As a kid collecting EU novels and stories, I was always puzzled by _The Black Fleet Crisis_ trilogy. It was wildly different in tone and subject matter from most of the EU, I didn't know whether I hated it or loved it, and it seemed to have been largely ignored by the rest of the EU (ever see the Yevetha or Black Sword Command or the White Current mentioned elsewhere?). This ignoring has happened for a number of other books like the _Dark Empire_ comics or _Crystal Star_, but usually for good reasons: _Dark Empire_ was so over-the-top and gothic that to take it seriously would undermine many other stories and so it's usually name-checked briefly, if that, and ignored, while _Crystal Star_ was just so terrible it can be ignored. Neither of these seem especially applicable, though, so I didn't know what to think.

Having reread the trilogy now, I think I understand it better. It's essentially a Weber/Drake/Clancy-style military or mil-sf novel, which happens to be set in the EU and feature 2 distracting large subplots. From the great opening Fifth Fleet exercise to the equally great small subplot of discovering the Black Sword records (I'm nerdy enough to really like that, and also the various library/research issues in the Lando subplot) to the excellent finish, that's what it really is.

The problem is in large part the non-Yevethan subplots:

1. there's a reasonably interesting first-contact story using Lando which keeps distracting from the real story and which has absolutely no relevance to the other 2 subplots and is completely unnecessary. (Another reviewer comments that it would fit nicely as a stand-alone story like the pulpy _Han Solo Adventures_; I agree, and actually there were multiple _Lando Calrissian Adventures_, so even more reason...)
2. The subplot for Luke has more justification than Lando, but is still problematic for how sheerly boring and pointless it is. The ultimate justification seems to be the White Current assistance in the final battle and revelation of how they had been working against the Yevetha all along, but this is not much of a justification. It's probably just as well, since any real info about Luke's mother would have been rendered moot by the prequels (and I wonder if that's why the ending *had* to be so disappointing?). The positive side is that in some respects, this subplot seems to anticipate how a lot of later writers would handle Luke - so perhaps we should not criticize Luke's hermetical ways and musings. (Some of the resemblances to the Yuuzhan Vong/New Jedi Order story-arcs are striking, although I hated them enough that I stopped reading the EU after they started coming out.) Certainly he serves as a vehicle for some interesting bits like reflecting on the death toll of the first Death Star (although the Imperial Museum in _Wedge's Gamble_ is still a far better scene).

(One missed opportunity is Drayson; since Drayson is a key player in the major arc, and a key player in the start and end of Lando's arc, the trilogy missed a chance to make an interesting and subtle move: have Drayson be the topic of the trilogy! It would examine his methods, choices, and beliefs as contrasted against those he manipulates and serves. Most people would not appreciate this subtlety, but that only makes it mirror the life of its subject all the more. But he plays no role in Luke's subplot, so the interpretation fails. Too bad. The spy novel aspects were a major reason why Zahn's trilogy was, and probably still remains, the greatest EU series.)

The criticism of Leia in the trilogy is, I think, off-base. A good character is not a omni-perfect automaton who never makes mistakes; Leia needs to make mistakes, and this depicts one of them. Calling that 'bad characterization' is just fanboyism. I am reminded of a foreword to one of the character encyclopedias which enthused, "Check it out, Leia never misses [in _A New Hope_]". I did. She does, several times.