Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster
From: oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: Star Trek novels
Message-ID: <1588@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Oct-85 11:45:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1588
Posted: Thu Oct 24 11:45:17 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Oct-85 07:59:24 EDT
References: <153@caip.RUTGERS.EDU>
Reply-To: oyster@maccunix.UUCP (Vicious Oyster)
Distribution: na
Organization: UWisconsin-Madison Academic Comp Center
Lines: 52

In article <153@caip.RUTGERS.EDU> eyal%wisdom.bitnet@WISCVM.ARPA writes:
>
>The authors are Sondra Marshak and Myrna Culbreath.
>
>I'm in the middle of it now (so you needn't be afraid of spoilers :-),
>and it is definitely worth reading. It has a great plot, it really
>brings to life the characters of Kirk and Spock, and it is also
>thought-provoking on more than one level - it deals with the
>"duplication" problem, and also raises interesting questions about the
>validity of the "Directive of Non-Interference".
>
>I read one review which claims that the Star Trek novels by Marshak and
>Culbreath are among the best SF novels written in recent years, and are
>better than the TV series in terms of profound, thought-provoking
>ideas.  Other Star Trek novels by the same authors are The Fate of the
>Phoenix, Triangle, and The Prometheus Design (which, according to the
>reviewer, is not as great as the other three, but still very good). I
>bought all four novels in a recent visit to the USA, and now finally
>got around to reading them.
>

   And now a dissenting opinion:

   An ST-bedazzled friend of mine (Hi, Rob... I'll return the books someday)
lent me several ST books by the above-mentioned authors, knowing full well
that I didn't particularly care for that type of thing, saying "But
you'll *like* these!  They're *good!*"  Well, I've read three of them, and,
after a 4-5 month hiatus, will give them just one more chance by reading
"The Fate of the Phoenix" (currently on my nightstand, having just finished
"The Image of the Beast", a must for Phil Farmer fans).  I rate them on par
with "The Sword of Shannara".  Yeah, that's kinda harsh, but it's like they
were books that I finished, but had no real desire to keep reading.
Furthermore, I may have missed something of deep philosophical import, but it
seemed that the same plot line was carried from book to book, with a few
characters changed here and there.  "Well, a beautiful woman with superhuman
capabilities?  Gosh, Kirk is falling for her?  What?  His duties to his
ship come between them?  Oh, he's wrestling with his conscience *again*?!"
Sure, I'm reducing the plot line to a single idea, and ignoring the
all-important (set sarcasm mode) treatment of walking the fine line of the
Non-interference Directive, but face it: how many times can the same story
be written by an author or authors before it gets stale?  Once is enough
for me.  Call me an Art-Snob (though dht would disagree), but I prefer
being confused by whatever it is that Delaney is saying in "Stars in
my Pocket..." than rereading the same adequate story several times.

 - joel "vo" plutchak
   {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster

Can you say "opinion"?  I *knew* you could!

P.S. Rob and I now have an agreement: he won't try to make me read any more
Star Trek books if I don't try to make him read Brust.