A Singular Destiny review thread (possible spoilers)

[JD]

I'm not KRAD, but I do know he's been working on the Farscape comic books for the past few months.

[Christopher]

DarKush wrote:

---

Question about the Kinshaya, are they supposed to favor bats or birds? Or neither. I got the impression they were a batlike species from their description, well that's how I pictured them anyway. Was that physical description also in "The Final Reflection" or an invention by KRAD?

The Kinshaya were only briefly referenced in TFR, never seen. KRAD's description of them is original (and different from the one given in some role-playing game materials). To me, the description of the Kinshaya suggested that they somewhat resemble griffins.

[JD]

That was pretty much my idea to, actually. The thing I was curious about is what the set up for their controls and stuff is like. To the best of my knowledge we've never seen any ships designed for quadrupeds before.

[Christopher]

JD wrote:

---

To the best of my knowledge we've never seen any ships designed for quadrupeds before.

The Vomnin in Orion's Hounds were built somewhat like gorillas and were facultative bipeds -- i.e. generally walked on all fours (on their knuckles) but could take a bipedal stance when they needed to use their hands. Their ships were thus designed with the consoles and controls close to the ground.

[DarKush]

Chris thanks for the link. Griffins work for me better than bats.

[JD]

Christopher wrote:

---

The Vomnin in Orion's Hounds were built somewhat like gorillas and were facultative bipeds -- i.e. generally walked on all fours (on their knuckles) but could take a bipedal stance when they needed to use their hands. Their ships were thus designed with the consoles and controls close to the ground.

Oh, I didn't realize that. That's pretty cool, thanks for the info.

[Rat Boy]

Christopher wrote:

---

To me, the description of the Kinshaya suggested that they somewhat resemble griffins.

They may be jerks, but I hear they make good gameshows.

[KRAD]

DarKush wrote:

---

I was pleasantly surprised. The Federation presidency stuff was kept to a minimum, Sonek Pran was engaging enough, and I liked KRAD's big-picture take of the post-Destiny landscape. It definitely left me wanting more of the Typhon Pact.

Thanks muchly!

Question about the Kinshaya, are they supposed to favor bats or birds? Or neither. I got the impression they were a batlike species from their description, well that's how I pictured them anyway. Was that physical description also in "The Final Reflection" or an invention by KRAD?

They were never described in TFR. And their resemblance to gryphons (or griffins), which are among my favorite mythical creatures, is not at all coincidental.

The Kinshaya titles also seemed odd. So are do the military leadership hold military and religious roles? Is the Kinshaya govt. a theocracy?

Probably.

nickyboy wrote:

---

which 2 comic books are you working on KRAD??

Two Farscape comic book miniseries, Strange Detractors and D'Argo's Lament, for both of which I still need to script the fourth and final issue.

[Elemental]

I thought the Kinshaya were interestingly portrayed in pretty much every sense (language, appearance, culture, values), especially in how they interacted with the Klingons. Seems to be an interesting alien species.

[nickyboy]

Jean-Luc Picard wrote:

---

I want spoilers...but I don't want spoilers...but I really do...

I really don't think that the two people mentioned in this casualty list are dead. I think it is just a set up to be resolved in a later book.

[Judge King]

By the way, in regards to the Venture being refitted, would this be a good representation of what the refitted Venture looks like? Credit goes to Bridge Commander modder JamesTiberiusKirk and DJ Curtis. (JTK for the refit and DJ Curtis for the source model).

http://sgvst.wiki-site.com/images/4/43/AAVenture2.jpg
http://sgvst.wiki-site.com/images/6/65/AAVenture3.jpg
http://sgvst.wiki-site.com/images/8/8b/AAVenture4.jpg

[captcalhoun]

i enjoyed this, but i agree, they never should've announced the TP's existance before this came out.

[ProtoAvatar]

Sci wrote:

---

It's a function of Proto's pretensions of having a better understanding of history and politics than his rhetorical opponents, including myself. If you're going to claim intellectual superiority, you should at least have the decency of using proper spelling and grammar in whatever language you're debating in.

