This sounds good to me and I'm really hoping they go more in this direction than more fighting. I could easily see some interesting stories following the parallel developments of the new Khitomer Accords group, and the Typhon Pact. Yes, and even if they don't fight the Typhon Pact, the very existence of a new alliance of worlds will still lead to conflict. There are plenty of ways to have interesting stories with conflicts in them without resorting to violence. Not that I don't enjoy action stories, I really do, but sometimes a change of pace is nice.
Speak for yourself. I find stories of combat quite tedious. And I think you're confusing peace and diplomacy. Yes, a story in which everything's perfectly peaceful and nothing is going wrong would be dull. But that's not what diplomacy is about. Diplomacy is about dealing with things that are going wrong, especially things that have the potential to lead to violence, and finding a more intelligent and probably more elusive solution than just shooting things. So there's a lot of tension, danger, and difficulty inherent in it. Excitement isn't always about characters fighting. Sometimes it's about characters striving to prevent destruction. Like a scene of a hero defusing a bomb. There's a lot of tension and excitement in such a scene, because of what's at stake if the hero fails. And it challenges the hero to be smart and ingenious because it can't be solved with brute force. Well, a diplomatic mission to prevent a war has the same kind of tension, perhaps less immediate but on a bigger scale. Yes, but war is far from the only kind of international competition or tension that can exist. Look at all the different ways that nations compete, clash, and jockey for advantage in real life -- economic competition, clashes of law and policy, ideological disputes, competition for allies and influence, games of political brinksmanship, you name it. True, but conflict in the literary sense doesn't just mean fighting. Conflict means that the protagonists are faced with obstacles and problems, or that different characters in the story have differing goals that are at odds. Conflict can even be internal. For instance, in "The Best of Both Worlds," Riker was in conflict with Shelby over how to deal with the Borg, and in conflict with himself over whether to accept promotion or stay where he was happy. Conflict is anything that makes it difficult for the protagonist to achieve success or resolution. Saying that conflict is needed for drama doesn't mean that every story has to be about fighting. It means that stories are about characters dealing with problems and challenges.
I can see both sides of this discussion, I think. Let me put this out, though: it's a big galaxy. Really, really, really big. Isn't there enough real-estate available for folks like Christopher to tell "non-war" stories over here, and for other folks to have "combat-o-rama" stories over there?
^ Yes. But I think we've seen enough combat-o-rama for a while now. Maybe after things quieten down a little...
Sure. Not saying there has to be any of that, just saying that there could be room for both types of stories so folks who wanted that sort of thing could have it, while folks who want the other could find some of that as well.
Frankly, between The Romulan War and, before that, the apocalyptic Destiny trilogy, I don't see how anyone could be suffering from a dearth of combat stories in TrekLit.
^And Star Trek Online seems like all the "combat-o-rama" anyone could want. All the more reason for the books to explore different story directions.
Let me make something absolutely clear: I am not for all-out fighting either! I don't know where anyone got that idea. All I said was that I was an advocate for a Cold War--i.e., a diplomatic war, fought across the table, not the battlefield. To suggest otherwise, quite frankly, is to make a straw-man, with my face pasted on! (Sorry about the rant, but I think you can understand my frustration....)
But you're still advocating enmity. A story about us-versus-them. That's what I'm arguing against. Sure, there'll be some us-versus-them-ism, but I for one want something more.
Further explanation, please? Are you thinking along the lines of "common foe"--in this case, the quadrant-wide recontstruction struggle after the Borg invasion--or struggle for "common ground"--perhaps struggles to keep the peace? Terrorists trying to use tension to their advantage, perhaps?
What I see in the Typhon Pact story is something more complex than any of those. Again, there are other kinds of conflict than clashes with outright enemies. Consider: the Federation has long been the leading political and cultural superpower in the Alpha Quadrant, possessing not only the greatest strength but the ethical high ground. Now the Federation has been badly weakened, and a new alliance of powers is pretty much adopting its methods of mutual, peaceful cooperation -- but has no interest in joining it or accepting its status as the quadrant superpower. What does this mean for the future of the Federation? Is it now a civilization in decline? Will it have to deal with no longer being the superpower? Think about the British Empire when its tenure as the world's superpower ended and gave way to American domination. How do you suppose they reacted to that? How did they deal with having to be second to a power that, while technically an ally, didn't necessarily do things in ways Britain would agree with? How would the Federation cope with being in that same situation? How could they preserve the moral high ground if they had to bow to the leadership of a power that, while not an adversary, had a different set of values, different ideas about interstellar policy? And what if some UFP member worlds decided they liked the Pact's approach to matters better? Some of the most interesting conflicts, I feel, are in cases where there's no clear good guy and bad guy, just two people or groups who both have the best of intentions but have radically different values and agendas. Those are far more challenging conflicts to figure out than one where it's obvious who's right and who's wrong.
So there will be a great deal of diplomatic conflict between the two of them. Is that what you're saying?
^ Um, yeah? We've been saying that from the beginning. It's but one piece of a (hopefully) larger and more complex storyline, but yeah, there will be diplomatic strife of one fashion or another. That's the kind of thing that tends to happen when somebody sets themselves up as a rival to one of the major political entities in the neighborhood. Whether the term "rival" means "competitor," "enemy," something in between, or some combination of all of the above, remains to be seen.
What I've been wondering is whether or not the Typhon Pact will exist past these four novels, or will it be a flash in the pan as it were? Personally I'd prefer that it sticks around for the considerable future.
Well, I can't speak with great detail to the first three installments, but the end of Paths of Disharmony leaves plenty of stuff for whoever might write any subsequent books.
theres always going to be politics in trek , its part of its nature and articals of the federation is a exellent example of that. KRAD is there any chance of a sequal ??