05.28.07
Posted in Books at 11:59 pm by Administrator
This is the kind of book that works well as “story fodder”, because it certainly doesn’t come together well as non-fiction. This is a book from roughly ten years ago, a follow-up to a handful of other books on roughly the same subject: the origins and meaning behind the Giza Pyramids and the Sphinx. It goes without saying that the “message” is mixed and self-contradictory.
I happen to think that there’s evidence of a civilization preceding accepted history, even if it’s not as solid as some would like to believe. There is an existing record of civilizations, cities, and peoples rising out of the realm of myth into the realm of history, despite centuries of denial and naysaying. And who knows what kind of historical data was lost in the sacking of the Great Library of Alexandria?
A lot of the conjecture in this book is a matter of splitting hairs. On the one hand, the authors still believe that the Giza layout originated in the distant past, roughly 10500 BC, and they have some data and evidence to support that theory. On the other hand, they also recognize that they work in fuzzy areas of logic and rationalization, and so they claim that the Giza necropolis was largely completed in the accepted Fourth Dynasty.
Since this is a short book (less than 300 pages with loads of diagrams), it doesn’t take much to realize that a lot of the claims don’t make sense within the “splitting hairs” philosophy. Either the Giza layout is thousands upon thousands of years older than expected, or it’s not. Either the complex astronomical relationships point to 10500 BC, or they don’t.
The authors try to work out a complex explanation for why they can straddle the fence without contradiction, and it strains belief. And much like their previous books, the logic chain follows a disappointing pattern: look at a small amount of unusual data, draw speculation from it, twist speculation to something else, announce that the connections thereof are true, add another small amount of unusual data, repeat. By the end of the book, where they pull some bizarre numerology interpretations out of mix, the logical leaps and manipulations are damned impressive.
I wouldn’t suggest this book to anyone looking for truth or solid scientific work. That said, I would point out that some of the speculations and conclusions do make sense given the data available, and it’s the mesh of rational and irrational though process that makes it worth a read.
Rating: 7/10
Permalink
Posted in Books at 11:57 pm by Administrator
This story is very similar to the first story in the current collection, in that it focuses on endless layers of treachery and action over depth in characterization. This is not a novel about deeper motivations like “Sorrows of the Empire”. That said, there are key differences. This story connects directly with that earlier story by touching on Spock’s grand design and depicting the chess game between the Alliance, the Rebellion, and the secret Vulcan resistance.
“Age of the Empress” did little to change my opinion of the “Enterprise” characters; I was already of the opinion that the mirror universe versions were far more interesting. I can’t say the same for the “Voyager” cast; as a whole, I found that series to be bland and disappointing. Unlike “The Worst of Both Worlds”, the twist on familiar events made sense and fit within the larger context of what we’ve seen and read.
The author had a more difficult job in this story because it had to fit within established continuity from “Deep Space Nine” and the previous installments. It’s a delicate balancing act, and falling short in either regard would have hurt the entire effort. As I’ve mentioned before, too many of the mirror universe stories amount to a specific brand of cliché, where the whole point of the story is showing everyone as evil and scheming for the sake of being evil and scheming. There’s plenty of that here, but also an underlying set of justifications, and that makes the difference.
Rating: 8/10
Permalink
05.20.07
Posted in Books at 12:48 am by Administrator
The original nine novels written for the franchise were variable in quality, to say the least. Two of the books are considered “canon”, meaning that JMS considers the information to be fully consistent and compatible with his “official” continuity of “Babylon 5” (a moving target, but less so than in other franchises). The others, simply put, are not. This book falls squarely in the apocryphal column.
Much of the book feels like it could, conceivably, fit within the “Babylon 5” universe. The author makes an effort to include countless references to continuity, most of which is accurate and fits within the context of that point in the timeline. Of course, the trouble emerges whenever the author gets some detail wrong.
Unlike Trek novels, where the details can be contradictory because of the nature of the mythos (essentially, a consensual fictional reality), the “Babylon 5” story is meant to be historical. The continuity is meant to be as airtight as possible, and character motivations are complex and consistent as a result. Major events cannot take place outside of the continuity if those events would and should have been mentioned in the series.
The events in this novel are so massive that it’s impossible to believe that they had happened just before “The Fall of Night”. For example, G’Kar’s attack on Mollari and the riots surrounding the trial of D’Arc would have been critical to the events of the second season finale. After all, the killing of any Centauri by a Narn still had severe consequences during that period; the repercussions of the riots would have lasted for months.
