What pet peeves do you have about trek books?

[F. King Daniel]

Me again: It annoys me that TrekLit is split up – There’s the Standard TrekLit verse, the Shatnerverse (at least I hope there's still a Shatnerverse) and New Frontier. There’s been the occasional overlap (like Before Dishonor had a bit of New Frontier, or the Shatnerverse has tied in with Ship of the Line and Titan before), but the fight club style “the first rule of the Shatnerverse is you don’t ever talk about the Shatnerverse outside the Shatnerverse” is a bit annoying. The official line was “not to confuse” readers with Kirk running around in the TNG era (although I wouldn’t be surprised if J+G R-S have an exclusive Kirk Kontract or something, and it does tend to be more “never ever talk about” than “it never happened”). How is that more confusing to newbies nowadays than the post-apocalyptic Federation in the wake of Destiny? If people can swallow “the Borg came and destroyed everything”, surely they can swallow “Kirk came back (and it’s not even Easter)”?


Also: The annoying repeated attempts to “fix” mistakes on the show. I’ve read several “fixes” for Scotty’s line about Romulan impulse drive, some BS about Romulan cloaking devices in the 22nd century (“they blew up minutes after the episode”), lots about the Borg and even guff about lasers and phasers. They were unnecessary (the cloaking device one may seem integral to the story, but a simpler and more believable workaround would be that Trip leaked a countermeasure to Starfleet on day one of his mission)

Also Also: Used-once-then-discarded super technology. But TV/film Trek is equally guilty of that too.

 

[Christopher]

This got me in a different way--because of "kellicams," I thought "parsec" was a made-up unit of measurement until I was, like, twenty.

And once again, I lament the state of science education in the public schools...

 

[BrotherBenny]

This got me in a different way--because of "kellicams," I thought "parsec" was a made-up unit of measurement until I was, like, twenty.

And once again, I lament the state of science education in the public schools...

The same is true of the UK, Christopher. A recent poll by Erskine showed that of 2000 9-15 year-olds, Hitler was a football coach for the German national football team, the Holocaust was the clean-up at the end of WW2 and the symbol of Rembrance Day are McDonalds Golden Arches. Here's a link to one of the articles on the subject: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1126434.html . Now that's depressing.

 

[Christopher]

^I find that article problematical. First off, it doesn't report how many respondents gave the Hitler and Auschwitz answers, and it gives very low percentages (1 in 20, 1 in 10) for a couple of the others. These figures are more discouraging:

The poll also showed only half of the respondents knew D-Day was the invasion of Normandy, with a quarter of those asked believing it was "Dooms Day," with another quarter thinking a nuclear bomb was dropped on Pearl Harbour, spurring America's involvement in the war.

Twelve percent of respondents said the symbol of Britain's Remembrance Day is the golden arches of McDonald's, rather than the poppy.

However, the presence of these absurd answers like the golden arches and a soccer coach tell me that this was a multiple-choice test with some deliberately goofy answers being included among the options, so I wouldn't be surprised if some of the respondents deliberately chose the goofy replies as a joke. I wouldn't consider this a particularly reliable assessment of actual knowledge, even aside from the misleading reporting of the results.

 

[BrotherBenny]

^I find that article problematical. First off, it doesn't report how many respondents gave the Hitler and Auschwitz answers, and it gives very low percentages (1 in 20, 1 in 10) for a couple of the others. These figures are more discouraging:

The poll also showed only half of the respondents knew D-Day was the invasion of Normandy, with a quarter of those asked believing it was "Dooms Day," with another quarter thinking a nuclear bomb was dropped on Pearl Harbour, spurring America's involvement in the war.

Twelve percent of respondents said the symbol of Britain's Remembrance Day is the golden arches of McDonald's, rather than the poppy.

However, the presence of these absurd answers like the golden arches and a soccer coach tell me that this was a multiple-choice test with some deliberately goofy answers being included among the options, so I wouldn't be surprised if some of the respondents deliberately chose the goofy replies as a joke. I wouldn't consider this a particularly reliable assessment of actual knowledge, even aside from the misleading reporting of the results.

Even taking into account the real likelihood of false answers and the fact that it may well have been a multiple choice poll (as most are) some of the facts do stand out as being difficult to comprehend for educated people.

I have long believed that there should be a greater breadth of scientific knowledge taught in schools, but I didn't study as hard as I could have done so in hindsight it is easy to see that many other children aren't doing the same. Science should be fun to learn, even the worst bits, and none of my teachers ever made it that way.

 

[Christopher]

See, that's why I try to make my science fiction accurate and informative. I learned a lot more about science and astronomy from SF, and from my own independent readings inspired by SF, than I did from public school. I think SF is a good way to inspire people's curiosity about the universe, and that's why I think it's important for it to get the science right and to expose the readers to some of the real wonders of the universe. Made-up technobabble is a dead end, but good science in fiction can be an open door.

