Philosophical Objections to Trek Lit

[Sci]

Vanguard. The secrecy behind the project is completely antithetical to the tenets of Starfleet and the Federation as shown in the television series, as are the lengths that Reyes and T'Prynn went to keep said secrets.

At least with Section 31, we know that the main characters think that they're wrong, and they don't (knowingly) help them with their misdeeds. With Vanguard, though, we have none of that; the "captain" and first officer are the ones fucking over a civilian--thousands, really, if you count the families of the Bombay crew who were actively lied to about the deceased's fates, but that pales in comparison to what they did to Pennington--just because they can.

Have you read Reap the Whirlwind? A number of the points you make there are acknowledged -- and validated. I don't think Star Trek: Vanguard actually advocates the choices being made by Reyes and Co. anymore than, say, The Sopranos actually advocates membership in the Mafia.

I'm also not convinced by certain aspects of the Federation Council system as presented in Articles of the Federation; I would have hoped that they'd have avoided anything like the discriminatory Security Council setup (that reserves a chunk of the seats for those planets that just happened to be closer to Earth, and so were around at the time the Federation was created--I don't remember if they had the broader powers seen in the UN Security Council nowadays, though).

Every government we've seen in Star Trek has broader powers than the United Nations Security Council, because the UN has no enforcement power -- it is wholly dependent upon the whims of its member states to get its will enforced. It would be more accurate to compare the Federation Security Council (name and allusion to membership rules aside) to the United States Senate Armed Services Committee than the United Nations Security Council.

In any event, I agree with you that it's fairly discriminatory to give the Founding Members greater representation than other Federation Member States, but it's also, I think, wholly realistic to expect that something like that could develop. For a similar example, to this day, residents of the District of Columbia do not receive full representation in the United States Congress, even though they outnumber the residents of the State of Wyoming! The original reasons for this were once valid; they no longer apply, but that doesn't mean it's easy to change things. The same is probably true of the Federation.

I also think that the method of handling a presidential resignation (or death?) is strange; rather than falling down a chain of succession, government more or less grinds to a halt until elections can be held. Doesn't seem very efficient to me.

Not really. The Council just appoints one of their own as President Pro Tempore. It's really not all that different from how many parliamentary governments handle succession.

What I didn't like about Articles of the Federation was the idea that the Federation's highest court of appeals is not part of an independent judiciary, but instead just another Council committee.

But that is less problematic than the political system that was portrayed. I just found it impossible to accept the idea of a UFP spread across thousands of light years, with hundreds of planets, separated by years of travel time, choosing a system of government similar to 21st Century Western democracies, systems that barely work at the best of times now. Where was the input from Vulcan forms of government, Tellarite adversarial systems, and all the other governmental histories of Federation signatories?

Well, I think the thing to remember is that the thing that makes democracies so difficult to function is something that seems fairly universal across all of Trek's species: People disagree. Ergo, other species' experiences won't fix that basic flaw. Nothing can. And, really, nothing should.

The idea that there's a better system of government than liberal democracy, I think, is quite ludacris. Like Rousseau said, the people are the holders of political authority. Governments, as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration, derive their authority to govern from the consent of the populace over which they govern. Ergo, the only way you can verify that a government has the consent of its populace is to ensure that the populace is an active part of that government: Voting. Democracy. No other kind of government can claim with any hint of logic that it derives its mandate from it's people's consent.

 

[Captain_Koloth]

Mike put it in his dedication. There is a huge difference between the dedication and the acknowledgments. The dedication is the person to whom the author is dedicating the book. It is the one and only part of the book where the author is being completely selfish and personal, and authors have the right to dedicate the book to whoever they damn well please, and the notion that such a personal thing should be censored or changed is appalling.
...
Mike's dedication in Last Full Measure was similarly important to him. It had nothing to do with the book, and it had nothing to do with you.

Sorry to beat this dead horse, but I just can't agree with you here, KRAD. I agree with you that he has the right to dedicate the book to whomever he wants, but I don't think you have the right to be indignant at anyone who takes issue with that dedication. As another poster alluded to, what if the author chooses to devote the book to Stalin? What if he says that the book honors the great Stalin who purged millions of evil counterrevolutionaries to preserve the great Soviet Union? Sure, you'll say that's stupid, but by your logic I have absolutely no right to take offense at that and not buy that book. That's just not the case.

The dedication in question is obviously not nearly so insane as that, but it was written in such a way as to be deliberately inflammatory to people who supported the war, rather than merely supportive of those who were lost in it. It implies that that position holds the moral high ground and that anyone who disagrees with it supports this horrible, illegal, immoral, whatever else he called it, ear. That's not constructive for anyone, and that's the point where people decide not to buy the book on that basis.



