A Singular Destiny review thread (possible spoilers)

[Christopher]

Nutcase wrote:

---

OK, maybe the new alliance will eventually build a new superweapon, which the Federation will have to destroy by firing a transphasic torpedo down its exhaust port just before it becomes operational (where have I heard a similar plan to that before...)

They did that in Stargate SG-1's 7th-season premiere. Any other story following that pattern must therefore be a ripoff of Stargate. (Well, you find that kind of reasoning often enough on the Internet...)

[KRAD]

The Typhon Pact also isn't (necessarily) a threat. Keep in mind that they were inspired by the Federation.

[Brendan Moody]

KRAD wrote:

---

The Typhon Pact also isn't (necessarily) a threat. Keep in mind that they were inspired by the Federation.

This is another thing I liked about A Singular Destiny. Even though the members of the pact have often been enemies of the Federation, the book avoids portraying them and their actions as inherently bad or suspect. Which they aren't: there's nothing wrong with alliances in response to the galactic situation, as Pran points out, and the Federation doesn't have a monopoly on such things. And, dramatically speaking, the Pact will be more interesting if its members aren't aggressive mustache-twirlers. I look forward to the development of this storyline, at any rate.

[Nutcase]

Brendan Moody wrote:

---

This is another thing I liked about A Singular Destiny. Even though the members of the pact have often been enemies of the Federation, the book avoids portraying them and their actions as inherently bad or suspect. Which they aren't: there's nothing wrong with alliances in response to the galactic situation, as Pran points out, and the Federation doesn't have a monopoly on such things. And, dramatically speaking, the Pact will be more interesting if its members aren't aggressive mustache-twirlers. I look forward to the development of this storyline, at any rate.

Thinking about it, I agree entirely. It really isn't necessarily a force for bad. And the Federation isn't certainly all good - look at Section 31 for example. It certainly asks the question of which of the 2 alliances is 'better', or are they really that different from one another? It's a bit like the current Battlestar, since the divide between the humans and cylons has become increasingly blurred over time.

It is also relevant with the current political system on this planet, as we have a democratic system in North America, the EU etc, but it is not perfect. I still love the phrase by Churchill (not word-for-word correct, but the general idea is correct) - 'democracy is the worst system of government, apart from all others we have tried'.

I certainly foresee that the Trek universe is going in a fascinating direction, and it is in very safe hands! (So, after all these kind comments, any further hints about the upcoming books? )

[Ronald Held]

I finally got mine and will start to read it this weekend.

[Dimesdan]

As I have not read it yet and probably won't for a few weeks yet, just by what's been said here, is the Typhoon Pact in response to the UFP in a similar way that the Warsaw Pact was in response to the creation of NATO?

[Christopher]

Dimesdan wrote:

---

As I have not read it yet and probably won't for a few weeks yet, just by what's been said here, is the Typhoon Pact in response to the UFP in a similar way that the Warsaw Pact was in response to the creation of NATO?

Not exactly. And it's Typhon (as in the monster from Greek mythology and the Typhon Expanse/Sector in ST), not Typhoon.

[Dimesdan]

Christopher wrote:

---

Not exactly. And it's Typhon (as in the monster from Greek mythology and the Typhon Expanse/Sector in ST), not Typhoon.

Cheers on both accounts and I should have known better on the spelling of Typhon but I just made a cup of tea and was thinking of that spelling although it's Typhoo and not Typhoon!

[Strider]

I enjoyed the book a lot, but I caught one thing that bugged me a little. It was the way one character talked about the story of Joseph and how it used to be part of the mythology of two of Earth's biggest religions. In context both of the book and of Star Trek in general, one can infer that human religion is dead. Now I know you're in some ways confined to Gene Roddenberry's sandbox, and I know he was no friend of religion, but it's still annoying to read.

I'm religious myself. Religion of some kind or another is a huge part of the lives of literally billions of people living today. If you're thinking "yeah but humanity will outgrow their need for religion", then how is that less offensive than saying we'll outgrow our need to have black people or gay people or people who don't believe in God. It's like saying all of human diversity is welcome in the Star Trek future but my diversity.

As a disclaimer, I'm not taking a swing at KRAD here. I hardly feel marginalized or offended, and I'm probably taking a minor thing and blowing it out of proportion. I also realize Star Trek literature has been very friendly to religious themes in the past what with the "A Time to" series and the very Christian themes of Destiny. I also understand that Bajoran and Klingon religions are handled as metaphors of human religions and are given due respect by Star Trek. I appreciate all of that a lot, and besides I don't need my choices and beliefs constantly affirmed by everything I read. Still, for something like Star Trek where everyone makes this big crazy deal out of IDIC and all that, it seems odd to consign human religion to history's dustbin so cavalierly.

