^Listen to him, folks. He's a pro. 
The Diane Carey novels
- Thread starter Joel_Kirk
- Start date
Been thinking. Afraid I don't get it. I think we perhaps have different interepretations of the phrase 'crossed a line.' Mine comes from various westerns or the likes. 'You crossed a line, boy ...' No reason why that can't happen first time out.
Okay, this really isn't worth wasting time with, but one more try:
He said he'd read other books of Carey's, but felt that with this one, she'd "crossed a line" that made him stop reading them. So the chronological progression implied in that phrase is from other Carey books to Dreadnought. But in fact, Dreadnought was the first Trek book Carey wrote. So there's a cognitive dissonance there that I think is extremely obvious, and if you aren't getting it, you're just not looking in the right place. And that's my last word on the subject.
He said he'd read other books of Carey's, but felt that with this one, she'd "crossed a line" that made him stop reading them. So the chronological progression implied in that phrase is from other Carey books to Dreadnought. But in fact, Dreadnought was the first Trek book Carey wrote. So there's a cognitive dissonance there that I think is extremely obvious, and if you aren't getting it, you're just not looking in the right place. And that's my last word on the subject.
Well, since I'm the one y'all are talking about I thought I'd clear it up. No, I haven't read Carey's books in the chronological sequence of their publication date. Dreadnought was the last of her books I read, not the first. And since her use of the Mary Sue trope in Dreadnaught was so blatantly obvious, I believe that indeed the line between professional and fanfic was crossed. Whether it was Carey's debut novel or not is immaterial. As a personal choice I don't read fanfic and am turned off when I find it in a book I've purchased.
Last edited:
You've spelled out that her first novel didn't meet your standards while her following ones must have. Is it so hard to deduce she may have gotten better with experience? You'd be a fool to think it irrelevant.
Not at all. A Mary Sue is a Mary Sue. It's a cheap gimmick that, again, smacks of fanfic. It doesn't matter if the writer is a novice or not.
I've pretty much liked the majority of Carey's books. My favorite might be The Great Starship Race, but I enjoyed Dreadnaught and Battlestations before and after I knew what a Mary Sue was. Usuaully don't mind her word choices either, some are interesting.
I don't pay attention to political views, if I even noticed them.
I don't pay attention to political views, if I even noticed them.
I liked the Piper books, though it's been many years since I read them. I'm just going through Best Destiny for the first time, and though I enjoy it for the most part, she has characters engage in extensive political rants that seem awkward for the scene, and in one case, downright dumb.
Awkward, the scene with the female young officer with the missing hand and a prosthetic replacement who joined Starfleet. She made the point she had to meet the same standards everyone else did to join Starfleet. Ok. Great. Makes sense, considering Starfleet is a military organization and depends on it's personell being able to pull all the weight required of them all. Lives could depend on it. But she goes on too long about it, as if it's less about the character (in an emergency situation) explaining something to young Jim Kirk and more about the author soapboxing.
Dumb...several references were made about Kodos the Executioner and Jim Kirk being witness to the atrocities on Tarsus four. Now, Robert April at one point goes on about how what happened on that planet should be a lesson to the Federation government about how a society is best run when it is about individuals struggling for their lives, rather than an overarching authority taking a firm hand and running things. Excuse me? My understanding of what happened on Tarsus Four is that it was a civil emergency. And like most governments would do in that situation, like they SHOULD do in that situation, is take control (usually through declaration of martial law or something similar) until the situation is resolved and things can return to normal. Governor Kodos made some very draconian decisions that resulted in him being declared a criminal, but that was NOT a case in point for the virtues of Libertarianism. The LAST thing you want in an emergency situation is to follow Libertarian doctrine. Under those circumstances, those are called RIOTS.
Plus, the characters in that novel occasionally got a bit too emotionally overrought. I'd have dialed it down a bit, a tad more stiff upper lip.
Still enjoying it, but it does have it's flaws.
Awkward, the scene with the female young officer with the missing hand and a prosthetic replacement who joined Starfleet. She made the point she had to meet the same standards everyone else did to join Starfleet. Ok. Great. Makes sense, considering Starfleet is a military organization and depends on it's personell being able to pull all the weight required of them all. Lives could depend on it. But she goes on too long about it, as if it's less about the character (in an emergency situation) explaining something to young Jim Kirk and more about the author soapboxing.
