Dumb and Bizarre Trek Novel Moments...
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
^ I think I understand your position, believe me. The trilogy did skirt into some uncomfortable territory. I read that as intentional, carefully calculated for positive effect and ultimately it reaffirmed for me what I see Trek as being "about", even during the "darkest hour" where the most extreme pressures are acting upon it (and warping it in places). That's why I loved these novels. Were Trek always like this, I'd hate it, probably for many of the reasons you've outlined in this thread! But this was supposed to be the exceptional tale, the full-blown everything-at-stake story. It pushed everything to the extremes, and when that happens I can't expect everything to work quite as it usually does.
But I do see how, for some others, these novels might well have miscalculated, and shot over the line it was skirting into somewhere you find distasteful.
In my opinion, 'destiny' would have been much better if it had skipped almost completely the passages relating to the federation - except to say that it's doggedly fighting and losing - and presented only Hernandez's story.
The passages relating to Picard are completely unsalvageable. Since 'The best of both worlds' Picard fought with what the borg did to him. Now we know the outcome of this battle - Picard lost, utterly and completely, the battle for his own soul.
Indeed, faith is not the right word for the expressed concept.
I find your observations valid, Christopher.
Interesting.
Ha, yeah, I noticed that as well. Regardless of which term we imbue with the more active connotation, I agree there is an important distinction.
Passive faith, akin to complacency, eschewing personal responsability, awaiting salvation that will be gratuitously provided (or not).
Active faith, demanding action, implying personal responsability, attaining salvation (or fulfillment) through effort and perseverance.
Not that this dichotomy exhausts the possibilities of what words like faith and hope might mean in a variety of contexts, but at any rate, I'm pretty comfortable with Trek as a fictional universe where that active faith (or hope, or will to live) motivates a lot of the characters and is affirmed by a lot of the stories. I think that's one of the reasons I enjoy it.
Destiny is certainly a virtuoso piece of writing in many respects, but I have a hard time accepting it as the quintessential Trek story or a great Trek story, I guess partly because I feel it does drift towards that more passive form of faith where humanity does not play much of a role in its own salvation. Yes there is Hernandez (and I was moved by her story, easily the strongest point of the book for me), but the presence of a single semi-divine mediator as the key to salvation doesn't stray very far from the passive model imo.
Last edited:
Interesting.
Ha, yeah, I noticed that as well. Regardless of which term we imbue with the more active connotation, I agree there is an important distinction.
Passive faith, akin to complacency, eschewing personal responsability, awaiting salvation that will be gratuitously provide (or not).
Active faith, demanding action, implying personal responsability, attaining salvation (or fulfillment) through effort and perseverance.
Not that this dichotomy exhausts the possibilities of what words like faith and hope might mean in a variety of contexts, but at any rate, I'm pretty comfortable with Trek as a fictional universe where that active faith (or hope, or will to live) motivates a lot of the characters and is affirmed by a lot of the stories. I think that's one of the reasons I enjoy it.
Destiny is certainly a virtuoso piece of writing in many respects, but I have hard time accepting it as the quintessential Trek story or a great Trek story, I guess partly because I feel it does drift towards that more passive form of faith where humanity does not play much of a role in its own salvation. Yes there is Hernandez (and I was moved by her story, easily the strongest point of the book for me), but, again, the presence of a single semi-divine mediator as the key to salvation doesn't stray very far from the passive model imo.
I understand. And I've enjoyed this debate a lot, so thanks everyone.
And you're right that I likely oversimplified on "faith". The concept I had in mind is really only one facet of "faith". I need a better vocabulary
.
I think Deranged Nasat made a very good case that humanity did play the pivotal role. Maybe the human/Federation characters weren't the main ones who actually took action, but it was human/Federation values that triumphed and made the crucial difference. As DN said, as long as the characters (whether Picard, Hernandez, the Caeliar, or whoever) bought into passivity and fatalism, there was nothing they could do. But when they were persuaded by the principles of optimism and determination, the very humanistic belief that we always have the power to make a positive difference, that was what saved the day. So regardless of who specifically took action, it was the underlying principles that define 24th-century humanity and the Federation that won out.