Other than that, A+ story!

[ShamelessMcBundy]

DarkHorizon wrote:

---

My copy was waiting for me when I got home this evening... am devouring it right now.

Oh, KRAD? That casualty list leading into Chapter 8? You evil bastard...

Yeah the future novels are gonna be quite interesting.

[KRAD]

It was the way one character talked about the story of Joseph and how it used to be part of the mythology of two of Earth's biggest religions.

That isn't what I intended at all from Sonek's line, which actually was (from page 257): "Two of the biggest religions humans ever had had the story of Joseph as part of its mythology."

Looking back, that second "had" should be "have," or maybe "got," given the manner in which Sonek speaks. How-some-ever, given that I created Captain David Gold of the U.S.S. da Vinci, a practicing Jew married to a rabbi, I don't think I can be accused of saying Judaism is dead in the 24th century.

Anyhow, no intent to marginalize or say that humans have outgrown religion was intended by that line, and I do apologize for the lack of clarity of language that made you think so. Thanks for pointing it out...

[William Leisner]

If anything, that line might be interpretted to suggest the story of Joseph had been dropped from Jewish and/or Christian teaching; I don't see how it could be twisted to mean there is no longer any Judeo-Christian tradition.

And even if a man whose family tree has roots on four different planets (understandably) doesn't wholehearted belief in any one faith, that doesn't negate the existance of those faiths, or their adherents.

[Strider]

William Leisner wrote:

---

If anything, that line might be interpretted to suggest the story of Joseph had been dropped from Jewish and/or Christian teaching; I don't see how it could be twisted to mean there is no longer any Judeo-Christian tradition.

It seemed to me that wording suggested that humans "had religions", not "have religions". It's no matter.

KRAD's explanation is more than satisfactory to me. There's been occasions in the past (especially on TNG) where religion is treated as something that's pretty much just for babies and humans evolved beyond it. It's always made me a little sad because it just made Roddenberry and by extension Trek seem narrow. It was handled far better by the time of DS9, and that's a pattern that certainly seems to have continued with Trek Lit. I'm glad of that. I'd forgotten the example of Captain Gold. That's a good one.

Also, I enjoyed that bit Sonek said about how practically anything can be solved if people just talk about it enough, and on the plus side it means people get to live longer. I'm paraphrasing, need to look that up. It's about the simplest rationale for diplomacy I've heard in a while. Might have to steal that line to use in history class (I teach high school social studies).

[Christopher]

Strider wrote:

---

There's been occasions in the past (especially on TNG) where religion is treated as something that's pretty much just for babies and humans evolved beyond it. It's always made me a little sad because it just made Roddenberry and by extension Trek seem narrow.

I'm not sure I agree with that interpretation. The primary instance that's seen this way is in "Who Watches the Watchers?," in which the Mintakans' adoption of a superstition based on "the Picard" is talked about as a backward step for their culture. But I don't interpret that as a dismissal of religion so much as a critique of superstition and blind faith, and particularly of using religion as an excuse for violence. When Liko is ready to kill the hostages to try to placate "the Picard," Deanna says "That's the trouble with belief in a supreme being -- you can never be sure what they really want." I can certainly see how that could be taken as a dismissal of religion, but I see it more as a warning against fundamentalism -- saying that you have to be very careful what actions you take in the name of your belief, since you can't be sure whether they're really the will of God or just your own beliefs that you're using God as an excuse for.

[KRAD]

Strider wrote:

---

Also, I enjoyed that bit Sonek said about how practically anything can be solved if people just talk about it enough, and on the plus side it means people get to live longer. I'm paraphrasing, need to look that up. It's about the simplest rationale for diplomacy I've heard in a while. Might have to steal that line to use in history class (I teach high school social studies).

Here's the line (from page 210: "There's no problem anywhere that can't be solved by two or more rational people sitting down and talking, and it means people get to live longer. There's an old human saying: 'I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve immortality through not dying.' Nonviolence is a good way to accomplish that, seems to me."

I'm rather proud of that bit, actually, and would be honored if you stole it. (The "immortality through not dying" quote is by Woody Allen, and is one of my two favoritest quotes ever.)