Books Discussion of the Han Solo Trilogy, by A.C Crispin.

Ok, I picked up this book series a few months ago, and was extremely addicted to them. I made this thread as a discussion for this trilogy in general, as it is jam packed with things to talk about. If you've read it before, drop and say hi, I won't bite. Unless you take my Aldrennian Ale, then we're gonna have some issues.

 

I have yet to read these. I have a Sci-Fi book club all-in-one hardcover that’s been on my shelf forever but I’ve never gotten to it. The Solo movie got me all hyped up about Han as a character and I’ve been meaning to read them ever since, but haven’t managed to. My failure is complete.

 

Top 3 book trilogies in SW imo.
This, Thrawn (90's), and Wraith Squadron.

 

The second trilogy I read after Thrawn. Very fun, but in hindsight prefer Solo: A Star Wars Story, because it does away with the “small galaxy” syndrome in Han dating the lady that

Spoiler

stole the Death Star plans.

 

I keep seeing these on the shelf of my library...I have yet to find the time to read them though.

 

I generally enjoyed them - the Hutts are easily the best part of the series. If A.C. Crispin had written a trilogy that was all Hutt all the time, it would probably be one of my favorites. That said, there were a few issues I had with the series. First of all, I don't like the way they make so many quotes and moments from the movies have all this new background. Once or twice with a wink to the camera maybe could've worked, but it was overdone. More significantly, I felt the character arc was too much "OT in reverse". To me, the story seems to cheapen Han's arc in the movies. It feels like ROTJ Han is treated as his (for lack of a better term) "normal" personality - and the cynical loner of ANH is just a guy depressed over a bad breakup. It reduces Han's OT arc to more or less being about him getting over his last girl. The Solo movie to me had this feel a bit, too - but I think it was worse in these books. And lastly, I despised Bria Tharen with the burning passion of a thousand suns. To see her story end as the hero/martyr was not a satisfying conclusion for me.

BOTTOM LINE: In my opinion these are enjoyable books, but the Brian Daley trilogy is the better Han series.

 

This was the previous thread on the subject, which you might find of interest:

https://boards.theforce.net/threads/han-solo-trilogy-crispin.50028603/page-8

 

I really liked this series too. I agree with Riv Shiel (heh that sounds weird) that the Hutts were one of the best parts to this series. I didn't have a problem with Bria Tharen so much, until the last novel (like IG2000 says, a little too "convenient").

I loved Mako Spince in this series. It reminded me of how Aaron Alston treated Zsinj in the X-Wing books, and gave him more of a background than the original story he was introduced in.

 

I prefer Brian Daley's take on Han: less angst, more fun.

 

X Months and Y Bounty Hunters Later.
Love it.

 

I used to have that too but never read it. Apparently it's missing the epilogue of Rebel Dawn or something.

 

Wow, really? I wonder why they removed it?

 

Yes, I think that this series (A.C Crispin) (unpopular opinion alert) did a better job at explaining Hans backstory than Solo, A Star Wars Story.

 

This was my favorite series back in the old EU days. I remember reading The Hutt Gambit in 2 days when I was in summer break from high school, loved all the Hutt underworld and Nar Shaddaa. And how about the Drew Struzan covers? Love them, specially Paradise Snare and Hutt Gambit (all 3 covers are featured in the Star Wars Icons Han Solo book). A few years ago I bought the Barnes and Nobles Leatherbound Edition of this Trilogy, but as mentioned above, it's missing the epilogue for Hutt Gambit.

 

Be good to see a canon version developed, no point in reading these anymore and I would enjoy more Solo content.

 

I agree. Rebel Dawn was one I liked too. Part of the fun for me was watching Jililac struggle with her motherhood in book three.

 

I am reading these now just finished Hutt Gambit.

Rally liked the battle and how it was told, AC is really good at using different view points to tell a story.

Also I agree about the Hutts.

I would have loved to read a Hutt book by AC.

I also heard she copped it from fans at the time (call Bria a marry sue [which I don't agree with or if she is than so is everyone Zahn every created]).

 

I also love this series.

 

I love how Crispin made space for the Daley novels to happen in between the scenes of Rebel Dawn, and took advantage of the bits of Han's past already provided in Dark Empire. Even the bit about Garm Bel Iblis speaking to Han's classroom is mentioned. The only thing that's not included from Han's already established background is his friend Bey from the Marvel comics.

