quote:
The Ashes of Eden is a strange, overlooked piece of the Shatner oeuvre. Critics attacked it for its surreal tone, for "trite dialogue" and "fantastic situations." Philistines.In retrospect, Ashes can be considered the first evidence of Shatner's fascination with Arabic literature: in particular, the works of Mafouz. This would later flower fully during his Mongolian/symbolist novels, but Ashes is the first taste of his Eastern musings.
The irony of the text is fine: Shatner writes of a a character, "Kirk", whom the reader identifies with Shatner. But this "Kirk" is a dialectic opposite of the Kirk of common memory: this is a brutal, vicious, catastrophic Kirk. This Kirk is not OURS; it is a demonic being, an occurrance of sheer other.
The book's weaknesses include a penchant for metaphysical theories that go nowhere, and the plot sinks halfway through when the reader realizes the book is utter tosh.
But in reference to the novels, I have trouble with them, because i have read the Tek novels of Shatner and i have read the Trek novels of J & G Reeves-Stevens. They have quite dissimilar and unique writing styles. Guess who wrote Spectre? Not the guy whose name is on the cover..... (to be fair, as far as i can determine all of Kirk's 'internal monologue; is written by Shatner. most of the fatalistic plots and depressing premises like the death of the federation many times over are written by Shatner.. but all of the parts featring stuff from the latest episodes of DS9 and Voyager are all Reeves Stevens, right down to carry overs from their 'Memory' novel, the 'Federation' novel like the Centaurans. How would Shatner realistically write about Ferengi and the Mirror Universe as featured on DS9 and EMHs if he has admitted never to watching any episode of TNG, DS9 and VGR?)