Spoilers VOY: Acts of Contrition by Kirsten Beyer Review Thread

[Charles Phipps]

"She thought she was right" is not an excuse. Kim Davis thinks she's right, and she's a bigoted moron who's betraying her sworn oath, terrorizing her subordinates into betraying their sworn oaths, and convincing herself that it's somehow a defense of morality. People can believe they're right, even have deeply felt convictions behind their actions, but still be total frakking jerks.

Oh and random fact: Kim Davis is unfortunately on my marriage license since we live in Ashland, Ky and she was the clerk when my wife and I got married.

I wonder if it's possible to get that changed.

As I've said, what scuttles Julia for me is her absolute refusal to consider that she could be wrong. The first thing she did in the mediation was to reject any possibility of compromise, to establish that she wouldn't even listen to any opinion or argument that didn't give her what she wanted. That kind of absolute refusal to consider other points of view is the reason for so much strife and intolerance and conflict today. That "my way or nothing" mentality has had a toxic effect on social discourse and politics and so much else. It's just so damaging that it overrides any sympathy for the practitioner.

Agreed,

Julia Paris loses all sympathy from me with the fact there's no indication whatsoever that any of her arguments are related to Miral other than her moral judgement of Tom and Torres. It takes a special kind of selfish egotistical monster to ignore the whole, "There's a cult out to murder my granddaughter" as irrelevant to your arguments as to why you're a better guardian.

Julia Paris doesn't ever talk about Klingon murder-hobos in her speeches, only that her son is a selfish egotistical jerk who lied to her and is a bad role-model. Is that grounds for having a child taken away in the Federation? What about Miral's needs? Her Klingon heritage? Her safety? Miral's emotional attachment to Tom and Belanna? Her argument is a forum for humiliating her son and airing her grievances with legalized kidnapping as her method of attack.

 

[ryan123450]

Kirsten has been gone from the board for quite some time. She never did pop back in after I asked a few questions several pages back. I hope all us crazy nerds didn't finally scare her off the board.

Just a few more days til Pocket Full of Lies.

 

[Christopher]

I will say, though, I'm getting a bit of a flashback to The Neutral Zone though. The Federation has dealt with the Cardassians (Space Nazis), Klingons (Game of Thrones w/ bat'leths), and Romulans (Maoist China) on a regular basis. They also have things like the Vulcans having death matches for mating rituals with just about every other world in its union probably having similar weirdness on one level or another. Yet the semi-21st century United States in Space really seems to make them uneasy and weirded out.

It's not that they find it unprecedented, just that they're questioning whether these are the kind of people they want to be allies with. Of the societies you mention, only the Klingons are on the allies list, and that's something I've found incongruous for decades. Early TNG like "Heart of Glory" suggested that the Klingons had outgrown their former ways of conquest and that the ones who still clung to the old traditions were dangerous renegades. But later Trek made the Klingons just as warlike and brutal as ever, yet somehow still a culture that the Federation counted among its friends. That aspect of the shows makes less sense to me than the Voyager crew's reaction to the Confederacy.

I appreciate the satire but I was taken somewhat out of the moment by thinking on that and wondering what was throwing the Federation's reps off so much. They deal with the Ferengi on a regular basis and capitalism shocks them? Surely they can and often do find cultural values utterly at odds with their own and find a way to work with them all the time. Indeed, a major part of what troubles the world today is the United States inability to relate to and deal with cultures on their own terms (and vice versa) which Star Trek has always predicted humanity advancing past.

The thing is, there are various ways of practicing capitalism. What the Confederacy had wasn't just capitalism -- it was a system that was tailored to deprive the poor and perpetuate inequality. There are plenty of societies that practice capitalism while still having a social safety net, and I think history shows that actually allows a healthier and more vigorous practice of capitalism because more people have more capital to contribute. I think the Confederacy was an allegory for the unhealthy form of capitalism we have today in the US, a system designed to take capital out of wider circulation and concentrate it more and more in the hands of a tiny few. I've seen it argued that a system like that isn't genuinely capitalistic at all, and if anything is anathema to the actual theory of capitalism -- although I can't remember where I read that, so I can't cite a source.

Kirsten has been gone from the board for quite some time. She never did pop back in after I asked a few questions several pages back. I hope all us crazy nerds didn't finally scare her off the board.

She's probably busy with work and family. I think that, unlike me, she has the discipline to stay away from the BBS when she's got a book to write.

 

[DimesDan]

She's probably busy with work and family. I think that, unlike me, she has the discipline to stay away from the BBS when she's got a book to write.

Now there's an idea.

