Spoilers Coda Trilogy Discussion Thread

[Damian]

Yeah, that's another thing. The "gorging on death energy" thing is a ridiculously shallow villain motivation (and FWIW, also not even remotely scientific; it verges on the supernatural).

Yeah. I guess another issue I had with Coda is I was never a huge fan of "Time's Arrow" to begin with. It's ok. It's not the worse Star Trek out there. But I was really surprised the Devidians ended up being the villains. I can't say with absolute certainty of course, but I can't remember a time when I heard someone say they really hoped we had a follow up Devidian story. Certainly I never felt any great need to return to that story.

I'm still really shocked the Krenim weren't the villains. I always had a strong feeling time travel would play some role in Coda and I thought that's what Kirsten Beyer was setting up for in To Lose the Earth. Then nothing but a token mention that they were wiped out. I know people have said this was based on some directive from on high somewhere (though I personally have never seen any official confirmation of this and certainly no reason for this).

In a perfect world I'd have loved to have seen the litverse continue as an alternate timeline. But I realize that's not how things work. Especially now when we didn't even get 6 books this year (and who knows how many for next) there just isn't enough room for litverse only releases. The emphasis is going to be on tie in's on actual shows going on the air right now, and the original series. I'd be surprised if we see any tie ins to the older tie ins like DS9 or Enterprise, at least for a while.

 

[DS9forever]

There was a new DS9 novel released right after Coda, the excellent Revenant.

 

[Sci]

Yeah. I guess another issue I had with Coda is I was never a huge fan of "Time's Arrow" to begin with. It's ok. It's not the worse Star Trek out there. But I was really surprised the Devidians ended up being the villains. I can't say with absolute certainty of course, but I can't remember a time when I heard someone say they really hoped we had a follow up Devidian story. Certainly I never felt any great need to return to that story.

I'm still really shocked the Krenim weren't the villains. I always had a strong feeling time travel would play some role in Coda and I thought that's what Kirsten Beyer was setting up for in To Lose the Earth. Then nothing but a token mention that they were wiped out.

I mean, there is a point where you're essentially saying you're holding it against a story that it's a story about A when you wanted a story about B. Like, sure, you could hold it against The Godfather that it's a mafia story instead of a romantic comedy, but is that actually fair to The Godfather?

 

[The Wormhole]

I know people have said this was based on some directive from on high somewhere (though I personally have never seen any official confirmation of this and certainly no reason for this).

If there was indeed a directive from the studio not to use the Krenim in Coda, the likeliest reason is that there are plans for the Krenim to be featured in one of the shows in the foreseeable future.

I'd be surprised if we see any tie ins to the older tie ins like DS9 or Enterprise, at least for a while.

Reports indicate S&S has taken notice of how well the sales were for TNG Shadows Have Offended and Ds9 Revenant and will take that into account when planning future releases.

 

[Smiley]

I mean, there is a point where you're essentially saying you're holding it against a story that it's a story about A when you wanted a story about B. Like, sure, you could hold it against The Godfather that it's a mafia story instead of a romantic comedy, but is that actually fair to The Godfather?

That's not quite apples to apples. This is closer to shutting the studio down and saying that the Godfather trilogy is the last movie release. That will work just fine for some people, but everyone has their own idea of what is good as a last hurrah.

 

[Christopher]

I mean, there is a point where you're essentially saying you're holding it against a story that it's a story about A when you wanted a story about B.

You say that like it's abnormal or wrong somehow. I mean, that's pretty much the usual reason for not liking something, that it isn't the thing you would've liked better. It's not wrong to find a story not to your tastes.

 

[Sci]

That's not quite apples to apples. This is closer to shutting the studio down and saying that the Godfather trilogy is the last movie release. That will work just fine for some people, but everyone has their own idea of what is good as a last hurrah.

But Damian wasn't talking about that. He was talking about wanting the Krenim to be the antagonists instead of the Devidians.

 

[Sci]

You say that like it's abnormal or wrong somehow. I mean, that's pretty much the usual reason for not liking something, that it isn't the thing you would've liked better. It's not wrong to find a story not to your tastes.

But there IS a point where refusing to evaluate a story on its own terms is unfair to the story. You may genuinely dislike mafia movies and much prefer romantic comedies, but films like The Godfather or Scarface or The Many Saints of Newark deserve to be evaluated on their own terms as mafia movies, not as though they were failed romantic comedies.

 

[Christopher]

But there IS a point where refusing to evaluate a story on its own terms is unfair to the story.

