Ah. Okay, now I understand better the point you were making. Objection withdrawn.
What is happening with Star Trek literature?
- Thread starter Lynx
- Start date
But what happened to Garak in Second Self is much, much more destructive, wrong and out-of-character than what he was in the books The Never-Ending Sacrifice and The Crimson Shadow.
Garak is most of all a Cardassian patriot. Back in the days of the old empire, he was an "shadow warrior,spy,secret policeman,assassin" because he was raised by Enabran Tain to be such a person and he thought that he did what was best for Cardassia.
But later on and especially during his exile on station Deep Space Nine, he found out that Cardassia was on the wrong path and then he started to work against the government.
After the war, when Cardassia was liberated, he used his skills and patriotism to work for the new Cardassia and therefore he had to change. He wasn't or would never be any "cuddly president of the people" but if the author of the books had kept writing about Garak in the way he was in those books instead of making him a wimp, ruining the character and killing him off, then he could have been a very interesting character who would work for the new Cardassia and by doing so be involved in different plots to work against those who would like to turn cardassia into what it was during the days of military rule. But all that is ruined now, thanks to the events in Second Self.
And stating that Cardassia, "the war devastated home of paranoia and state police had suddenly morphed into Berkeley Ca. is much exaggerated.
So what am I wrong about when it comes to Coda? Enlighet me please.
Yes, I have stated that I don't like the character destruction which I've read about in Second Self and the janeway biography. I'm simply tired of seeing my old favorites being killed off or turn into uninteresting no-no's in the current books when I want to read about future adventures for them in a way which the different relaunch series was. Althught there were things I was not so happy with in the Relaunch books, like the absence of many good characters and the reluctance when it came to doing away with stupid things in TNG, DS9 and VOY, those relaunch books were much better than the constant doom-and-gloom scenarios which constantly shows up in my face now. I suppose that the whole Coda thing is just that too.
What I see now is the destruction of Star Trek, how it is turned into just another doom-and-gloom thing so typical for this century. It's the destruction of something I've loved since I was a kid and that makes me sad and angry, especiallt when there is nothing "out there" anymore to replace it with.
Last edited:
I’ve already answered this upthread, for David cgc.
I don't know that things have changed all that much in recent years. Whenever folks complain that modern Trek is too dark, I remind them that Kirk saw his pregnant wife stoned to death before his eyes, let Edith Keeler get hit by a truck to save the future, saw his brother and sister-in-law horribly killed by planet-destroying hordes of neural parasites, witnessed a genocidal massacre on Tarsus IV, had to console a would-be bride whose groom was killed by a Romulan attack on their wedding day, etc, etc. Along with courage and optimism, tragedy and horror have existed on the Final Frontier since the Talosians first tortured Pike (and poor, disfigured Vina) back in the day.
Perhaps this is a generational thing. I grew up not just on TOS but also on THE TWILIGHT ZONE and THE OUTER LIMITS, not to mention dystopian, post-apocalyptic classics like THE TIME MACHINE, PLANET OF THE APES, COLOSSUS: THE FORBIN PROJECT, SOYLENT GREEN, and so on, so the idea that science fiction (including STAR TREK) has to guarantee happy endings all the time bears no resemblance to the history of the genre as I know it.
The notion that the future is full of hope, wonder, and horrors is not some new 21st-century thing. It's been part of SF since H. G. Wells at least.
Remember the Morlocks and the Eloi?
Last edited:
Ah, never mind. What I have found out about it so far shows me that I won't like it.
I'm aware of the fact that there have been dark elements in Star Trek. But there have always been a core of hope in all stories.
But not now when everything is dark, dark, dark and when beloved characters from the great series are destroyed one by one. And not only characters, whole planets as well.
I can understand the problem with keeping the series alive when it comes to TV, due to actors aging, quitting, dies and so on due to time. And believe me, I would never watch a single "reboot" of any of the classic Star Trek series. I hate reboots.
But that doesn't explain or excuse the current doom-and-gloom scenario in everything Star Trek, not in the current series and movies and definitely not in the books.
The stories in the books aren't depending on certain actors or so. In the book it would be possible to keep the 24th century with all its possibilities for good stories alive and well and the characters alive and well and ready for more missions.
But no!
Now they are killed off or destroyed one by one and the whole scenario is becoming adapted to what we see in doom-and-gloom series like DSC and PIC.
And there is nothing for me in it.
Could try reading it and finding out, maybe?
Garak was a spy and a killer is not a nice guy who did as he was told by his spy father when he did spy missions and Garak in Empok Nor was his true character. The way he went after Miles O'Brien and killed the crew members and went after Nog in that show he's dangerous and loves to lie about who he really is like underneath his mask.
This is always the right answer.
And the Tuvok we saw in Meld was the real Tuvok?
The Picard we saw in Best Of Both Worlds was the real Picard?
And the Data we saw in Brothers who in an egoistic manner hijacked the ship and almost killed a sick little boy in the process was the real Data?
Am I looking at some attempts here to justify the destruction of Garak by pointing out that he actually was a bad guy and nothing wrong if he's destroyed?
Well, it was pointed out that I was wrong about Coda but when I tried fo find answers in this thread, I didn't find much.
However, my research on other forums among, them Memory Alpha and Memory Beta proves me right. Coda is dark and destructive.
Reading Coda?
Oh, no! Due to recent events, I've become very careful when it comes to buying and reading Star Trek books written after 2010.
Imagiine if I hadn't happened by sheeraccident to check the synopsis about Second Self and gotten information from a reliable source about the Janeway Biography. Then I would have lost money and been even more annoyed and angry than I am now.
