David Mack has written up a blog entry about his new Next Generation trilogy due out towards the end of the year. From the bare bones information he's given, what do you suppose will happen? BECAUSE SAID STORIES ARE ONLY A THIRD WRITTEN, PLEASE DON'T WRITE STORY IDEAS AND THE LIKE BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE BAD.
The series title, and David's reason for it, reminds me of a classic Picard line from TNG's Justice: Picard: How do I explain my refusing to obey their laws down there, not permitting the Crusher boy... to be executed? And by so doing, do I endanger this vessel and more than a thousand other lives? Data: Would you choose one life over one thousand, sir? Picard: I refuse to let arithmetic decide questions like that!
I'm really excited to see more stories dealing with AI's and I am definitely looking forward to the return of Wesley and The Traveler. I think we should remember to keep any ideas and theories to a minimum, we already got one story axed by getting to detailed in our theorizing, and I'd hate to see it happen again. Especially to something this high profile.
I can't remember exactly, but someone posted a fairly detailed description of a story they thought would be cool, and one of the authors posted that he had a similar story in the works, but since the posters idea was so close he would have to cancel the story completely. The policy of the site is that we are not allowed to post detailed story ideas in forums frequented by the authors, because if something is close to a story they working on they will have to cancel said story, rather than risk the poster suing over the similarities in the future.
Wasn't that Lonemagpie and it did seem a bit in jest. As for keeping story ideas and the like to the minimum, I'm not sure why I missed it out as I was going to include something along those ideas but neglected to do so. I'll go back and edit something along those lines.
DMack stated he didn't want to replicate his work in Destiny. Good, another high death tool would be bad. I'm anxious to see what the books are about, love the multi book stories, especially the Trill-ogies.
D. Mack said that in each story the characters will face an ethical problem: sacrifice few or many will die. I already know the resolution of these moral dillemas: The named characters will choose NOT to sacrifice the few; magically, it turns out that this decision also allows the many to survive. Another possibility is that the named characters will find a 3rd option that allows both the few and the many to survive.
Uhh, have you read David Mack's other books? He has a tendency to not let his characters off the hook that easily. To say the least.
And as these three stories will be stand-alonish and won't tell one big story, wouldn't it make sense for David to show different decisions and effects of those decisions in those stories? Would be kind of boring if all three books would follow the exact same path, and I think rather few people would argue that David's writing is boring.
D Mack has a tendency to kill a LOT of people and paint their death in what can accurately be called loving detail - with all the angst de rigueur. The only instances in star trek where a moral absolutist stance (AKA the hero refuses to choose the lesser evil, regardless of the consequences) is not rewarded by the apparition of highly improbable events that prove the hero right is when scenarists/writers didn't quite think things through (ex - TNG: I, borg). The exception that proves the rule is DS9: In the pale moonlight. D Mack's trek work is included in the notion of 'star trek' I used. D Mack also said something about 'shared' themes. As for 'boring' - most likely, the stories will be different enough. If merely presenting the same themes would make stories boring, then star trek - any series, really - would be boredom personified.
Book one gives me hope that something I've been hoping may happen for a long, long time may finally happen. Could very easily not though, so... *crosses fingers*