Not if you think it was the wrong way of telling that particular story. I agree with Smiley that your analogy is poorly chosen; indeed, I'd go so far as to say it's a complete straw man. It's not about comparing two dissimilar things, it's about saying that the way a specific thing was done was not the best way of doing that thing. It's not saying that you wished The Godfather was Annie Hall; it's more like saying you wish Godfather III was The Godfather.

 

[Sci]

Not if you think it was the wrong way of telling that particular story. I agree with Smiley that your analogy is poorly chosen; indeed, I'd go so far as to say it's a complete straw man. It's not about comparing two dissimilar things, it's about saying that the way a specific thing was done was not the best way of doing that thing. It's not saying that you wished The Godfather was Annie Hall; it's more like saying you wish Godfather III was The Godfather.

Maybe a better comparison would be saying that you wish the primary villain in The Dark Knight Rises had been the Riddler instead of Bane. But either way, there's a point where I just don't think it's fair to the material to not evaluate it on its own terms. The primary villain of The Dark Knight Rises is Bane, and the film either succeeds or fails based upon its execution of that particular choice. Saying The Dark Knight Rises does not use Bane effectively is fair; saying it's a bad movie because its villain isn't the Riddler isn't.

 

[Christopher]

But either way, there's a point where I just don't think it's fair to the material to not evaluate it on its own terms.

Why? The audience isn't obligated to force themselves to agree with a storyteller's choices. You don't work for us; we work for you. It's our job to try to satisfy you. But we won't satisfy everyone, because everyone has different tastes and perspectives. No matter what a story is "on its own terms," there will be some people who like what it does and others who don't. And that's their right. It's not their job to force themselves to come around to our way of thinking. If someone doesn't like a story because it's not done the way they would've rather seen it done, that is entirely valid. Nobody's required to like everything.

 

[Sci]

Why? The audience isn't obligated to force themselves to agree with a storyteller's choices. You don't work for us; we work for you. It's our job to try to satisfy you. But we won't satisfy everyone, because everyone has different tastes and perspectives. No matter what a story is "on its own terms," there will be some people who like what it does and others who don't. And that's their right. It's not their job to force themselves to come around to our way of thinking. If someone doesn't like a story because it's not done the way they would've rather seen it done, that is entirely valid. Nobody's required to like everything.

I didn't say they're obliged to like it. But liking something is entirely different from being fair to it. Evaluating quality is not the same thing as enjoyment.

I don't like Mad Men -- never have, doubt I ever will. I watched the first nine episodes of season one, and I essentially hated every single character. But I would never try to argue that it's a bad show -- when I evaluate Mad Men on its own terms, I always have to conclude that it's a well-written, well-acted, well-shot, well-lit, well-acted, well-produced show. One that I happen to hate.

 

[Christopher]

I didn't say they're obliged to like it. But liking something is entirely different from being fair to it. Evaluating quality is not the same thing as enjoyment.

But different people can have different assessments of the quality of the same thing. One person may see something as badly done and the other as well-done, and they can both be valid assessments because they're rating it based on their own sets of standards, disagreeing on what aspects deserve more weight. That's not "unfair," it's human. It's normal for people to see things differently from each other, often to a degree that seems mutually incomprehensible.

 

[Sci]

But different people can have different assessments of the quality of the same thing.

Of course. But you don't evaluate the quality of a story by saying, "It should have been a story about A instead of a story about B." You evaluate the quality of a story by judging how well it executed B. The Dark Knight Rises is not inferior to The Dark Knight because it features Bane instead of the Joker; it is inferior because it does not execute its story about Bane as well as it should have.

That's the problem I have -- with not judging a story on how well it executes its creative goals but instead judging it on what you think its creative goals ought to be.

 

[Christopher]

But you don't evaluate the quality of a story by saying, "It should have been a story about A instead of a story about B." You evaluate the quality of a story by judging how well it executed B.

I still say you're manufacturing an artificial distinction that's more a straw man than a fair assessment of the criticism. And this is going in circles at this point, so I don't see anything to be gained by continuing.

 

[ryan123450]

That's the problem I have -- with not judging a story on how well it executes its creative goals but instead judging it on what you think its creative goals ought to be.

The problem with that of course, is that the books didn’t have pages at the beginning stating what their creative goals were. That’s a point we can also interpret and disagree about. And the trilogy can’t stand alone. It’s expressly the final chapter in a longer story. That has to inform what its’ creative goals are.