No. I argued that there is no inherent or fundamental difference. That doesn't mean that there can't be a difference, but that the difference is not inherent. As I noted above, how moral or amoral the Trekverse functions can be a matter of which story is being told. As a fictional construct, the "moral structure" of the Trekverse is a flexible, mutable thing, whereas, if one can be said to exist for the real world, it is likely fixed.

As I've noted time and again, you have a habit of taking a statement of someone else's and then pushing it to make it say something that it doesn't actually say. It's getting damn irritating. Stop putting words in my mouth.



If that is the point you made, then I would suggest that you used poor language to make it. I will readily concede that a real, historical example has more relevance to the real world than an example from any fictional construct -- but your language seemed to be saying that a fictional example has no relevance whatsoever to the real world and that they could all be dismissed. I firmly reject that conclusion -- fiction, like any form of expression or argumentation, can be a powerful and deeply meaningful way of describing and expressing the world, as books like Night or Nineteen Eighty-Four, or as films like The Last King of Scotland or The Queen, prove.



I never said they weren't. But you are inaccurately representing the fundamentals in the Trekverse. The roll of the dice is not always counterfeit, the result does not always favor the altruist, the main character, the moral of the story, or the whims of the author. Millions of altruistic Bajorans were killed in the Occupation. Billions of Cardassians were murdered by the Dominion. Seven million Humans were murdered by the Xindi (of whom only the Reptilians and the Insectoids were held responsible, whilst the rest of the Xindi Council went unscathed). We've seen main characters die plenty of times (perhaps most infamously in the TrekLit world in Wildfire), and the authors have made it clear on numerous occasions that they tend to find the creation of those stories to be deeply upsetting, not "a whim."

That is why your argument is specious: It presents the premise that everything always works out for the best in the end, and it ignores numerous pieces of evidence in the Trekverse that everything does not always work out in the end. It falsely represents the fundamentals of the Trekverse.



But that's not what history is about. History is about the meaning of that event, about the motives behind it and the forces that it unleashes and the ways it changes society. And all of that is deeply subjective.



You are confusing the past with history. They are not the same concepts. The past doesn't change, but history -- which is our understanding of the past -- changes constantly.

Yes, that's right. I'm the one who's sour.

You are the one who began using very disrespectful, condescending language against other posters who expressed and logically supported their disagreements with you (such as in this post). You are the one who chose to make personal insults and slights, and who has consistently resorted to insults since. Don't be surprised when someone calls you on it.

Once again, resorting to insults rather than logically supporting your conclusions. (Though, of course, given your tendency to engage in unfair over-generalizations, that's not surprising.)

Proto's pretensions of having a better understanding of history and politics than his rhetorical opponents

You are talking about yourself, Sci.

Yes, that's right. I'm the one who's sour.

You are the one who began using very disrespectful, condescending language against other posters who expressed and logically supported their disagreements with you (such as in this post). You are the one who chose to make personal insults and slights, and who has consistently resorted to insults since. Don't be surprised when someone calls you on it.

An eye for an eye, Sci.
You quoted my post - look at your post to which I had responded: http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=2649105&postcount=363.
I'm disrespectful, condescending and insulting? Same back to you.

And yes, you are sour.

History.
History is the study of the past. Its purpose is to accurately record the past and discover the causal relations between events - all of which doesn't change. A person who writes a book and doesn't present the facts objectively doesn't deserve to be called "historian" - and the book doesn't deserve to be called a "history book".
Look at the definition of history - as with any science, you'll find the word "objective" in there.

Real world vs Trekworld.
There is a fundamental difference between the real world and the trekverse. The real world happened, the trekverse didn't.
In the real world, the roll of the dice is not counterfeit. In the trekverse, it is, always - unless the writers are using radioactive decay results to write their stories. Many times, the author is constrained by real world concerns - the actor is leaving the show, the editor is imposing this and that.

And there is a fundamental moral difference between the real world and the trekworld. Any star trek story - any fictional story has a theme. The author is always trying to express an ideea, a thought, and the story is built accordingly - and this is the moral substrate of any fictional universe. Happy endings are not necessary for the existence of a moral substrate.
In the vast majority of cases, Star Trek stories - filmed or otherwise - have happy endings. Sometimes - rarely - not. That doesn't change the fact that the autor is trying to say something, to entertain. You will never find this "purpose" in events that actually take place.

