Greatest Alpha Quadrant Conflicts?

[Sci]

As far as the claim that the novels are depicting the Federation as facing too many violent crises...

For the record, TNG and DSN very firmly established that between 2293 and 2369, the Federation:

• Was the victim of the Tomed Incident, in which thousands of lives were lost and in which the Romulans were involved (TNG: "The Neutral Zone," "The Defector," "The Pegasus")
• Was embroiled in a series of border wars with the Cardassian Union that lasted decades, ending only in 2367 (TNG: "The Wounded," "Journey's End," "Chains of Command," et al)
• Was embroiled in a war with the Tzenkethi Coalition (DSN: "The Adversary")
• Suffered an attack from the Tholian Assembly that destroyed a Federation Starbase in 2353 (TNG: "The Icarus Factor")
• Suffered a breakdown in relations with the Klingon Empire that would have resulted in a Federation-Klingon war were it not for the sacrifice of the Enterprise-C to protect Narendra III
• Was attacked on several occasions by the Ferengi Alliance, both before and after official first contact (TNG: "The Battle," et al)
• Found itself embroiled in a new cold war with the Romulans (TNG: "The Neutral Zone," "The Defector," "Face of the Enemy," et al)
• Was targeted for assimilation by the Borg Collective (TNG: "The Best of Both Worlds")
• Became involved in the Klingon Civil War (TNG: "Redemption")

Mind you, this is just what's established in the canon for the TNG era.

[Edit_XYZ]

Elias Vaughn wrote:

---

Wait.

Waitwaitwait.

Choosing to eschew more pointless war and instead choosing to try and understand your opponents and compromise with them, to understand them... is shallow and superficial?!

I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.

Next time, do try to read my entire post - including the 'why so' part - instead of ignoring what you don't want to read and assuming some "wait [...]" will cover up the fact you failed to even address my point:

"For an optimistic, positive view of the future, this is a pretty shallow one, rather superficial:
The method of resolving the conflicts changes absolutely nothing to all the death, suffering and destruction endured through the wars.
And the next large scale war/disaster/etc is always around the corner in trek lit these days."

Sci wrote:

---

As far as the claim that the novels are depicting the Federation as facing too many violent crises...

For the record, TNG and DSN very firmly established that between 2293 and 2369, the Federation:
[...]
Mind you, this is just what's established in the canon for the TNG era.

This was TV TNG - and yes, it did depict a positive, optimistic future.

Now - do name the conflicts/disasters/etc portrayed in 24 century trek lit.

[Elias Vaughn]

Edit_XYZ wrote:

---

Next time, do try to read my entire post - including the 'why so' part - instead of ignoring what you don't want to read and assuming some "wait [...]" will cover up the fact you failed to even address my point:

"For an optimistic, positive view of the future, this is a pretty shallow one, rather superficial:
The method of resolving the conflicts changes absolutely nothing to all the death, suffering and destruction endured through the wars.
And the next large scale war/disaster/etc is always around the corner in trek lit these days.

No, I read it all. It just doesn't matter.

Death happens. The optimism of Trek is that despite the death, suffering, and destruction, the Federation holds true to its principles, and tends to not let death beget more death if it can possibly be helped.

I find that to be neither shallow nor superficial.

I stand by my original post.

[Edit_XYZ]

Elias Vaughn wrote:

---

Death happens. The optimism of Trek is that despite the death, suffering, and destruction, the Federation holds true to its principles, and tends to not let death beget more death if it can possibly be helped.

Until the next major war/disaster that inevitably arises almost immediately afterwards in trek lit.
Through this, trek lit nullifies any gain from holding true to one's morals and principles.
As such, it nullifies any pretentions of the presented optimism as being more than shallow and superficial.

You could just as well watch a Sisiyphus being beaten half to death, but always turning the other cheek for the inevitable next beating.
Again and again.
And thinking this an optimistic vision because he always turns the other cheek.

No, I read it all. It just doesn't matter.[...]I find that to be neither shallow nor superficial.

I stand by my original post.

With regard to this dictum of yours, a saying saying comes to mind:
'You can call it a cow, but you can't milk it.'

No matter how much you - or anyone else - affirm support for such dictums, they remain hollow.

[Sci]

So, just to sum up:

The canon establishes horrific acts of terrorism, numerous small battles, four or five major wars, ongoing cold wars, and an existential threat from the Borg.... and that's an optimistic future.

The novels establish one truly exceptional atrocity in the Borg Invasion, and an ongoing cold war which nonetheless carries the promise of eventual peace -- and they're doom and gloom and full of nothing but death and subvert the premise of Star Trek.

'Cos that makes sense?

[JD]

Honestly, I think it would be a lot less realistic if there were no big conflicts going on. In Trek Lit there are hundreds of different races out there with vastly different philosophies, and chances are, more often then not those philosophies are going to come into conflict. But what makes Trek optimistic is the fact that humans and there allies use their peaceful philosophy to bring an end to these conflicts, instead of just fighting to the last man.

[Edit_XYZ]

Sci wrote:

---

So, just to sum up:

The canon establishes horrific acts of terrorism, numerous small battles, four or five major wars, ongoing cold wars, and an existential threat from the Borg.... and that's an optimistic future.

The novels establish one truly exceptional atrocity in the Borg Invasion, and an ongoing cold war which nonetheless carries the promise of eventual peace -- and they're doom and gloom and full of nothing but death and subvert the premise of Star Trek.

'Cos that makes sense?

Off the top of my head, trek lit also narrated the genesis wave disaster, the Cold equations 3 destruction, the millenium trilogy war end federation defeat, etc, etc, etc.
Even books not geared toward large body counts depict loss of iconic symbols - DS9, most of the voyager fleet.