In other topics... I've always been uncomfotable with Rock and a Hard Place's interpretation of the Prime Directive. My understanding and that taken by many authors, e.g. Reeves-Stevens in Prime Directive, is that it only applies to those cultures that have not been contacted yet or haven't reached some threshhold of technology. The notion that Starfleet officers will just stand by and watch people murdered is to me ridiculous and, IMO, violates the principles of Starfleet, Federation, and Star Trek in general.

 

[David R. George III]

But what bugs me is this: recognizing that religion can be used as a means of control and manipulation should cause a reflexive reevaluation of their own faith; I don't understand how one can pose as a deity without that raising significant questions about the reality of their own deity....

I understand and appreciate your objections, Trent. And I'm not attempting to win you over, but simply explaining my own thoughts on the subject. I of course recognize the contradiction inherent in a species that pretends to be god actually believing in a god themselves. At the same time, my formulation comes with the understanding that the Founders believed in their god first, then saw how they could use such beliefs to their own advantage if they instilled religion in others.

For me, it comes down to the notion embodied in a conversation between an atheist and, say, a Christian. The atheist tells the believer, "I hold that we are both atheists, but that I simply believe in one fewer god than you do. When you can understand how you can yourself dismiss the gods of other believers, then you will come to understand how I can dismiss yours." Of course, this does not sway the believer, demonstrating how, among humans, it is easy for us to hold conflicting ideas in our head.

 

[LightningStorm]

... by your logic I have absolutely no right to take offense at that and not buy that book.

That is not at all what KRAD said. You can be offended at whatever you want, but that doesn't preclude the author from putting in those dedications whatever he/she wants. So yeah, if someone wanted to dedicate their book to Stalin, Hitler, or even the Devil himself, they should have the right to do so. Nobody said you should still buy the book if you don't like that, and no body said you shouldn't or can't be offended by whatever. All that was said was that the author can dedicate it to WHOEVER or whatever they want.

 

[MarianLH]

Unlike GR, who signed off on the tech manual in the 70s, approved all designs including the dreadnought, and didn't object to the phrase "Star Fleet Armed Forces".

IIRC, GR signed off on the idea of Franz Joseph making a ST book based on a dead TV series, but he wasn't all that involved in vetting its content - only realizing, after it came out, that the more militaristic ST fans had taken the manual to their heart and were challenging GR to explain "loopholes" in TOS caused by the manual's tech and terminologies. He particularly disliked the idea of a dreadnought, and I fully expected Diane Carey's book to show the vessel to be problematic.

GR also could do nothing about the watertight contract that allowed FJ to license his ST work out to roleplay games - in those days, referred to as "war games".

FJ kept meticulous records of his correspondence with GR. The relationship between GR and FJ didn't sour until after the publication of the Tech Manual. GR later changed his story and falsely claimed he never saw or approved its content. See here for the complete interview these quotes were taken from.

Further, GR had already seen all of FJ's extrapolative material in 1973 and 1974. FJ was very concerned about doing anything extrapolative in GR's universe, and made a point of sending "in-production" materials from the Technical Manual to GR on a regular basis, including all the speculative stuff like the new ship designs (see below). GR only responded with words of encouragement. If GR had said "no," or "stop," or "this isn't how I envisioned it," or "this conflicts with another project I'm working on," FJ would have dropped it or changed it immediately. GR never said a single negative word.

Copies of the Fleet Ship Classifications and the Dreadnought 3-view were sent to Gene Roddenberry on 22 June 1973. At no time during the preparation of the Manual did Gene ever mention he objected to these types. In his reply of 28 August 1973, he did state: 'Your drawings jump right off the page to the reader and are very exciting.'"

The wording Star Fleet Armed Forces appears in the 2nd line of Paragraph 4, Article 47, Chapter VII of the Articles of Federation [which Gene Roddenberry had seen and read as of August 28, 1973]. At no time during the preparation of the Manual did Gene [Roddenberry] ever mention that he objected to this, or any other wording.

A copy of the Articles of Federation were sent to Gene Roddenberry on 22 June 1973. His reply of 28 August states: 'I thought the Articles of Federation were extremely well thought out and presented, although I have some question in my mind whether they are a bit too long to maintain fan interest.'

