Worst Trek book?
- Thread starter Xploda
- Start date
I'm just waiting for a moderator to give you warning for the unneeded use of your profanity. It's ok to not like something, but to have to resort to prfanity is wrong. it wasn't a bad trilogy at all. It was in fact very good. Did you actually read it and realize how spot on the characters were?
ok, what I want to know is what EXACTLY did you not like about the trilogy? And please, no profanity.
Man, are you wrong about this one. I'd tell you more, but I'm only now drafting the outline for V3. But I can guarantee you're way off on this one...
Just to clear up a factual issue, The Q Continuum series was always intended to be a trilogy. (Sorry, Therin. Sometimes solicition art is just something slapped together until the final art is available. Good theory, though.)
The Q books were my first attempt at a trilogy, though, and I'll admit the learning curve was steeper than I expected, especially where the pacing is concerned. I still like all the Q and Picard stuff, but probably should have given Riker more to do in Book Two.
For what it's worth, those remain my bestselling books ever. (I once had the thrill of finding an Italian edition on sale in Rome.) Some people really like them. Some people don't.
The Q books were my first attempt at a trilogy, though, and I'll admit the learning curve was steeper than I expected, especially where the pacing is concerned. I still like all the Q and Picard stuff, but probably should have given Riker more to do in Book Two.
For what it's worth, those remain my bestselling books ever. (I once had the thrill of finding an Italian edition on sale in Rome.) Some people really like them. Some people don't.
LightningStorm said:
CaptJimboJones said:
The first Mission: Gamma book. It was so plodding and boring that I gave up midway, and it basically stopped me cold from reading the rest of the DS9 relaunch.
I thought I was the only one on the net who didn't like that book. Although it didn't stop me from continuing the DS9R. Every book after that one (except the Trill story in Worlds) was better than it.
Wow. Twilight's my favorite post-DS9 novel, and Unjoined was my favorite Worlds of DS9 tale.
And I enjoyed The Q Continuum, FWIW. But Dyson Sphere now takes the cake on Worst Trek Book Ever.
Mike
I, on the other hand, have very fond memories of Battle Lines and rate it highly--Dave Galanter's novel got me through what was perhaps the single worst month of my life and helped to set me on the path my life has taken these past seven years. Battle Lines is important to me in ways that no other Trek novel is, and for that, Dave (if you're reading), I will always be thankful.
Whereas I liked this so much that I wrote a paper in college contrasting the Ko N'ya legend as presented in the novel with the Holy Grail cycle of Arthurian tales, and even wrote a "chapter" that showed that the Ko N'ya was, in fact, the Grail.
I've defended this book so much in the past I'd feel like I'm repeating myself if I tried now. Suffice to say, I think Warped is horribly underrated.
Plotless? Not really. But the plot is secondary to the character study in the novel.
I can't address these as, though I own them, I have never read them.
Wow. That's from one of my favorite Star Trek books "Fallen Heroes".
Thanks, Brodsky. V3 is scheduled to be published next June.
Hello, David...
I almost confused you with the 'other' David Mack, who did 'Kabuki' for Icon comics...(until I saw the blurb on your page)...
Really? What class let you submit a paper dealing with a Star Trek novel? I get dirty looks from some professors for daring to mention classic speculative fiction like Frankenstein or Lord of the Rings, let alone a media tie-in product!
Anyway, I've not read Devil's Heart since it was released, so I actually don't recall much of it beyond the basic framework. I do recall being annoyed that there were plotlines (I want to say "Iconian Prince"?) that never even touched on the main storyline, vaguely recall being unimpressed with characterization and overall plotting, and seem to recall lengthy sequences that tried to achieve the effect of a historical epic but failing on account of essentially being the same scenario with different locales and names.
That would be a polite way to describe it, given that there was a storyline for the first few chapters and the last few chapters, and everything in between was devoid of true impetus. An impolite way to describe it would be to say that Well of Souls's plot was like a low-budget porno with character development substituted for the meaningless sex scenes... and considering how repetitive the character development got after a hundred pages, I would have preferred the meaningless sex. Then at least there would have been some stimulation.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Fallen Heroes as I recall was very good. It just grabbed my attention and kept it throughout the entire book. I will get around to reading it again. I am planning on reading the first 5 numbered books of each series and then go round and round till I finish all the numbered books of every series.
It was a 100-level Freshman comp class. My professor allowed me some latitude in the way I approached papers.
For a 200-level American Lit class I wrote a paper contrasting the Puritan viewpoint in the writings of William Bradford, Cotton Mather, and Jonathan Edwards with the religious beliefs espoused in the Dark Horse comic, Aliens: Sacrifice. No, really! The xenomorph was like Edwards' "Angry God," and the colonists were sinners. Somehow it worked.
More recently, one of my employees took an English course at NC State in which she had to write a paper on World War I poetry. She had no idea where to begin. I said to her that, realistically, the professor was talking about a certain group of writers, but that she could make the argument that Tolkien should count as a War Poet, as The Book of Lost Tales began expressly as a reaction to the trenches, and a few decades later the Passing of the Dead Marshes was taken directly from Tolkien's own experiences at the front. The argument might not quite fly with the professor, but it could be made.
As for Frankenstein, lit teachers (at least in my experience) tend to downplay the speculative elements these days, so you shouldn't be getting those "dirty looks."
Yeah, and my reading load for my Medieval Literature course consisted of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. The course examined how old symbols, themes and the like informed Tolkien's writing and worked their way into his stories.
It was a sweet class.
It was a sweet class.
I just finished Chrysalis by David Niall Wilson.
Worst. book. EVER!
Worst. book. EVER!
Uh.
Wow.
Similar threads