 

[Charles Phipps]

It's not that they find it unprecedented, just that they're questioning whether these are the kind of people they want to be allies with. Of the societies you mention, only the Klingons are on the allies list, and that's something I've found incongruous for decades. Early TNG like "Heart of Glory" suggested that the Klingons had outgrown their former ways of conquest and that the ones who still clung to the old traditions were dangerous renegades. But later Trek made the Klingons just as warlike and brutal as ever, yet somehow still a culture that the Federation counted among its friends. That aspect of the shows makes less sense to me than the Voyager crew's reaction to the Confederacy.

I've always found Klingon values to be antithetical to the Federation in the fact they're a feudal oligarchy which exalts war, conquest, racial essentialism, bloodshed, and hierarchy. In fact, if you could describe a planet which is LESS like the Federation than the Klingon Empire I would be genuinely surprised. I made it a point in my reviews of Star Trek Online the Klingon Empire at its most antagonistic was actually more like the Federation because it was starting to ally with other races and reward beyond its own racist traditionalism.

However, I don't dislike this element because I thought it reflected the fact the Federation doesn't attempt to force its values onto its associate nations but simply tries to lead by example. Do I think it'd be better if the Captains gave the occasional strongly worded letter (or speech) just how much the Klingons and Federation idealogy will never reconcile? Perhaps. I do think it sends a very good message, though, which is that the Federation is capable of being tolerant and friends with people who are nothing like them, though.

Let's face it, it doesn't say much about the Federation's inclusivity if they're only friends with races which are willing to be exactly like them. I wouldn't want the Federation to be like Europe or some parts of the United states and become anti-immigration if a bunch of Klingons moved in and the locals felt threatened by their culture.

The Klingons haven't changed much because of the Federation, well, much, but any dialogue with the Confederacy is going to expose its citizens to new ideas and opporunities. Which, as we see in the book, does happen and causes change--however slight.

The thing is, there are various ways of practicing capitalism. What the Confederacy had wasn't just capitalism -- it was a system that was tailored to deprive the poor and perpetuate inequality. There are plenty of societies that practice capitalism while still having a social safety net, and I think history shows that actually allows a healthier and more vigorous practice of capitalism because more people have more capital to contribute. I think the Confederacy was an allegory for the unhealthy form of capitalism we have today in the US, a system designed to take capital out of wider circulation and concentrate it more and more in the hands of a tiny few. I've seen it argued that a system like that isn't genuinely capitalistic at all, and if anything is anathema to the actual theory of capitalism -- although I can't remember where I read that, so I can't cite a source.

I've heard the theory as well. It basically works that if money is all concentrated in one area and not circulating then it's just another form of feudalism/oligarchy.

I was reminded a bit of Bioshock and Andrew Ryan's pseudo-Objectivist wet dream. It's where capitalism becomes an idealogy rather than a simple marketing strategy and the rich are tricked into thinking they "deserve" their money while the poor "deserve" their poverty rather than simply having lucky ancestors. As much as I rag on my own nation, there's plenty of much-much worse nations out there in terms of capitalism but we've got that lionizing the element down pat.

 

[Christopher]

Let's face it, it doesn't say much about the Federation's inclusivity if they're only friends with races which are willing to be exactly like them.

Nobody said "exactly like them." But there's a difference between respecting a different culture or religion and being okay with an ally that actively wages wars of conquest. There should be some lines that it's not okay to cross. By analogy, it's one thing to respect a friend who has a different religion or sexual preference, but it's another thing entirely to be okay with the fact that a friend is a serial killer or a child molester. Tolerance does not mean an absolute lack of moral boundaries. And cultural relativism does not excuse wars of aggression, mass murder, or slavery.

It would be one thing if the Klingons, say, retained a tradition of dueling among themselves. But as long as their military is actively engaged in conquest and expansionism, as they were shown to be in the Gorkon novels, then that goes beyond respect for tradition, because then they're violating other people's rights. It's not just about them anymore.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Nobody said "exactly like them." But there's a difference between respecting a different culture or religion and being okay with an ally that actively wages wars of conquest. There should be some lines that it's not okay to cross. By analogy, it's one thing to respect a friend who has a different religion or sexual preference, but it's another thing entirely to be okay with the fact that a friend is a serial killer or a child molester. Tolerance does not mean an absolute lack of moral boundaries. And cultural relativism does not excuse wars of aggression, mass murder, or slavery.

It would be one thing if the Klingons, say, retained a tradition of dueling among themselves. But as long as their military is actively engaged in conquest and expansionism, as they were shown to be in the Gorkon novels, then that goes beyond respect for tradition, because then they're violating other people's rights. It's not just about them anymore.

That is one area I do dislike and that's the impotency of the Federation in terms of being willing to call other nations on their [expletitive]. I, honestly, miss Sarek talking to the Klingon Ambassador in "You have the right to commit murder?"

I very much would like to see how the Federation handles issues like conquest of other nations by the Klingon Empire and issues like embargoes, sanctions, or negotiations to try to prevent them from doing so. I'd also love for the Klingons to discuss issues of cassus belli, annexation, setting up puppet states and other matters.

