Scan barcode
A review by taaya
Das Prometheus-Projekt by Sondra Marshak, Myrna Culbreath
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