TOS: That Which Divides by Dayton Ward Review Thread (Spoilers!)

[Sxottlan]

Good book, but the ending doesn't exactly live up to the potential of the story. A great premise! Nice connections with prior episodes and Vanguard that helped create the sense of a larger ongoing 23rd century Trek universe. Good characterization of the regular crew and good interesting guest characters.

I particularly liked how the mystery of Gralafi was solved so quickly. Only about a 150 pages in. I thought there was great promise for a story about this pre-warp civilization given the keys to technology more advanced than the Federation. Would they grow aggressive? Would they eschew Federation assistance to strike out on their own?

Alas, the book does not go that way in favor of a decent cat and mouse game between Kirk and the Romulans in tunnel after tunnel. Unfortunately it felt like the last third was spent doing this. It kind of ground down.

The ending almost came off the like the ending of a pilot novel for another series. Ambassador Sortino was a great guest character and gave off the feeling of a regular character. I think a lot of what I wanted to see was ultimately hinted at as coming up after the novel would end.

 

[BrentMc]

I enjoyed this book. The story was fun and exciting. I enjoyed how Uhura had important contributions and I liked Ambassador Dana Sortino. She kicked butt. of course I can never get enough Kirk, Spock, Mccoy, Scotty, Sulu, and Chekov as well. I think Mr. Ward did a good job of keeping the action moving in each venue. Overall a fun book.

 

[RonG]

Finally finished the book - written quite well, prose-wise (this *is* Dayton Ward, after all ), but the plot didn't grab me as I had thought it would.

Looking forward to Dayton's next novel, though

 

[Relayer1]

I know they're apparently very popular but my heart sinks when a stand alone TOS novel comes out (I make an exception for the wonderful Vanguard series) and I know I'll be ploughing through a fairly enjoyment free novel soon. I do have to admit that my own likes and dislikes may not be in line with the majority though...

This novel actually does go a small way towards rectifying one of my issues however, namely that the TOS era is much less well developed and interlinked than the 24th century. Here we see the return of Boma and another Archer class scout ship.

The story was OK but I wasn't gripped. Pretty much business as usual for me with TOS novels...

 

[RonG]

This novel actually does go a small way towards rectifying one of my issues however, namely that the TOS era is much less well developed and interlinked than the 24th century.

as shown by Vanguard, there's a whole lot to explore in the TOS era - probably more so than the "current" 24th century era (post-Nemesis), which is already being developed to a great degree.

Also, the Trek authors and editors should rise up to the challenge set forth by Ward, Mack, et al., team up (2-3 authors) and create more limited-run, multi novel arcs/series.

just imagine another TOS-era arc explored by Swallow and Leisner, post-ENT series by DRG3, Ward and Dilmore, or early-TNG series by KRAD and Christopher.. the mind boggles
(and each will probably have David Mack along for a "guest stint", which will have half the cast killed )

(now I've gotten myself excited... c'mon guys, what do you say? )

 

[Relayer1]

This novel actually does go a small way towards rectifying one of my issues however, namely that the TOS era is much less well developed and interlinked than the 24th century.

as shown by Vanguard, there's a whole lot to explore in the TOS era - probably more so than the "current" 24th century era (post-Nemesis), which is already being developed to a great degree.

Also, the Trek authors and editors should rise up to the challenge set forth by Ward, Mack, et al., team up (2-3 authors) and create more limited-run, multi novel arcs/series.

just imagine another TOS-era arc explored by Swallow and Leisner, post-ENT series by DRG3, Ward and Dilmore, or early-TNG series by KRAD and Christopher.. the mind boggles
(and each will probably have David Mack along for a "guest stint", which will have half the cast killed )

(now I've gotten myself excited... c'mon guys, what do you say? )

I have to agree - any or all of this would be great ! There's a few survivors of Vanguard I'd like to see again, T'pol (still alive ?) and a load of other supporting characters...it doesn't all have to be about Kirk, Spock and co...

 

[Scout101]

Be good to avoid the entire ENT cast wandering around the TOS timeframe like the TOS crew does to the TNG era, though. Pesky TOS crew is everywhere, can't seem to finish them off

 

[Christopher]

The "In a Mirror, Darkly" biography screens for Archer and Hoshi (including the pages not shown onscreen but available online) say that both of them died before TOS.

 

[PaulSimpson]

Briefly exhuming this thread as part of our Star Trek novel catch-up series: our take: http://scifibulletin.com/books/tie-in-fiction/star-trek-review-that-which-divides/

 

[Scout101]

was that bump really needed? was a pretty short/shallow review, at that. To be honest, from a review point, didn't really review much or provide much of a take on it...

 

[JD]

It seemed like a perfectly acceptable review to me. I've seen people bump threads for a lot less.

 

[PaulSimpson]

It seemed like a perfectly acceptable review to me. I've seen people bump threads for a lot less.

Thanks. And as the former editor of the official mag I have had a number of email requests from people asking to let them know when the reviews started up again. This seemed the obvious way to do it

Paul

 

[Scout101]

Eh, maybe it's just personal preference, but I get annoyed when people just post links to their own sites to drive traffic there. At the very least, post a review here and link to your site if they want more. Just seem to get a lot of the "I read this, check out my review HERE" type posts rather than people actually discussing it.

Plus the bump was on an almost 2 year old thread.

just my opinion, but was expecting more from the review, as well. Kind of a generic paragraph, didn't get much into the book at all. About as in-depth as the back cover blurb, really. The one sentence "verdict" part was the only part that really felt like it was reviewing the book, rest just kinda mentioned the author or a couple generic items/characters.

Not really trying to make it a big deal, just felt a little off with the necro for what the review ended up being, and no content here, just driving traffic elsewhere...

Personally, felt this book fell a bit flat. Nothing really wrong with the structure or characters, that all felt good, just didn't feel like a story that needed telling (or re-reading) when it was done. There's the tease of the topic in the book title, but that ended up being a side note at best, and didn't really feel like a part of the story. Wasted potential IMO.

 

[ClayinCA]

I'm glad he bumped the thread, as I'm just about to start reading the book this evening and it's good to know where to come to talk about it!

 

[Defcon]

I'm glad he bumped the thread, as I'm just about to start reading the book this evening and it's good to know where to come to talk about it!

For future reference this table by Sho might be helpful to find review threads for Trek books here on the TrekBBS (it does not have all review threads, but it lists all review threads with polls following the "standard" poll options).