Certainly, it'd be more interesting than just "And the Feddies leave the Klingons to murder the Kinshaya." When their story came up, I was like, "Nice job, UFOP. Real bang-up showing of how you're a force for good in the Alpha and Beta Quadrants."

Honestly, I felt Deep Space Nine strongly implied the conquest of the civilian Cardassia was the first implied military aggression by the Klingons since the Khitomer Accords. I wonder if there's a workaround like the Federation treaty gave the Klingon Empire X amount of space to work in as a Sphere of Influence and they found inhabited peoples there.

Either that or the Klingons just lie their butts off when talking about the circumstances of their conquests.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Here's my review:

http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/2016/01/star-trek-voyager-acts-of-contrition.html

Star Trek: Voyager is a series with an interesting relationship to my teenage years. It's probably my second-to-least favorite Star Trek but I know all of the cast intimately and was invested in their quest to get home. If I had to explain it in simple terms, I probably liked the cast of Voyager more than anyone else save the Original Series' crew but they had really bad plots. Some really good ones too, mind you, but not so much to balance things out.

As such, I was interested in the Voyager novel relaunch more than the other stories. Taking the crew into a situation different from their travels across the Delta Quadrant was an intriguing prospect. I was curious to see how the various crew members dealt with with the changes in their absence. The Maquis had been destroyed, the Dominion War had created a harsher Federation, and technology had advanced that a return trip to the Delta Quadrant was feasible.

Acts of Contrition picks up after a number of these events, including the death and resurrection of Captain Janeway, with a new mission to the Delta Quadrant in order to investigate if there's any remnant of the Borg. Along the way, they have encountered a powerful species called the Confederacy which may be the Federation's most powerful allies ever but who have powerful differences of opinion on how to treat their citizens.

Meanwhile, a plague is ravaging the Federation which appears to be based on the Caeliar (the species which created the Borg) nanotechnology. Despite the Federation's best minds working on it, there's no sign of any progress so Seven of Nine goes to investigate. The fact one of her old lovers is being held under house arrest by its scientists makes the mission doubly important despite the fact she's currently with another.

Finally, in a break from the usual Star Trek plots, we have a custody case in the future. Having been lied to by her son about his wife and daughter's death (to protect them from a Klingon cult), Tom Paris' mother is suing for custody of his child. This, despite the fact said child has shown no sign of physical danger at their hands, is provided for adequately, and is deeply attached to her parents. The Federation treats this suit seriously, though, which makes me wonder what sort of standards they hold parents to and whether or not Tom and B'Elanna be better off raising their daughter in the Delta Quadrant.

I must confess, I'm reading this out of order because I was intrigued by the Tom Paris plot. I'm a sucker for seeing things I haven't seen before in Star Trek and was interested in what custody hearings would be like in the 24th century. The depiction isn't terribly encouraging because it's clear Julia Paris is using the court as a method of getting revenge on her son for deceiving her with Miral Paris as a pawn.

If there was any evidence of mental abuse in one of the parties then that would qualify right there. She doesn't even bring up the dangerous life of a Starfleet child or the murder-cult, which further hardened my opinion against her. The fact Tom isn't more angry at his mother struck me as the only thing unrealistic about the proceeding, though, as I've seen many otherwise stable family relationships destroyed by much less in real-life.

The lion's share of the book, though, is devoted to the discussion of the Confederacy and whether or not it can ever reach an accord with the Federation. This is notable only because the Confederacy is, well, the present-day United States IN SPAAACCCE. It's a government ruled by capitalism, few safety nets, religious dogma, poor health care, and manipulation of the government by corporations.

The Confederacy is a bit worse in some respects as there's, thankfully, some safety net in the United States despite attempts by certain parties to eradicate them. Instead, the Confederacy reminds me a bit of Bioshock's Rapture where concepts of wealth=deserving to be wealthy are foundational principles.

I'd like to think that was a concept too stupid to make much traction but the Prosperity Gospel exists so what do I know. There are many people who have worked to be rich, many people who have inherited money, and many people who make their fortunes through illicit means. Watching the post-scarcity socialist Federation try to comprehend a mindset like this is an interesting experience.

Honestly, I think the book overdoes the Federation's troubles with the Confederacy since they're allied with the Klingons who are a violent oligarchy as well as the Ferengi who are built on capitalism despite Rom's reforms. Hell, you'd think the Federation would be used to making alliances with people they don't share the values of in order to enact positive change by example. The characters sometimes act as if the culture were the most surreal and callous one they've ever encountered.