 

I fondly remember the scene at the end of The Hutt Gambit, where Han narrowly escapes Darth Vader.

 

I disagree about Han’s character arc. The Solo movie is much more so an example of what you’re talking about: Han spends the whole movie as happy-go-lucky “nice guy” who is constantly doing the right thing, until at the end his girlfriend betrays him and we’re supposed to infer this made him cynical even though he’s spent literally the entire movie being nicer than he was even in ROTJ.

The HST, on the other hand (the other Han?) starts with a young Han who’s already had a completely messed-up upbringing and as a result has a vague longing for a respectable life, but he’s already got more of a hardened, world-wise, cynical edge to begin with. Then the one-two punch of Bria leaving him and getting thrown out of the Navy (the latter always seems to get underrated because it’s offscreen) burns out any thought of respectability or idealism about life, and we get two books of pretty much straight ANH Han — a guy who’s cynical, selfish, skeptical, self-protective, hardened to a life of crime, out to lead a life of simple outlaw hedonism where he’s always after a score that always gets blown on his ship or a party. He’s got a conscience, but he’s vaguely embarrassed by it, he denies it’s there even to himself, and is always trying to blow it off, hide it, push it down under cynicism and a drink, pass it off as pragmatism. Bria’s second betrayal and death doesn’t really change anything because it’s all already there; all it really does is add a heightened edge to his antagonism toward the Rebellion and its “cause.”

Solo is a much, much, much worse example of what you’re talking about. And, yes, the HSA are even better . . . but Daley is untouchably good. Nobody else is going to be as good as Daley. The HST is fantastic on its own terms, though.

 

[Emphasis Added]. Ironically, the bolded is probably what made me feel like Solo was less egregious. We never actually really see Han become ANH Han. It just never happens - but we seem to be intended to assume that the events of the movie are what makes him who he is in ANH. HST has a much clearer arc which delivers us more directly to ANH Han. This is certainly not an endorsement of Solo as a better work - it plainly isn't. HST gives a well defined, logical character arc that delivers us convincingly to the point where we pick up the character in prior media. Solo... doesn't. But the weaker story makes this particular aspect of HST that I dislike, seem more minor.

Which would suggest that he starts much closer to ROTJ Han, no? Han's arc in HST is clearly well executed, I just dislike the decisions (in my opinion) to: 1) Start Han's character too close to ROTJ Han, and 2) have a failed relationship play too major a role in getting him to the point of being ANH Han.

I will admit: it has been a long time since I read these books. It's possible that a general feeling about how his arc progressed has built itself up in my head to being more "on the nose" than it really was. That said, I obviously DID have that feeling reading the story, and it DID impact my opinion of it.

And I will concede - comparing to HSA was low hanging fruit, but I can't pass up an opportunity to pitch them.

 

I have a difference with a lot of EU critics here in that virtually everyone who gets pilloried as a "Mary Sue" is a character I like a lot. Bria Tharen, Corran Horn, Mara Jade, Grand Admiral Thrawn. About the only time I agreed with the critics is about Karen Traviss and her damn Mandos.

And sure, a lot of it is just personal preferences. But there's also the fact that it always feels like the great sin of Mary Sues is that they risk being as cool as the movie characters, which... yes, heaven forbid that over all this time and in the entire Galaxy Far Far Away, there ever be times when Luke, Leia, and Han aren't the coolest kids in the room.

 

I also think the extent to which Han Solo in the movies is a hardened world-wise cynic is way overstated by fandom in the first place.

I can never say this enough times, but Han's "story arc" in the original movie is literally "risked his life attacking the greatest military power known to the galaxy, to save someone he hasn't even known for twenty-four hours, and whose only contribution to his life up to that point has been to damn near get him killed a million times."

That doesn't scream "cynical mercenary." It screams "huge honking bleeding heart issues that didn't actually need much incentive to come out." It just hasn't come out that much before then because most of the people in his line of work are *******s (even if many of them aren't 100% dicks). And from what I recall of both Crispin and Daley's books, the number of people who see through his shell and know he's a good guy pretty quickly is... not small.