This word "quintessential" you use is interesting; I think I agree that Destiny couldn't be the quintessential Trek story for exactly the reasons you describe. It's my favorite, for sure, but I think that without the Trek universe having been grounded for so long in such a robust humanistic paradigm, it wouldn't have been as good as it was.
Destiny was about taking the almighty mass of Trek philosophy and pushing it right to its limits, and I don't think it could've done that and succeeded without so much history behind it. It's not the quintessential Trek story; it may in fact be one of the least. It wasn't about defining the center of the Trek belief system, it was about defining the edge.
And yes, the criticism is a valid one; I remember even David Mack posting that in the first discussion thread on Lost Souls, that the other three captains not having much to do in the climax was definitely a weakness of the narrative. I can see how it would cross the line for some people. I still think the right fundamental message is there:
As Christopher says. The novel may have erred a bit in not placing Riker and Dax in more of a position to deliver those values (I still think it's necessary for Picard to lose faith in them, so I don't include him on that list), but it was definitely Federation values that won the day.
Speaking of faith, the reference to Hernandez as "Logos of Borg" in her dream in Lost Souls is a direct Biblical invocation, Christ as the Word become flesh (Greek = Logos) from John 1:1-14.
Furthermore this thread has developed a distinctive theological overtone with determinism vs. fatalism, which parallels the classic theological Arminianism vs. Calvinism debate.
Furthermore this thread has developed a distinctive theological overtone with determinism vs. fatalism, which parallels the classic theological Arminianism vs. Calvinism debate.
This is a really good point. The Federation lost billions of citizens, but even the Federation is not all that large an amount of space compared to the galaxy as a whole, and at the end of the trilogy the most fearsome destructive force in the entire galaxy has been eliminated. I actually don't understand how that's anything but optimistic. And I have a hard time imagining any kind of dramatically successful end to the Borg that involves less destruction.
They were introduced as a race that could destroy effectively the whole Federation fleet with ONE SHIP, and all other solutions had, at best, the result of killing every single Borg drone (which would have to be substantially more people than the Federation lost in Destiny). I think it's much more pessimistic to just wipe them all out with a virus, and absurdly unrealistic to defeat them militarily.
And I don't think the alternative proposed a few times here, Hernandez's story in isolation without the Federation being invaded, would've worked either. Hernandez didn't have any stake in the Borg being killed; she didn't even know what they were. The Borg invasion was the necessary dramatic instigator of the Titan crew reminding Hernandez to remember her roots and convince the Caeliar to intervene. And given the Borg invasion, we needed some viewpoint characters to explore the meaning of that, including someone who'd give up entirely. Personally, I think the Federation got off easily!
I think that, fundamentally, the idea of the Caeliar saving the Federation is a somewhat uncomfortable one within the Trek universe. Hell, I had problems with Sacrifice Of Angels for exactly the same reason. But I don't see any other way to solve it.
And besides, it took Praxis exploding to bring the Klingons and Federation together. It looks like the Destiny invasion is doing the same thing to the entire political situation - bringing enemies together in the spirit of mutual cooperation. It's not exactly unprecedented for Star Trek to forge its message of optimism through the use of enormous tragedy. This is the same thing on a larger scale.
Trent - how is this Trek universe fundamentally pessimistic when the Trek universe of The Undiscovered Country, Wolf 359, the Dominion War, etc isn't? Why is THIS much destruction TOO much, when all that was ok? Where do you draw the line?
It's perhaps worth posing the most obvious question, namely how do we interpret the title of the trilogy in light of this discussion?
Well, the story characters certainly prefer free-will. But Destiny itself refers to something more than pure self-determinism. Though as I am sympathetic to Calvinism, characterizing it as hopeless fatalism is at best ill-informed and at worst simply wrong.
Perhaps it's best to say that optimism and hope can shape our destiny, and the choices of the many add up to a favourable destiny that is more than the sum of its parts.
Perhaps it's best to say that optimism and hope can shape our destiny, and the choices of the many add up to a favourable destiny that is more than the sum of its parts.
