Star Trek Reads discussion

10 views
New Frontier > The Two-Front War, Peter David

Comments Showing 1-1 of 1 (1 new)    post a comment »
dateUp arrow    newest »

message 1: by Dan (new)

Dan What a great book! I liked the first in the series a great deal. The second one was only perhaps 90 percent as good. I expected a slow letdown as the series continued. The third novel sure surprised me. I liked it even better than the first! The humor and dialogue is what really made this novel work for me. As a writer myself – my MFA is in Creative Writing - I sit back in awe at Peter David's uncanny ability to make a scene come alive. He writes the dialogue in a way I wish I could.

This is another short book, 152 pages, broken down into sections that deal with different characters in different settings in three different story lines. The main story line begins with a ship-to-ship combat scene that introduces a treacherous new race: the scavengers of Nelkar. The second story line centers on Si Cwan, a prince exiled from Thallonia, currently on a mission in a Federation shuttle with Kebron, the Excalibur's security chief. They pursue an enemy of Si Cwan that presumably holds a Si Cwan family member hostage. The third and for now less interesting story line deals with the two Vulcan women on the ship, their growing intimacy and their sharing of each other's personal problems. Presumably these problems will become more relevant to the entire crew later in the series.

Besides the clever dialogue, the fast pace, and clean story telling, what makes this installment so good is the intense conflict Calhoun finds himself both in dealing with his second in command, the refugees on board his ship, and the Nelkarites. I especially like the moral theme behind the book and its relevance to today's international scene as we (America) try to maintain Calhoun's vision of how best to deal with terrorists, and see that vision contrasted against the current Japanese government saying they will do anything to save their two citizens from ISIS, and all of Europe's many concessions to terrorists in their past. The typical American point of view is that negotiating with a terrorist demonstrates weakness and guarantees the necessity of having to negotiate again further down the road as the problem will certainly recur. We prefer annihilating the terrorist instead in order to put an end to the problem. This policy has had mixed results so far for we Americans, though I believe we are having to negotiate with terrorists less than Europeans now must. Will the American policy work out better for Calhoun? It's a fascinating question!

The third novel ended on such a cliffhanger. I am glad I have the fourth and don't have to wait to begin it!


back to top