I have more important things to spend my hard-earned money on than books in which my favorite characters are destroyed.
Like completinig my home library with TNG and DS9 books written when the series were still aired. They are quite expensive on Ebay and Amazon now but probably more worth the money than the recent doom-and-gloom stuff.
Or I can re-read books like The Black Shore (Greg Cox), Marooned (Christie Golden) and A Stitch In Time (Andrew J Robinson) for the umpteenth time. They are still very exciting, entertaining and enjoyable.
Yeah Lynx I think we're all pretty clear on what you're looking for. I'm sorry you're not finding what you want.
The thing that keeps making this an argument, I think, is that you keep posting total bafflement at why any author would do this?!? How can anyone who loves these characters destroy them in this way??!
But here's a whole messageboard of people that like these stories so.... the authors do this because lots of people (like, objectively - look around they're right here) find those stories meaningful. At the risk of oversimplifying, they're meaningful to many of us because they engage with aspects of human existence that are worthy of engagement. People aren't at their prime forever. People die. People give up sometimes. I find hope a pretty meaningless exercise if the rules of the fictional world never allow anything bad to happen in the first place. Clearly those lines are in a different place for you and I'm not trying to tell you you're wrong. I'm trying to tell you there are other valid perspectives here and it gets kind of annoying for you to dismiss them as if we're all insane. Here: "Lynx, I understand your perspective; I'm sorry you aren't getting the stories you like." Are you able to reply in kind?
(I actually also hated Coda, for the record, but because of execution not because of the idea of a story of fighting against the darkness and making ultimate sacrifices.)
The thing that keeps making this an argument, I think, is that you keep posting total bafflement at why any author would do this?!? How can anyone who loves these characters destroy them in this way??!
But here's a whole messageboard of people that like these stories so.... the authors do this because lots of people (like, objectively - look around they're right here) find those stories meaningful. At the risk of oversimplifying, they're meaningful to many of us because they engage with aspects of human existence that are worthy of engagement. People aren't at their prime forever. People die. People give up sometimes. I find hope a pretty meaningless exercise if the rules of the fictional world never allow anything bad to happen in the first place. Clearly those lines are in a different place for you and I'm not trying to tell you you're wrong. I'm trying to tell you there are other valid perspectives here and it gets kind of annoying for you to dismiss them as if we're all insane. Here: "Lynx, I understand your perspective; I'm sorry you aren't getting the stories you like." Are you able to reply in kind?
(I actually also hated Coda, for the record, but because of execution not because of the idea of a story of fighting against the darkness and making ultimate sacrifices.)
Or looking for some sort of ulterior motive. "They're deliberately trying to ruin my favorite characters for . . . reasons!"
Whereas, again, this is mostly just a matter of taste.
I must be honest here. I don't understand this ongoing character destruction!
And I don't understand how so many can accept it and even like it.
But i'm not accusing anyone with a different taste to be insane.
Obviously TrekLit isn't anything for me anymore, at least not recent books.
And I don't like the NuTrek movies and series like DSC and PIC either.
My only hope is that older books might be available.I really wish that they would be reprinted, some are so hard to find.
And that TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY will continue to be available on DVDs and in better quality than they have been in the recent years.
That is the nature of art. Art that is destructive of characters is rarely so engaging. Art that is explorative is more engaging, even if it's not positive. Most of classic literature is not positive.
Yeah. Expecting Garak to be nice is like expecting a scorpion to not sting.
Honest answer: I think you have a much broader definition of "destruction" than many of us.
Having a character change, evolve, maybe even get a bit more battered by life, doesn't necessarily feel like "destruction" to us. Sometimes it can actually be very powerful or poignant. "Drama," not "destruction."
One of the smartest things THE WRATH OF KHAN did was not try to preserve Kirk as a hotshot young Starfleet captain forever. It acknowledged the passing of time and showed us an older, somewhat more rueful and reflective Kirk coming to term with the mistakes of his past, while still staying in the game.
Star Trek novels are regularly on sale for 0.99. It’s not gonna break the bank to buy one and not like it.
But I’d read whatever I’m criticizing.
The reason why I like Garak is that he's exciting and mysterious.
During the whole series, I wondered if Garak would end up on "the good side" or "the bad side".
It was the same with Dukat for a while before he definitely ended up on the bad side.
Garak may have been a spy who killed people because it was his order to do so. Later on he discovered that he had worked for a government which had a lot of blood on his hands and tried to correct some things of his past.
But he wasn't a war criminal which that latest book pointed him out as.
And he wasn't a wimp either.
I don't care how life works!
Especially not in these days in the Gray Universe.
I don't want to see my favorite characters beig destroyed one by one and that's it.
And I'm not interested in any Coda versions of DS9 because it would probably be as horrible as the NuTrek movies, DSC and PIC.
But what they didn't do with Kirk was to point him out as a war criminal and turn him into a wimp which they did with one of my favorites.
And they didn't bring him back as a lunatic and disgusting monster either which happened to another favorite in a horrible TV episode. OK, they were close to it in Generations which is not one of my favorite movies but that was all. As I see it, he should never have been brought back at all. Whe should have got the chance to remember him as he was when he was at his best.
Just tired of seeing my old favorites being ruined one by one and no more books to read about them because of that.
Yes, he was.
that's not how drama works.
I would tend to agree with this. I value books because it challenges my ability to see characters taking on things that I wouldn't imagine them taking on. Hell, I wouldn't do The Wrath of Khan the way it did but it still rates highly by many.