In my opinion, Star Trek was always about humans making their own destiny. There's no such thing as fate, everyone can form his future all on his own. There is no God. Q is omnipotent and can play games with humans, but eventually, he has no power over them. The Prophets are non-linear aliens, their Temple is a wormhole. Even if they told Sisko it was his destiny to do this and that, he still was fully capable of making his own choices. The existence of free will is one of the core messages of Star Trek in my opinion.
^Proof that even the most sane of people have their own insanities. Picard is cool and level-headed except when it comes to the Borg, it's the one thing he cannot cope with. We saw that in First Contact and we saw it in Destiny.
though the organians had a huge impact on tos.
they stopped the federation klingon war dead cold.
their actions bought about a treaty that plays a part in most of the klingon appearances within tos.
Not to mention that Roddenberry always assumed humanity would have to go through its darkest hour (WWIII or the Eugenics Wars) before it finally came to its senses and began to reform itself. His vision was always one of humanity just barely avoiding annihilation and realizing it had to change its ways in order to survive. So the idea of new hope growing from the ashes of tragedy is integral to the entire Star Trek mythos.
And before that in "I, Borg."
And that was a case where the human/Federation characters failed to live up to their own ideals and needed a reminder. Kirk, the same Kirk who had chosen to "not kill today" just a few weeks earlier, was portrayed in "Errand of Mercy" as being so caught up in self-righteous grievances against the Klingons that he forgot about the horrible cost of the war he was ready to fight. He needed the Organians to remind him of that. Everyone has their lapses. Which is why everyone needs help sometimes.
This reminded me how, when originally reading Destiny, I had a nagging sensation, that when it would all be over, the Federation and the Trek franchise would be left in a post-apocalyptic and bleak/desperate setting, with the UFP destroyed (a-la the Commonwealth on Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda).
I was also quite certain that Picard would die in this trilogy, with his lineage continued via his son (in contrast to his line in Generations, on how "there would be no more picards").
I was *very* happy to see that that would not be the case (andno, I don't agree with those who claim that the post-Destiny setting *is* post-apocalyptic, as in bleak and hopeless...),
and yet another thing to Destiny's favor - making me actually *fear* for the fate of Star Trek's icons (Picard and co.) and foundations (the UFP itself), and being so emotionally invested in the story
I tend to see Destiny as being about the necessity of accepting that at a certain point in life, you come up against something against which you are and will always be powerless, about how it's important to accept that there are limits to your own power -- because if you do not, you will become self-destructive, either emotionally or otherwise. Accepting that there are limits to your power does not mean resigning yourself to determinism and giving up your efforts to shape your own future, but it does mean recognizing where your limits are and learning the difference between being consumed by your quest for greater power over your own destiny and being assertive in creating the best future for yourself that you can.
True -- but it's also important to understand that free will has its limits, and that even the creation of one's own destiny occurs within the confines of situations that simply cannot be controlled. No one, for instance, can stop an earthquake or a hurricane, and if one hits, you must accept that it is happening and accept the consequences of such disasters before you can create the best possible future for yourself out of those circumstances. None of us can control all of the cards we are handed in life -- our ethnicity, our family, our economic class of birth, our geographic location of birth, our nationality, our original accent, the level of education our parents gave us, etc. These are cards we are dealt without our input, and we have to accept them -- and ourselves -- as they are before we can play them to the best of our ability and gain new cards.
To me, that's what Destiny is about. What are the Caeliar and the Borg, but two cultures that have rejected the idea that there are limits to their own power, that they have to accept the cards they are handed in life, and have instead allowed themselves to become consumed with a quest for greater power? What is Picard, really, but a person rendered paralyzed and nihilistic because of his own inability to accept that he has no real power over the Borg, that he is a failure whenever he confronts them? And what are Hernandez and Ezri and Bacco, but people who recognize the limits of their own power and accept them without giving up and allowing themselves to be crushed and defeated?