 

[BrotherBenny]

See, that's why I try to make my science fiction accurate and informative. I learned a lot more about science and astronomy from SF, and from my own independent readings inspired by SF, than I did from public school. I think SF is a good way to inspire people's curiosity about the universe, and that's why I think it's important for it to get the science right and to expose the readers to some of the real wonders of the universe. Made-up technobabble is a dead end, but good science in fiction can be an open door.

Hence the reason your Trek books are among my favourites, no matter who you write.

I'm going to need some good science information when I get started on my third novel. I may not have a science background, but I want to have realistic science in the books. There won't a single drop of red matter anywhere. To me, red matter is what my professor called "The Big Red Fire Engine." If you can't think of a clever way to get rid of a character, you kill him with a big red fire engine (truck if you're American). That's what red matter seemed to be as there was no explanation about it's origins, not even in the novelisation (definitely a pet peeve).

 

[Christopher]

^We Yanks call them fire engines too. We do use "fire truck," but I don't think it's nearly as common.

 

[Therin of Andor]

We do use "fire truck," but I don't think it's nearly as common.

Of course, there was the Australian kindergarten class of 1995 which received an abrupt message from the Internet that they were trying to access a porn site after innocently typing "fire truck" into an early search engine... and the clever new "'Net Nanny" program only noticed the "F... uck" bit.

Re the teaching of facts in schools, though: The problem, of course, is that there is no way any school curriculum can teach you every fact known to humankind, and no way that every student will retain such facts in the same way as the students sitting next to them. We all retain facts that we think are relevant to us, and many that aren't, and the rest will drop off our radar. Even the retention duration of facts is dependent on lots of other circumstances.

Whether a teacher specifically explains "parsecs" in a lesson, or whether a student picks up the term and researches the meaning himself, or guesses it one day from the context of a passage in a science fiction novel, says nothing about how long the fact may stay in an easily accessible part of the brain. And some people may "misfile" the fact as a flavour of ice cream, and thus will say they were never taught about it in school.

Teaching is about helping students achieve success with the information process (how to define, locate, select, organise, present, assess information), and how to use all that information in synthesis to create something new. It's not the accumulating and regurgitation of random facts -nor the testing of that remembering - although those kinds of tests are easier to administer and most often applied. Hopefully, students are stimulated to read, read, read, and to carry into life a commitment to lifelong learning.

Some students arrive at school with a huge general knowledge, and they add to that every day. Some kids arrive with very few life skills, and are behind the eight ball all the way through. Hopefully, they leave school with the ability to define, locate, select, organise, present, assess information when they need to. Knowing how to find relevant facts is more important than knowing the facts "just in case" they'll be needed.

Maybe the only kids who remember "parsecs" will be the student who selected that topic for a science project, and a few people in the class who remember his impressive dissertation. The other students may have been just as deeply involved in something else.

 

[Dayton Ward]

I only use "parsec" when I'm making the Kessel Run.








What?

 

[Therin of Andor]

I only use "parsec" when I'm making the Kessel Run.

I was gonna use that line yesterday. Instead, I wasted my time doing a dissertation. I should add, by the way, that "The Simpsons" is still the way many, many kids relate to random facts in schools. The show's been running so long now that we have generations of kids quoting the show.

From way back in Season One, any time you mention a random fact in a school situation, some little kid will offer to the class, "That happened in a 'Simpsons' episode." I know some teachers who ban the very mention of "that show", but I usually acknowledge the connection and move on. I find it ironic that Bart, who prides himself on being an underachiever, has taught his fellow non-yellow students so much!

 

[BrotherBenny]

^We Yanks call them fire engines too. We do use "fire truck," but I don't think it's nearly as common.

Interesting. I'll file that away.

Of course, there was the Australian kindergarten class of 1995 which received an abrupt message from the Internet that they were trying to access a porn site after innocently typing "fire truck" into an early search engine... and the clever new "'Net Nanny" program only noticed the "F... uck" bit.

Re the teaching of facts in schools, though: The problem, of course, is that there is no way any school curriculum can teach you every fact known to humankind, and no way that every student will retain such facts in the same way as the students sitting next to them. We all retain facts that we think are relevant to us, and many that aren't, and the rest will drop off our radar. Even the retention duration of facts is dependent on lots of other circumstances.

Whether a teacher specifically explains "parsecs" in a lesson, or whether a student picks up the term and researches the meaning himself, or guesses it one day from the context of a passage in a science fiction novel, says nothing about how long the fact may stay in an easily accessible part of the brain. And some people may "misfile" the fact as a flavour of ice cream, and thus will say they were never taught about it in school.

Teaching is about helping students achieve success with the information process (how to define, locate, select, organise, present, assess information), and how to use all that information in synthesis to create something new. It's not the accumulating and regurgitation of random facts -nor the testing of that remembering - although those kinds of tests are easier to administer and most often applied. Hopefully, students are stimulated to read, read, read, and to carry into life a commitment to lifelong learning.

Some students arrive at school with a huge general knowledge, and they add to that every day. Some kids arrive with very few life skills, and are behind the eight ball all the way through. Hopefully, they leave school with the ability to define, locate, select, organise, present, assess information when they need to. Knowing how to find relevant facts is more important than knowing the facts "just in case" they'll be needed.

