bigger isn't automatically better. Calling Pluto a planet was a mistake due to lack of information. Now we have better information and we've improved our understanding enormously. That is unambiguously a positive.
It's the exact same thing that happened when we created the category of "asteroid" instead of continuing to mislabel Ceres etc. as planets. There was probably debate over that at first, but people accepted the scientific consensus, and now nobody even remembers that the asteroids were ever called planets, let alone complains about it. People in the 24th century would be just as surprised to learn that anyone ever complained about the correction of Pluto's classification.
Similar threads