True -- but it's also important to understand that free will has its limits, and that even the creation of one's own destiny occurs within the confines of situations that simply cannot be controlled. No one, for instance, can stop an earthquake or a hurricane, and if one hits, you must accept that it is happening and accept the consequences of such disasters before you can create the best possible future for yourself out of those circumstances. None of us can control all of the cards we are handed in life -- our ethnicity, our family, our economic class of birth, our geographic location of birth, our nationality, our original accent, the level of education our parents gave us, etc. These are cards we are dealt without our input, and we have to accept them -- and ourselves -- as they are before we can play them to the best of our ability and gain new cards.
To me, that's what Destiny is about. What are the Caeliar and the Borg, but two cultures that have rejected the idea that there are limits to their own power, that they have to accept the cards they are handed in life, and have instead allowed themselves to become consumed with a quest for greater power? What is Picard, really, but a person rendered paralyzed and nihilistic because of his own inability to accept that he has no real power over the Borg, that he is a failure whenever he confronts them? And what are Hernandez and Ezri and Bacco, but people who recognize the limits of their own power and accept them without giving up and allowing themselves to be crushed and defeated?
When one looks at Picard's character / actions during Destiny, one must also remember that the trilogy's events are the culmination of several events during the previous 2+ years:
First, look at 2379 (the ATT series) - Picard goes from losing his command in disgrace due to UFP politics, to being involved in another political nightmare (Tezwa), only to lose a trusted friend and facing his own "dark twin" (NEM). In the aftermath, his "family" for over 15 years is torn apart.
Then, look at 2380 (TNG-R) - The Borg, his greatest nightmare and experience, return after 2 years IIRC (since the start of the VOY Relaunch under Golden). Afterwards, the one person with more experience dealing with the Borg (Janeway) is assimilated and "killed"... by the Borg.
All the while, Picard is trying to shape a new crew and attempting to start a family, all in the shadow of the Borg threat.
Faced with starting a new family with the woman he's loved for decades, the Borg return in rapid succession again and again, threatening all Picard holds dear with the intent of taking it all away, "proving" that they will not stop, cannot be stopped.
In light of all that and the accumulated stress of the previous 2 years, is it any wonder Picard acted the way he did? (BTW, I see his actions as a result of anger and desperation, not defeat...)
First, look at 2379 (the ATT series) - Picard goes from losing his command in disgrace due to UFP politics, to being involved in another political nightmare (Tezwa), only to lose a trusted friend and facing his own "dark twin" (NEM). In the aftermath, his "family" for over 15 years is torn apart.
Then, look at 2380 (TNG-R) - The Borg, his greatest nightmare and experience, return after 2 years IIRC (since the start of the VOY Relaunch under Golden). Afterwards, the one person with more experience dealing with the Borg (Janeway) is assimilated and "killed"... by the Borg.
All the while, Picard is trying to shape a new crew and attempting to start a family, all in the shadow of the Borg threat.
Faced with starting a new family with the woman he's loved for decades, the Borg return in rapid succession again and again, threatening all Picard holds dear with the intent of taking it all away, "proving" that they will not stop, cannot be stopped.
In light of all that and the accumulated stress of the previous 2 years, is it any wonder Picard acted the way he did? (BTW, I see his actions as a result of anger and desperation, not defeat...)
This reminded me how, when originally reading Destiny, I had a nagging sensation, that when it would all be over, the Federation and the Trek franchise would be left in a post-apocalyptic and bleak/desperate setting, with the UFP destroyed (a-la the Commonwealth on Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda).
I was also quite certain that Picard would die in this trilogy, with his lineage continued via his son (in contrast to his line in Generations, on how "there would be no more picards").
I was *very* happy to see that that would not be the case (andno, I don't agree with those who claim that the post-Destiny setting *is* post-apocalyptic, as in bleak and hopeless...),
and yet another thing to Destiny's favor - making me actually *fear* for the fate of Star Trek's icons (Picard and co.) and foundations (the UFP itself), and being so emotionally invested in the story
Really? That was part of my problem with it, I never had a moment where I felt there was any serious danger to the main characters. Yes, billions died, but there is no emotional weight to that.
Similar threads