I feel Coda didn’t succeed in fulfilling its’ creative goals as well as it could have because I see the goal it was aiming to fulfill as being the emotionally satisfying completion of a twenty year long group of dozens of story arcs and character arcs. And many of those were completely ignored, blatantly contradicted, or completed in ways completely unrelated to what we’d been purposefully led to expect. (Example of each- All of DRGIII’s major DS9 storylines, Quark and Ro’s relationship, and the Krenim being the next Big Bad.)

I enjoyed the ride for what it was, but overall did it succeed? My answer has to be no. The only person who can reasonably tell me I’m wrong would be one of the three authors. If they say that the trilogy’s creative goals were different than how I’m stating them, and then tell me that the trilogy was successful by that measure, I could only respond by pointing out that such a thing would be rather self serving. What “I think the trilogy’s creative goals aught to be” are the only thing any of us CAN judge it on.

 

[Sci]

The problem with that of course, is that the books didn’t have pages at the beginning stating what their creative goals were. That’s a point we can also interpret and disagree about. And the trilogy can’t stand alone. It’s expressly the final chapter in a longer story. That has to inform what its’ creative goals are.

I feel Coda didn’t succeed in fulfilling its’ creative goals as well as it could have because I see the goal it was aiming to fulfill as being the emotionally satisfying completion of a twenty year long group of dozens of story arcs and character arcs. And many of those were completely ignored, blatantly contradicted, or completed in ways completely unrelated to what we’d been purposefully led to expect. (Example of each- All of DRGIII’s major DS9 storylines, Quark and Ro’s relationship, and the Krenim being the next Big Bad.)

I would suggest that the fact that there were many arcs from the First Splinter Timeline novels that Coda was unable to follow up on would be an indication that being the emotionally satisfying completion of a twenty-year long group of dozens of story arcs and character arcs was not one of Coda's creative goals. (Indeed, I think no novel trilogy could reasonably accomplish such a goal.)

 

[YLu]

Of course. But you don't evaluate the quality of a story by saying, "It should have been a story about A instead of a story about B." You evaluate the quality of a story by judging how well it executed B. The Dark Knight Rises is not inferior to The Dark Knight because it features Bane instead of the Joker; it is inferior because it does not execute its story about Bane as well as it should have.

That's the problem I have -- with not judging a story on how well it executes its creative goals but instead judging it on what you think its creative goals ought to be.

I get what you're saying. There's a difference between "Is this good?" and "Do I like this?" Both are subjective, yes, but they're still different things and it's unfair to conflate one with the other.

 

[ryan123450]

I would suggest that the fact that there were many arcs from the First Splinter Timeline novels that Coda was unable to follow up on would be an indication that being the emotionally satisfying completion of a twenty-year long group of dozens of story arcs and character arcs was not one of Coda's creative goals. (Indeed, I think no novel trilogy could reasonably accomplish such a goal.)

I can’t imagine how it’s not clear to anyone who was following the lead up to the trilogy that that was THE express goal from the beginning. If it didn’t satisfy in that regard that can’t really be taken as evidence that there was a different goal in mind. How could that not be the goal, given the situation?

 

[Damian]

I mean, there is a point where you're essentially saying you're holding it against a story that it's a story about A when you wanted a story about B. Like, sure, you could hold it against The Godfather that it's a mafia story instead of a romantic comedy, but is that actually fair to The Godfather?

In my initial review I did evaluate it in terms of the writing. I did not like Coda for many of the reasons I cited. But in my initial reviews I did say it wasn't because the writing itself was poor. I thought the authors did fine as far as the technicalities of it all (for lack of a better word). But no I did not like the story. I think that's a fair criticism and I stand by it. Now, yes, I did state what kind of story I would have preferred. But come on, don't we all do that at times. People talk about Star Trek: Nemesis and what kind of Romulan story they would have preferred over that. It's sort of the same thing. Now I recognize my opinion is my own, so take it for what its worth. But it still doesn't affect my overall opinion of Coda. I noted something I would have preferred, but that's not the only story they could have told. They could have told a totally different story altogether, something I didn't even imagine and I might have loved it.

But at the end of the day, I still did not care for Coda. That has not changed based on my preferences. I think I've been pretty clear about the things I didn't like about it. It's not like I just said this is what I preferred, they didn't do that so I didn't like it. I outlined the reasons I didn't like Coda pretty specifically. Of course, some people liked it, some even loved it. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions. And I think Mack, Swallow and Ward are still excellent writers for the most part and I will continue to read their books. For me, Coda just didn't work as a finale. I was disappointed. But I look forward to their future books all the same because by and large, they write great books.