Dumb...several references were made about Kodos the Executioner and Jim Kirk being witness to the atrocities on Tarsus four. Now, Robert April at one point goes on about how what happened on that planet should be a lesson to the Federation government about how a society is best run when it is about individuals struggling for their lives, rather than an overarching authority taking a firm hand and running things. Excuse me? My understanding of what happened on Tarsus Four is that it was a civil emergency. And like most governments would do in that situation, like they SHOULD do in that situation, is take control (usually through declaration of martial law or something similar) until the situation is resolved and things can return to normal. Governor Kodos made some very draconian decisions that resulted in him being declared a criminal, but that was NOT a case in point for the virtues of Libertarianism. The LAST thing you want in an emergency situation is to follow Libertarian doctrine. Under those circumstances, those are called RIOTS.
Plus, the characters in that novel occasionally got a bit too emotionally overrought. I'd have dialed it down a bit, a tad more stiff upper lip.
Still enjoying it, but it does have it's flaws.
Last edited:
To be honest, Rush, I don't understand how a libertarian could be anything other than a semi-pacifist. If you want to be free of government interference, if you want a federal government small enough to drown in the bathtub, then the military will be, as a consequence, very small. If a libertarian is genuinely serious about downsizing government and getting it out of the peoples' way, then the first thing on the chopping block must be the military, because the military-industrial complex drives the industrial and financial interests that mandate the size of government. But if a libertarian wants a military for foreign adventures, then the government's size that follows from that is a consequence of the need for the military and the industrial apparatus that supports and enables it. Libertarianism and militarism are mutually-exclusive.
Unfortunately, the Glenn Becks and the Sarah Palins of the world do not understand that.
I've tended to enjoy her Trek novels. As a matter of fact, "Final Frontier" is still my favorite Trek novel; I've read it a few times.
Piper doesn't bother me. She's more believable in some ways that Honor Harrington (another female Horatio Hornblower).
As for the political views, are they unsubtle? All I can say is that I've read some very obvious political views popping up in other Trek writers' novels that stand out even more. If I enjoy the author's work, the views (even if I disagree with them) aren't going to stop me from reading their books.
Piper doesn't bother me. She's more believable in some ways that Honor Harrington (another female Horatio Hornblower).
As for the political views, are they unsubtle? All I can say is that I've read some very obvious political views popping up in other Trek writers' novels that stand out even more. If I enjoy the author's work, the views (even if I disagree with them) aren't going to stop me from reading their books.
That's something of a stereotype. Yes, Mary Sues are a common trope of bad fanfic, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to do that trope well. For instance, Evan Wilson in Uhura's Song is a very Mary Sue-type character, but she's still very likeable and entertaining -- unlike, say, Elizabeth Schaefer in Bantam's Death's Angel, who pretty much embodies the irritating kind of Mary Sue.
Heck, Dante overtly made himself the main character in The Inferno. So even a blatant author surrogate can be done well and not be a cheap gimmick.
And it's certainly possible to vary the theme. Piper isn't a classic Mary Sue, because she isn't better than the heroes, doesn't show them up, and doesn't sleep with any of them or get them to fall in love with her. So while she may technically fit the broad outlines of the trope, at least the author-surrogate part, she averts the very things that give the trope its negative reputation. She and her compatriots are really more of a "Lower Decks" type of ensemble, or like the supporting characters on CSI who sometimes get episodes focusing on their point of view, or like the Legion of Substitute Heroes in the comics. It's a valid way of telling a story -- from the perspective of junior or subordinate characters rather than that of the main heroes.
Legion of Substitute Heroes ref for the win goes to Christopher. Congrats, sir.
Frankly, many libertarians--such as Beck, and Neil Boortz--do allow for a strong military, because they believe, as conservatives do, that the proper function of government is to defend the rights of the citizens of a nation. Thus, a strong national defence is neccesary for this.
They are for super-limited government in the domestic sense, because they believe that government regulation if the private sector infringes upon these rights, rather than defends them.
In effect, these libertarians are quite similar to conservatives--except they're even more hard-core in certain things.
OTHER libertarians, such as Ron Paul, et. al., believe as you say. However, understand that libertarianism is a pretty big tent--more so than conservatism. The one thing that binds all libertarians together is the belief that government must be kept as limited as possible without allowing society to remain undefended from threats to that freedom. They often disagree with each other, though, as to where to draw that line.
It's a hard line to draw, as you have implied, Allyn--and frankly, that's why I'm a conservative, not a libertarian. We know what we believe. We've picked a general area on the left-right scale, and we stick to it.
