24399Re: (Spoilers so be careful)RE: [Star Trek Books] Soul Key Reviewed
- Aug 4, 2009Having recently finished "The Soul Key", I agree with everything that Ian
said in his post. :-0)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian McFarlane" <mackiedoo@...>
Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 9:24 AM
Subject: (Spoilers so be careful)RE: [Star Trek Books] Soul Key Reviewed
>I tended to disagree with the review actually. I just finished reading the
> book today.
> It's not the best DS9 novel that I ever read in my life but is as fast
> with scenes of dramatic tension and the like and it does have a nice tie
> at the end with Rising Son. There's actually a lot of focus on Iliana
> and there are some resolutions of a sort.
> The main problem is that "The Soul Key" seems to be setting up storylines
> that we won't see play out for at least 2 years! The next DS9 novel (from
> what I gather) will be set in 2382 and will deal with events post the
> Destiny Trilogy.
> We're going to be seeing characters that have evolved dramatically during
> 5 year period and probably dropping hints and subtexting like crazy.
> My expectation is that 2011 will set up some kind of DS9 arc that will
> in at least some of this 5 year gap but that's a bit frustrating isn't it?
> Maybe it will be called "DS9: The Lost Years" :P
> I would almost have rathered that they kept going the way they were stuck
> the period between 2377 and 2380-2381.
> I remember that there was a debate once in this space where I questioned
> sticking of DS9 to the 2376-2377 period. Proponents stated that one had to
> finish the storyline no matter what it took. And that's great. I'm all for
> that. How then do we reconcile that philosophy with jumping 5 years to
> Rough Beasts Of Empire" set in 2382?
> In one sense, I would have loved to have seen parallel releases of DS9
> novels (some set in the 2377-2380 period and others set in 2382. Now that
> could have been interesting. At least people could keep dropping obscure
> hints in the 2382 novels while readers could catch up on the 2377-2380
> at their leisure.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>