FJ was not involved with the conceptual aspects of the [Star Fleet Battles] game at all, but gave permission for the authors to use his ship types and designs in the game and in related artwork. FJ also gave separate permissions to GameScience to manufacture the little injection-molded plastic starships used to play the game

Also, Star Fleet Battles was never an RPG, although the publisher also produces an RPG set in the SFB universe, called Prime Directive.

As for GR missing out on the license, that too is his own fault. GR kept blowing FJ off about finalizing the publishing details. Eventually Paramount got wind of the project, contacted FJ and said "we own Star Trek and license Ballantine Books to publish Trek related books, give it to us." FJ, a retired aerospace engineer with zero knowledge of the entertainment industry, did as he was told. GR has nobody to blame but himself for his procrastination.


Marian

 

[Captain_Koloth]

... by your logic I have absolutely no right to take offense at that and not buy that book.

That is not at all what KRAD said. You can be offended at whatever you want, but that doesn't preclude the author from putting in those dedications whatever he/she wants. So yeah, if someone wanted to dedicate their book to Stalin, Hitler, or even the Devil himself, they should have the right to do so. Nobody said you should still buy the book if you don't like that, and no body said you shouldn't or can't be offended by whatever. All that was said was that the author can dedicate it to WHOEVER or whatever they want.

I agree with that. I'm just saying that if they choose to make a dedication of that type, they need to be prepared for people to take issue with it.

 

[Defcon]

I agree with that. I'm just saying that if they choose to make a dedication of that type, they need to be prepared for people to take issue with it.

I'm sure no author has a problem with someone disagreeing with his/her dedication, I guess the thing they have problems with is when someone wants to deny them the right to dedicate the book to whomever they want in the first place.

 

[donners22]

The dedication in question is obviously not nearly so insane as that, but it was written in such a way as to be deliberately inflammatory to people who supported the war, rather than merely supportive of those who were lost in it. It implies that that position holds the moral high ground and that anyone who disagrees with it supports this horrible, illegal, immoral, whatever else he called it, ear. That's not constructive for anyone, and that's the point where people decide not to buy the book on that basis.

Precisely my reaction, and the only reason I did not buy the book. I don't really care what political opinions people have, but I despise them trying to impose them on others, and acting as if their views are indisputably factually and morally correct.

If the author is so hell-bent on expressing their views, then they are free to use that section as they like - but there are consequences that flow from that.

 

[Dancing Doctor]

^How was it being "imposed" on you or others? Unless the authors are standing there with two Balduks aiming their phasers at you as you sit naked on a crate in a basement that smells like dung on Deneva and saying that if you don't buy it "something" will happen...and as was said earlier, if the dedication was that offensive, then you could just tear it out or black it out.

 

[Julio Angel Ortiz]

I can't hear any of you over Leisner's screaming.

 

[Dancing Doctor]

Was he the one screaming earlier?

And he's still doing so?

 

[William Leisner]

Was he the one screaming earlier?

And he's still doing so?

Oh, hells, yeah.

(This post is dedicated to Stalin. Love ya, Uncle Joe!!)

 

[Christopher]

Precisely my reaction, and the only reason I did not buy the book. I don't really care what political opinions people have, but I despise them trying to impose them on others, and acting as if their views are indisputably factually and morally correct.

It's not "imposing" to express a point of view in a forum where people who disagree with it will happen to hear it. By that standard, you're "imposing" your opinion on me.

If people are forbidden to publicly express any opinion in earshot of people who might disagree with them, that's the exact opposite of free speech. Free speech doesn't mean your freedom from having to listen to views you disagree with. It means that everyone around you has every right to express views you don't like, and you have just as much right to express your disagreement with those views. To get defensive just because they dared to foul your ears with a viewpoint you don't want to hear, to claim that your rights are somehow being violated by that, is sheer hypocrisy.

In a healthy, diverse society, people should be able to respect each other's right to hold differing points of view. They should be able to listen to one another's opposing viewpoints and give them a fair hearing. If someone expresses a political or moral opinion you have a strong disagreement with, the responsible way to deal with that is either to give their position a fair hearing and offer them your counterarguments, or simply to respect their right to disagree and move on without comment. It's valid to object to the specifics of someone's belief; it's beneath contempt to object to the mere fact that they expressed it.

 

[Captain_Koloth]

Precisely my reaction, and the only reason I did not buy the book. I don't really care what political opinions people have, but I despise them trying to impose them on others, and acting as if their views are indisputably factually and morally correct.

It's not "imposing" to express a point of view in a forum where people who disagree with it will happen to hear it. By that standard, you're "imposing" your opinion on me.