As for the trekverse immoralities - I'll quote myself, because you obviously didn't read my posts (and more about that later):

Those immoralities from star trek are required to create suspense, to maintain ratings - are more often than not, to make a point about morality. 34 billion died in the borg invasion? Yes, 34 billion spear holders, and a few characters whose death was expanded upon, for emotional impact - all carefully fabricated to convey certain ideas and values. There are a lot of spear holders in fiction. Not a single one in real life.

Sometimes, the fictional story can imitate the real world quite well. But that doesn't mean that they have the same value as real world facts in any discussion concerning the real world.

If that is the point you made, then I would suggest that you used poor language to make it.

Have I? I suggest that you actually read your rhetorical opponent's posts before profering insults:

I encourage the use of examples from the real world.
I have a problem when sci uses examples from the star trek universe in order to make an "ethical or karmic" point about the REAL universe - as if star trek has the same relevance as real world history - it doesn't.
When trying to say or prove something about the real world, star trek's relevance is limited

As for using examples from Star Trek - or any other fictional universe (dystopian or utopian) - to prove something about the real world, I think you'll agree that such examples have a limited relevance.

And about this claim "I argued that there is no inherent or fundamental difference. That doesn't mean that there can't be a difference, but that the difference is not inherent." - define clearly "fundamental difference" as opposed to "difference"

[ProtoAvatar]

rfmcdpei wrote:

---

Including everything, sure, that's a bad idea. Including things which have been explicitly integrated into the novels isn't at all.

Pity, that. They're good.

I count the Rihannsu novels inasmuch as they can be counted upon because the detail that they include about the Romulans has been adopted--as much as possible, of course--into the novels. If Krad goes so far as to include Artraleirh, the Romulan colony world that supported the first two Free Rihannsu victories against the RSE, in A Singular Destiny, on top of all of the other details which have been incorporated into other relaunch novels in different series, then it's justified to conclude that the Rihannsu series are, if not novelverse canon, then novels which are freely mined for canon.



Post-coup Romulus must have been chaotic. That said, the Remans explicitly threatened to attack Romulan cities if they didn't get what they wanted; Remus would presumably have been depopulated, but I don't think that they cared.

The ones that we see, sure. Romulan society before the split was established as chaotic and factionalized; other factions and other individuals, not seen in the movie, were also in play.

But Picard thought that a thalaron weapon made out of the deflector would be a viable defense against an entire Borg fleet. Even if the fleet was stationary, four thousand Borg ships would still have occupied a huge area of sky as seen from Enterprise's position. The thalaron weapon sounds like it was a wide-effect weapon, sterilizing things within dozens of degree of its point of generation.

About Relaunch/Rihannsu books:
We should consider canon for the purposes of this discussion, in addition to the filmed material, the relaunch novels, including the elements they imported from the rihannsu novels.
But not the rest of the rihannsu series - in many cases, the relaunch books contradicted facts established in rihannsu. Also, as I have not read the rihannsu books, I cannot coment on them.

From what you said, the rihannsu books painted the "rihannsu" in a pretty favorable light - correct?

About the thalaron weapon:
In my above post, I explained in detail why this weapon cannot be used effectively against a federation fleet, but can be lethal to the borg.

In short - the feds would see the weapon charging and would go to warp. The thalaron weapon can have a range large enough to "encompass" 10 planets - the feds would be out of that range in miliseconds.
The borg, on the other hand, don't run. The'll wait to be hit by the weapon, in order to adapt.

In any case - Tal'Aura&co were willing, at best, to start an interstellar arms race - with potentially disastrous consequences; in my opinion, the probable scenario was that they wanted to destroy Earth and start a war with the Federation - in the past, romulans tried to start wars with the Federation often enough - see TNG.
Any society contains many factions - but only the factions that have the power dictate politics. On Romulus, these factions were either isolationist or antagonistic toward the Federation - and Tal'Aura's belonged to the second category.

[nickyboy]

I finished this book this morning, I loved it. I had a original series feel about it. the Alpha quadrant feels like a much larger, more dangerous place now. Thank you KRAD for a very enjoyable book. I look forward to your next contribution to the 24th century meta-story & your Alien Spotlight next month.