Maybe the only kids who remember "parsecs" will be the student who selected that topic for a science project, and a few people in the class who remember his impressive dissertation. The other students may have been just as deeply involved in something else.

In British state schools, unfortunately, teaching is about shoving facts down your throat for you to regurgitate in an exam later on. There has been a recent trend to try and reverse that, but they're a long way off. Private schools, where they have a little more leeway with the national curriculum, actually teach you more relevant information. If we don't learn more about history we are doomed to repeat it.

 

[Myasishchev]

I'm not really sure when I'd have run into "parsec" in school, though. We didn't have an astronomy class, and our physics class was pretty grounded (stuff sliding down inclined planes and the like). I didn't learn what an astronomical unit was either in high school, or in any school.

Most everything for everyone, I'd suspect, is ultimately self-taught anyway.

 

[Christopher]

I'm not really sure when I'd have run into "parsec" in school, though. We didn't have an astronomy class, and our physics class was pretty grounded (stuff sliding down inclined planes and the like). I didn't learn what an astronomical unit was either in high school, or in any school.

Which is exactly why I lament the state of our educational system -- the fact that they'd teach nothing about something so basic and important. Even aside from that, astronomy is possibly the coolest science there is, other than paleontology -- the one that's easiest to get kids excited about (because of its sci-fi resonances as well as just general coolness) and thereby use as a gateway drug for other science and learning in general. And there's a lot of physics implicit in it, so it's a more engaging way to teach physics than dry stuff about inclined planes and pendulums. So schools that don't teach astronomy are missing a great opportunity to inspire and expand young minds.

 

[BrotherBenny]

I'm not really sure when I'd have run into "parsec" in school, though. We didn't have an astronomy class, and our physics class was pretty grounded (stuff sliding down inclined planes and the like). I didn't learn what an astronomical unit was either in high school, or in any school.

Which is exactly why I lament the state of our educational system -- the fact that they'd teach nothing about something so basic and important. Even aside from that, astronomy is possibly the coolest science there is, other than paleontology -- the one that's easiest to get kids excited about (because of its sci-fi resonances as well as just general coolness) and thereby use as a gateway drug for other science and learning in general. And there's a lot of physics implicit in it, so it's a more engaging way to teach physics than dry stuff about inclined planes and pendulums. So schools that don't teach astronomy are missing a great opportunity to inspire and expand young minds.

I would have loved to study astronomy, might have put me in good stead to do something worthwhile with my life instead of drifting around. I have found my calling in the written word though and when I'm settled in the States I intend to go back to university to study history, specifically historical warfare in the twentieth century. My science is nowhere near good enough to anything in that area, so I'll do something I'm good at and have extensive interest in.

Before I wander too far off-topic, a pet peeve of mine, as discussed, is the terrible science in some books (not only Trek) but also the "speed of plot". You don't generally need it in books unless you have somewhere specific you need to be at the end of it, and yet actual distances and things still get fudged or outright ignored. I'd still like to know how long it would take to get to Deneb/Farpoint at warp six or whatever, without treknobabble explanations, but using subspace topography. Three months seems realistic given the distance, but not in Trek.

 

[Myasishchev]

^It's more difficult in a multilaterally-created universe to absolutely pin down distances and speeds, I suppose, although it's still a problem.

Which is exactly why I lament the state of our educational system -- the fact that they'd teach nothing about something so basic and important. Even aside from that, astronomy is possibly the coolest science there is, other than paleontology --

Evolutionary biology is the coolest science there is. Types of paleontology are subsets though.

the one that's easiest to get kids excited about (because of its sci-fi resonances as well as just general coolness) and thereby use as a gateway drug for other science and learning in general. And there's a lot of physics implicit in it, so it's a more engaging way to teach physics than dry stuff about inclined planes and pendulums. So schools that don't teach astronomy are missing a great opportunity to inspire and expand young minds.

But I can get on board with that. It probably wouldn't have helped me, however, since I'm shockingly bad at math, and calculating the angular velocity of Europa would likely not be any easier than calculating that of a figure skater.

 

[JarodRussell]

Before I wander too far off-topic, a pet peeve of mine, as discussed, is the terrible science in some books (not only Trek) but also the "speed of plot". You don't generally need it in books unless you have somewhere specific you need to be at the end of it, and yet actual distances and things still get fudged or outright ignored. I'd still like to know how long it would take to get to Deneb/Farpoint at warp six or whatever, without treknobabble explanations, but using subspace topography. Three months seems realistic given the distance, but not in Trek.

Good thing, I'm not the only one!

 

[Dayton Ward]

Takes about a paragraph or so, most of the time.

 

[Greg Cox]

Takes about a paragraph or so, most of the time.

Or maybe a chapter break . . . .

 

[William Leisner]

In keeping with the "parsec" discussion above, here's an article by SF writer John Scalzi about science education and the new ST film some might find interesting:

http://blogs.amctv.com/scifi-scanner/2009/11/bad-science-in-star-trek.php