I suppose Diane Carey's libertarianism is actually closer to the conservative part of the scale, but it's still "hard-core" enough to be considered libertarian.
BTW...Sarah Palin's a conservative, not a libertarian. Just sayin.
See, and I could not STAND Evan Wilson, but didn't have a problem with Piper. I think Wilson fell under some of the more negative Mary Sue qualities, i.e., she's a genius, mysterious, everybody loves her, yadda yadda.
But I think your lower decks point is spot on.
Frankly, I'm a little amused at how liberally (no political pun, folks, just saying) the term "Mary Sue" is thrown about.
It seems that, while it's alleged meaning is, "Genius girl who everyone loves right away, outdoes the crew at everything, etc." (in short, a female first-season-Wesley-Crusher with charisma), it's actual meaning is just "An original female character who's the focus of the tale, and just happens to be a darn good officer".
Which begs the question, "What's wrong with that?"
Piper's not a genius, per se, she's not loved by everyone, and she makes a LOT of mistakes. Just because she has promise of becoming a good officer, and just because Kirk sees that promise, does not necessarily make her a "Mary Sue".
It seems that, while it's alleged meaning is, "Genius girl who everyone loves right away, outdoes the crew at everything, etc." (in short, a female first-season-Wesley-Crusher with charisma), it's actual meaning is just "An original female character who's the focus of the tale, and just happens to be a darn good officer".
Which begs the question, "What's wrong with that?"
Piper's not a genius, per se, she's not loved by everyone, and she makes a LOT of mistakes. Just because she has promise of becoming a good officer, and just because Kirk sees that promise, does not necessarily make her a "Mary Sue".
And that just shows that it's not what you do that matters, but how you do it. Yes, she fits the definition of a Mary Sue in most every respect, but to me, it works for her. The reason we hate Mary Sues is not just that they steal the spotlight from, and win the devotion of, the heroes -- it's that they do so without deserving to. An archetypal Mary Sue story is one where everyone says the character is wonderful and brilliant and lovable but she never actually demonstrates those things by her actions. (Like Bella Swan in Twilight.) If the character actually is that brilliant and charming, if she earns the praise, then that's a whole other matter.
Consider TNG's "Half a Life." The story is completely dominated by a guest star, Lwaxana Troi, while the main cast is shoved into the background. If Lwaxana had been badly written there, that would've been objectionable. But it was a brilliant, moving story and it was the greatest performance of Majel Barrett's career. The guest star dominated the story and marginalized the main cast, but it was okay because it worked.
"Mary Sue" is a category, and the problem with categories is that they're just generalizations. They aren't perfect descriptions. In any category, you'll find a range of things that more or less fit the definition. And even if most of the entries in that category are bad or objectionable, there can still be the occasional instance where it turns out good. The category doesn't generate the result, it merely describes the results in an overall, averaged sense.
(As for Piper, I think she works too, at least in Dreadnought! I did feel Battlestations! went too far by putting her in Kirk's inner circle within a month of her first mission on the Enterprise, not to mention having her expose a second far-reaching Federation conspiracy a month after she exposed the first. So she was more Sueish in the second book than the first.)
I'd agree with this. Piper in Dreadnought! is a Sonya Gomez-like character. She's well-meaning, but she's also a bit thick. In Battlestations!, she's presented, maybe not as part of Kirk's inner circle, but certainly as Kirk's protege, which feels a little inappropriate.
And then Fire Ship shows us that Piper reaches the Captain's Table by 2270. She couldn't possibly have gotten there on rank; it must've been her brief tenure as the commanding officer of the Banana Republic that granted her entry.
Interesting analogy. That was Gomez's role in her two episodes, I guess -- the novice officer in training, learning from the veterans and from her mistakes. (And man, would it have been cool if she'd stuck around longer.) Of course, that was supposed to be Wesley Crusher's role as well, which may be why Gomez was deemed redundant.
I was referring to the opening where Kirk invited her to join him on his yacht, something which I believe the text specifically described as a privilege he only granted to a chosen few. So if not his inner circle of command, certainly his inner circle of friends.
(Yoda voice) Hmm--speaks the truth, he does. Listen to Christopher, you must! Yes!
Well, as you pointed out, if she earns that praise...
I should think being a conspiracy-smasher would be good in that regard. And Kirk's taken on apprentices before--Bailey for one, Garrovick for another.
Maybe it what Kirk sees of himself in her, that causes her to invite him into his "inner circle", as it were....