If people are forbidden to publicly express any opinion in earshot of people who might disagree with them, that's the exact opposite of free speech. Free speech doesn't mean your freedom from having to listen to views you disagree with. It means that everyone around you has every right to express views you don't like, and you have just as much right to express your disagreement with those views. To get defensive just because they dared to foul your ears with a viewpoint you don't want to hear, to claim that your rights are somehow being violated by that, is sheer hypocrisy.

In a healthy, diverse society, people should be able to respect each other's right to hold differing points of view. They should be able to listen to one another's opposing viewpoints and give them a fair hearing. If someone expresses a political or moral opinion you have a strong disagreement with, the responsible way to deal with that is either to give their position a fair hearing and offer them your counterarguments, or simply to respect their right to disagree and move on without comment. It's valid to object to the specifics of someone's belief; it's beneath contempt to object to the mere fact that they expressed it.

I have no problem with that. My point was that I felt that the way in which this author expressed his own view was dismissive and patronizing of the opposing view.

 

[Dancing Doctor]

To be fair, though, many people who hold the opposite viewpoint of the authors haven't exactly been accepting or polite to those that held the viewpoint the authors did.

 

[donners22]

^ And there are some who would hold both extreme groups in equal disdain.

 

[donners22]

Precisely my reaction, and the only reason I did not buy the book. I don't really care what political opinions people have, but I despise them trying to impose them on others, and acting as if their views are indisputably factually and morally correct.

It's not "imposing" to express a point of view in a forum where people who disagree with it will happen to hear it. By that standard, you're "imposing" your opinion on me.

If people are forbidden to publicly express any opinion in earshot of people who might disagree with them, that's the exact opposite of free speech. Free speech doesn't mean your freedom from having to listen to views you disagree with. It means that everyone around you has every right to express views you don't like, and you have just as much right to express your disagreement with those views. To get defensive just because they dared to foul your ears with a viewpoint you don't want to hear, to claim that your rights are somehow being violated by that, is sheer hypocrisy.

In a healthy, diverse society, people should be able to respect each other's right to hold differing points of view. They should be able to listen to one another's opposing viewpoints and give them a fair hearing. If someone expresses a political or moral opinion you have a strong disagreement with, the responsible way to deal with that is either to give their position a fair hearing and offer them your counterarguments, or simply to respect their right to disagree and move on without comment. It's valid to object to the specifics of someone's belief; it's beneath contempt to object to the mere fact that they expressed it.

Speaking of hypocrisy, that ideal you express there is not in keeping with the way the comment in the book was expressed. It does not leave much room for counter-argument, and nor could such counter-argument be conducted in the same forum. Nor, indeed, am I interested in counter-argument, when my complaint is not with the view itself.

I take issues with extreme views on most political issues, regardless of where I stand. The particular issue of this war is not one I feel strongly on in any way - I am not at all bothered by the author's own views. However, they are of absolutely no relevance to me, and I see no reason I and other readers should be told of them.

There are forums for expressing such views, and I did not believe this is an appropriate one. If it is designed to influence readers in any way, it is insulting. If it is simply an expression of personal views, I found it inappropriate. Others may disagree, and evidently the editorial view is that such comments are at the author's discretion. Suffice to say, I doubt a particularly unpopular political view will ever be expressed in such a way in a Trek book.

Such are the joys of free speech and individual morality and thought that we can each make our own decisions on this. I chose not to buy the book for this reason, another says he bought several copies because of it. If this is "beyond contempt"...well, I again direct you back to your own line.

 

[Trent Roman]

I take issues with extreme views on most political issues, regardless of where I stand. (...) Suffice to say, I doubt a particularly unpopular political view will ever be expressed in such a way in a Trek book.

Hold up. First you're saying that opposite to the Iraq war is an extreme political stance, which I doubt is true anywhere but in the deepest crimson of red states, then you say it was allowed only because it wasn't an unpopular view. That seems a contradiction, unless I'm misreading.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[donners22]

^ Probably my fault for not being clearer. The general anti-war concept itself is not extreme, and is a very common one. I felt the expression of that view was very strong.

Again, the issue is more with the forum than the view itself.

 

[William Leisner]

The particular issue of this war is not one I feel strongly on in any way - I am not at all bothered by the author's own views. However, they are of absolutely no relevance to me, and I see no reason I and other readers should be told of them.

And... you think the twaddle now spewing from your keyboard is of relevance to any of us, and there is a reason I and the rest of the readers of this board need to be told of your opinion??

Seriously, if you're going to fault M&M for expressing an opinion because you don't personally want to hear it, you either have to admit you're a complete and utter hypocrite, or else you need to STFU.