This is a problem that has plagued every “Babylon 5” novel thus far, but this is the most egregious example. Far more damning, however, is a problem specific to this novel: basic errors regarding established names. For instance, the author refers to the original commander as Geoffrey Sinclair, and he calls the primary Narn religious figure J’Quan. Most fans should recognize the problem immediately, and that lack of attention to detail speaks volumes.
All that said, this book has a lot more depth than the majority of the early novels. The characterization is deeper, and the world building is a lot more engaging. It’s mostly a question of whether or not this story fits into the “Babylon 5” universe well, and in that regard, it’s a mixed bag. The author does try to expand into areas that would normally be impossible by television standards (especially in terms of budget), but it’s not entirely compatible. The resulting character choices are also out of character, and as a result, this is ultimately best viewed as “revisionist history”.
Rating: 7/10
Permalink
Posted in Books at 12:46 am by Administrator
Greg Cox, more often than not, introduces interesting ideas, only to come up short on the execution. I have no doubt that he has a great deal of enthusiasm, but beyond his excellent Khan novels, the books don’t seen to measure up. I’ve found this to be true with novels by the same author in several tie-in franchises. That said, I’m always willing to see how well an author can grow.
Coming on the heels of an excellent story about Spock’s Foundation-esque plan for the fall and rise of the Terran Empire, this novella suffers tremendously. The difference in scope is dramatic, and unlike the previous story, this reads and feels like high-grade fan fiction. While a number of characters get the typical “mirror universe twist”, the Borg themselves are remarkably similar to the versions in the Trek universe proper.
While there are some justifications for that story decision (namely, the independence of the Borg from the usual suspects up to that point), the very nature of the mirror universe would seem to preclude that interpretation. In fact, it might have been interesting to see a version of the Borg that was, in fact, positive in its integration of biological and technological. Imagine a Borg that was corrupted by introduction to humanity, rather than the horrifying Borg that we already know.
In the end, however, the story packs very little punch. There are some neat twists along the way, particularly in how the Borg fall to one man’s clever planning, but it’s not enough to overcome its brevity and isolated nature.
Rating: 5/10
Permalink
Posted in Books at 12:42 am by Administrator
I mentioned, in my review for the first short novel in the collection, that my only issue was the emphasis on action over character exploration. The obvious question would be: can you give an example of what you’re looking for? Ironically, the very next story delivers exactly what I was hoping to get, making this very simple for those who read the book.
This story is all about motivations, centering directly on Spock and his efforts, in the mirror universe, to save the Empire by setting forth a plan for its destruction and resurrection. The concept is very close to the classic Foundation series, and most of the elements that made that story fascinating translate very well into the Trek mold.
More importantly, it gives insight into how the Terran Empire could fall apart while maintaining enough cohesion to allow for the two parallel universes to remain in lockstep with each other. I’m a sucker for stories that link points of continuity in a refreshing and engaging manner, and this is a perfect example.
Spock’s grand design is so intriguing that it’s a real shame that this couldn’t have been a longer, more detailed epic. I hope that the concepts in this book come into play with the short novels in the second collection, because this is begging for a strong and consistent payoff. To be honest, I would have been much happier if this story had been the springboard for all the stories, and that it was one massive epic exploring the success or failure of Spock’s Plan.
Not only does this story demonstrate how plot and character can be combined smoothly, with clear motivations driving decisions, it also sets the bar for the rest of the novels in the entire collection.
Rating: 9/10
Permalink
05.03.07
Posted in Uncategorized at 6:46 pm by Administrator
A few readers have been pushing for reviews of recent comic book releases, so I wanted to clarify before things get too crazy. In general, I feel very little need to review comic books. Not because I don’t enjoy them, because I do. And I do read the various tie-in books when they appeal to me. But most of them aren’t begging for extensive review or commentary. For example, the “Battlestar Galactica” comics are entertaining, but they don’t have the impact of the series. And I ignore the “Star Trek” and “Star Wars” comics entirely.
There are some exceptions to the rule. For example, I do intend to speak briefly on the “Buffy: Season 8″, “Angel: Season 6″, and new “Serenity” books. However, and this is an important thing to keep in mind…I will touch on them upon completion of each story arc. As most comic book readers know, most books come out in 4-6 issue story blocks. It’s par for the course now.
So, yes, I hope to talk about the “Buffy” comics, but only once the current introductory arc is finished. Provided, of course, I have them all in one place by then…
Permalink