Overall, I'd liked Acts of Contrition and would recommend it to Voyager fans. I'll buy just about anything with Seven of Nine, the Doctor, Tom Paris, or B'elanna in it. I also think this is a story which goes in an interesting direction with some fairly pointed social satire. It's got some flaws and I think the Seven story could have gone faster but, overall, I give it two thumbs up.

9/10

 

[Christopher]

This is notable only because the Confederacy is, well, the present-day United States IN SPAAACCCE. It's a government ruled by capitalism, few safety nets, religious dogma, poor health care, and manipulation of the government by corporations.

I'd say that's just one aspect of the United States IN SPAAACCCE. It's the United States as seen by the one percent. The Ferengi were conceived to be that as well. The Federation, on the other hand, is the United States as seen by President Obama or Bernie Sanders. (Or, originally, as seen by John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr.) Americans have always debated our different visions of our identity, and Star Trek, as a work of American science fiction, has often been an allegory for that debate.

 

[Charles Phipps]

I'd say that's just one aspect of the United States IN SPAAACCCE. It's the United States as seen by the one percent. The Ferengi were conceived to be that as well. The Federation, on the other hand, is the United States as seen by President Obama or Bernie Sanders. (Or, originally, as seen by John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr.) Americans have always debated our different visions of our identity, and Star Trek, as a work of American science fiction, has often been an allegory for that debate.

I don't mean to knock the United States. I'm quite fond of my home nation and think its a place of great wonder but I do think it's always a struggle to be better and it's never a bad thing to use writing to point out the flaws from another perspective--especially with science fiction.

I don't see the Federation as the United States, though, but the entirety of the globe working as one unit with the Confederation embodying one of the more toxic ideas I think of American exceptionalism as an excuse for whatever behavior benefits itself.

A big flaw I saw with the Confederation being they're so absolutely certain they're unique that they've blinded themselves to self-improvement and that's perhaps the worst flaw of all.

 

[Christopher]

I don't see the Federation as the United States, though, but the entirety of the globe working as one unit..

That's the theory, sure, but in practice it's always been intensely American. Like the way DS9 used root beer as a synecdoche for Federation values. Nobody outside the US really drinks root beer. See also baseball. Culturally, ethnically, and so on, the Federation has always looked and acted like America, even if it was a progressive, Kennedy-esque version of America.

 

[Charles Phipps]

I'm both glad and saddened by the appearance of Doctor Riley Fraizer. I've always been a big fan of the Cooperative of the Borg. Sadly, they didn't get to evolve into a major power outside of the Star Trek: Online universe and their role is mostly taken up by the Caeliar as a non-horrible gestalt. So, it's sad to see her so bitter and find out (from my perspective), the Cooperative has been through such a ringer.

 

[Jedi Ben]

So I started reading this months ago but had to stop. Why? Well, it's not due to any fault in the writing - far from it. In fact, you could say my reason for stopping was testimony to it. Namely, the Paris plot - is it well written? Pretty much. Do I like it? Not at all. Why? Cuts too close to the bone of family dysfunction that I've seen in three families with universally crappy results. There has been an ongoing interminable fracas for the entire year, so the last thing I needed to read of in Trek was a family punch-up, regardless of the skill shown in executing it.

I had finished Force & Motion and this was looking at me on the shelf, about 100 pages in, on pause, incomplete, as if: Come on, why not read the rest of me? So I did. It's a good book but let's get the Paris plot out the way first.

Julia Paris is an idiot. Grief-stricken perhaps but also so vengeful even a Klingon would consider her to be going a bit too far here. Nor is it as if she isn't told that she's deep, deep in the box marked 'wrong'. Janeway told her she could be compelled to reveal things, that technology exists to do precisely that but Julia retreats into ego to avoid recognising that harsh reality. I'd agree with Charles' wondering over what standards the Federation has to even question Paris' fitness as a parent, but I suspect Julia pulled strings.

Even with the way things out in this book, what are the likely consequences of Julia's actions? One wrecked family, unless the next book pulls a blinder of a reconciliation - I know I wouldn't be particularly forgiving in Paris' place.

The rest of the book? The plague plot is executed well, though I'm not sure of where it's going or why. The Confederacy is a smart creation and the final revelation of the nature of the alliance of Voyager's old adversaries was a killer. The belief across the Confederacy of people only having value by achieving on their own merits, without help from anyone, was a neat weaving in of the whole bootstrapping ideology that's quite prevalent currently. (That many of its advocates do so while in a safe, artificial environment maintained by others is entirely missed by them )

So, going to be interesting to see how Atonement wraps this trilogy up.

 

[Mizrach]

Best book in the best TrekLit series after Destiny.
Sorry for the brief review but my body need to read the sequel. An almost perfect execution for Ms. Beyer.
Why for Discovery they need to spend millions for Fuller that betrayed them? Just give free space to Beyer and Mack and they will eclipse Fuller or any other writer or Trek thinkers out there.