You missed a LOT of disasters/wars there, Sci.

And yes, this incessant succession of lovingly depicted catastrophes DOES make the trek lit universe a crap-sack world.


PS
- your 'summing up' of my previous post is nothing of the sort.

- about canon - really, Sci?
For you, a few words mentioning some 'incident' decades ago or some skirmishes, relatively small scale terrorist attacks, repeatedly stopped borg (again, with relatively little casualties) equate the sheer scale of the death/destruction from trek lit?
Gross hyperbolics wont make your position less hollow.

[Sci]

Edit_XYZ wrote:

---

Off the top of my head, trek lit also narrated the genesis wave disaster,

I never read those books; they certainly never had much in the way of emotional consequences in other books. I seem to remember that the gender of Nurse Ogawa's kid was different in them vs in the Titan series, and that the last book in that series (Genesis Force) featured, in essence, a Star Trek version of the X-Men.

the Cold equations 3 destruction,

Haven't read that one yet. I'm only halfway through Book II. No spoilers, please.

the millenium trilogy war end federation defeat,

Oh, we're counting alternate timelines that get erased from history?

Okay.

Well, there was that time the Federation was losing a war to the Klingons in an alternate timeline. (TNG: "Yesterday's Enterprise")

And that time the Federation was erased from history. (Star Trek: First Contact)

And that time that the entire galaxy was consumed by an anti-time anomaly billions of years ago. (TNG: "All Good Things...")

And that time Earth was destroyed by the Xindi in the year 2153. (ENT: "Twilight")

And that time the Federation was erased from history by the survival of Edith Keeler in the 1930s. (TOS: "The City on the Edge of Forever")

And that time the Federation was forced to abandon Deep Space 9 to the Klingons after a Dominion-subverted Klingon government came to dominate the Alpha Quadrant of the 2400s. (DSN: "The Visitor")

And that time the entire Sol system was vaporized in the 29th Century by the ineptitude of 20th Century entrepreneur Henry Starling. (VOY: "Future's End")

And that time the eastern United States was conquered by Nazi Germany in the 1940s. (ENT: "Storm Front")

Even books not geared toward large body counts depict loss of iconic symbols - DS9,

You mean like the destruction of the original starship Enterprise? (Star Trek III: The Search for Spock)

Or the destruction of the starship Enterprise the audience had spent the most time with, the Enterprise-D? (Star Trek: Generations)

Or the destruction of the much-loved U.S.S. Defiant? (DSN: "The Changing Face of Evil")

most of the voyager fleet.

Is the rest of that fleet really "iconic?"

And since we're talking about alternate timelines, we should probably mention the sheer number of times Voyager has been blown up.

[Kertrats47]

Sci wrote:

---

And since we're talking about alternate timelines, we should probably mention the sheer number of times Voyager has been blown up.

Ooh, fun, I want to get in on this!

"Deadlock"
"Future's End"
"Year of Hell"
"Timeless"
"Course: Oblivion" (sort of)
"Relativity"

They did that a lot, didn't they?

[Sci]

Kertrats47 wrote:

---

Ooh, fun, I want to get in on this!

"Deadlock"
"Future's End"
"Year of Hell"
"Timeless"
"Course: Oblivion" (sort of)
"Relativity"

They did that a lot, didn't they?

Must be why Star Trek: Voyager is universally known for its dark and gritty nature.

[Edit_XYZ]

Sci

"I never read those books"
And? Just because you're not qualified to comment has no relevance on the argument.

"Oh, we're counting alternate timelines that get erased from history?"
Yes, we do - especially when whole trilogies narate/focus on these alternate futures as opposed to a few lines, comprising a few seconds in an episode.

"You mean like the destruction of the original starship Enterprise? (Star Trek III: The Search for Spock)[...]"
Yes, like that. Except that was a single occurrence in a line of optimistic episodes/movies (adventures on the background of a federation at peace and expanding); DS9 and the voyager fleet are occurrences in an ongoing crap-sack trend.

"Future's End" "Timeless" "Relativity"
Really? You call these dark futures? In 'future's end' you had a few seconds of doom prediction followed by 2 pretty light episodes.
The other 2 examples - not even these few seconds.

As for the other episodes you mentioned - do name the ratio of these to optimistic episodes throughout Voy.

I already told you, Sci:
Gross hyperbolics wont make your position less hollow.
Indeed, the very fact that you must recourse to such cheap tricks to support your position highlights its fundamental weakness.

These days, 24th century trek lit is comprised of consecutive wars/destructions (narrated in detail). You get perhaps a reconstruction blues book or two, then on to the next disaster.
As for the rare optimistic book,you know how you can tell it's the exception? Because its premise is, by necessity, grafted onto the crap-sack events that have become the core of 24th century trek lit.

[Sci]

Edit_XYZ wrote:

---

Gross hyperbolics wont make your position less hollow.

Edit_XYZ wrote:

---

These days, 24th century trek lit is comprised of consecutive wars/destructions (narrated in detail). You get perhaps a reconstruction blues book or two, then on to the next disaster.
As for the rare optimistic book,you know how you can tell it's the exception? Because its premise is, by necessity, grafted onto the crap-sack events that have become the core of 24th century trek lit.

The definition of irony.

[Edit_XYZ]

Sci

"The definition of irony."
The irony is on you, Sci.

My statement is accurate - and you once again came up with baseless dictums.

[Paris]

Edit_XYZ wrote:

---

Sci
...The irony is on you, Sci.

Ha! Loving this. You're public spats with each other are usually fun to read, and this is the comment of the day!

[Christopher]

^Speak for yourself. I wish they'd either take the whole thing to PM or just put each other on ignore.