Scan barcode
littlemisselvis's review against another edition
3.0
Found this one hard work. Big philosophical concept at the heart of it, and characters acting too out of character for my liking.
rayn0n's review
adventurous
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.0
vesper1931's review
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
5.0
On a mission to Helvan to discover the reason for the outbreaks of violence, Admiral Kirk becomes part of an experiment. But can the galaxy be saved from the Experimenters.
An interesting story, a re-read.
An interesting story, a re-read.
elysareadsitall's review against another edition
3.0
This was my first Star Trek novel, and it was not as fast-paced and exciting as I expected it to be. It was a bit like watching Star Trek: The Motion Picture. I was bored with the pace, but I had to see it through to the end. The book has two authors, and at times that was obvious in the writing style. It just wasn't very cohesive. This book also had quite a bit of angst for a ship full of adults. In the end, I'm glad I read it, but I doubt I will do it again.
ramsfan1963's review
mysterious
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
1.0
One of the worst Star Trek books I've ever read. The characterization of Kirk and Spock are so off they seem like strangers. Spock is put in charge of the Enterprise and Kirk is demoted to his First Officer. Spock comes off as a total ruthless tyrant, abusing Kirk verbally and physically. The alien mind control reveal seemed corny and cliche.
taaya's review against another edition
dark
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
1.0
I don't get it. What exactly is this Promethean error/mistake (I even tried to find it in mythological texts, but this term is not used anywhere else, while not being explained in the book) and what does that have to do with the question if aggression is useful - and what does THAT, on the other hand, has to do with the question wether or not doing experiments on living beings is ethical?
The novel takes one interesting idea 'what happens if something is damaging the friendship or perhaps love between Kirk and Spock', plus one old and used idea 'what happens if people experiment on us and don't think us sentient enough' and ... doesn't really deliver on either of those ideas.
Instead we get some strange fixation with Vulcans that even I can't share (and I am known to have a thing for Vulcans), that goes so far that 'vulcan', throughout the book, becomes the synonym for superior. There's not only Vulcan strength, but also vulcan cloth. Not clothes, as in style, but CLOTH, that is vulcan, because it is better than other cloth.
And of course Spock secretly thinks so, too. He is superior and Kirk (who should be Admiral at that time, but first gets demoted by the authors to Captain, and then by Spock to 'Mr.') is his inferior that has to be reprimanded and punished and treated like an insect. Totally logical, right? And of course, extremely in character.... yeah, no.
Oh, and for some reason Spock is naked half of the time. Yeah, I didn't get it, either.
But that's really all there is, in the book. It has close to no plot, but it also lacks any REAL depth. Oh, it wants to be philosophical, but only by throwing around long monologues without going anywhere.
So ... this is a speciesist shitshow, after which the friendship of Kirk and Spock should not be salvagable - but we never learn how that tension gets resolved anyway, that probably wants to say a lot, but ends up saying nothing at all. And hey, maybe that's just some subtext I don't get (although I had to read some philosophy theory in my sociology casses) and the problem is me.
But ... after having had an interest in Greek mythology for a good portion of my life, having had at least some basic knowledge in philosophy, having a masters degree in one of the more theory-prone subjects AND having BREATHED Trek for all my life? I really think the problem is NOT ME and the book is just not good.
The novel takes one interesting idea 'what happens if something is damaging the friendship or perhaps love between Kirk and Spock', plus one old and used idea 'what happens if people experiment on us and don't think us sentient enough' and ... doesn't really deliver on either of those ideas.
Instead we get some strange fixation with Vulcans that even I can't share (and I am known to have a thing for Vulcans), that goes so far that 'vulcan', throughout the book, becomes the synonym for superior. There's not only Vulcan strength, but also vulcan cloth. Not clothes, as in style, but CLOTH, that is vulcan, because it is better than other cloth.
And of course Spock secretly thinks so, too. He is superior and Kirk (who should be Admiral at that time, but first gets demoted by the authors to Captain, and then by Spock to 'Mr.') is his inferior that has to be reprimanded and punished and treated like an insect. Totally logical, right? And of course, extremely in character.... yeah, no.
Oh, and for some reason Spock is naked half of the time. Yeah, I didn't get it, either.
But that's really all there is, in the book. It has close to no plot, but it also lacks any REAL depth. Oh, it wants to be philosophical, but only by throwing around long monologues without going anywhere.
So ... this is a speciesist shitshow, after which the friendship of Kirk and Spock should not be salvagable - but we never learn how that tension gets resolved anyway, that probably wants to say a lot, but ends up saying nothing at all. And hey, maybe that's just some subtext I don't get (although I had to read some philosophy theory in my sociology casses) and the problem is me.
But ... after having had an interest in Greek mythology for a good portion of my life, having had at least some basic knowledge in philosophy, having a masters degree in one of the more theory-prone subjects AND having BREATHED Trek for all my life? I really think the problem is NOT ME and the book is just not good.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Violence
Moderate: Racism
bev_reads_mysteries's review against another edition
1.0
Just about my least favorite trek novel. The whole torture thing just turned me off. And Spock being so very un-Spock-like.
elysareadsitall's review
3.0
This was my first Star Trek novel, and it was not as fast-paced and exciting as I expected it to be. It was a bit like watching Star Trek: The Motion Picture. I was bored with the pace, but I had to see it through to the end. The book has two authors, and at times that was obvious in the writing style. It just wasn't very cohesive. This book also had quite a bit of angst for a ship full of adults. In the end, I'm glad I read it, but I doubt I will do it again.
frakalot's review against another edition
4.0
This was a really good story. Themes of duty, loyalty, morality and philosophy throughout. An interesting perspective.
caffeine_books's review
adventurous
dark
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
1.5
What I love about Star Trek it that it has the ability to hold a mirror up to society and on a personal level, and force people to evaluate themselves. This book tried to do that but was very heavy handed in the effort to do it, tried too hard to make a moral point, and failed. By doing so it also forced characters to act in a way that wasn't 'normal'.