Dumb and Bizarre Trek Novel Moments...

[Myasishchev]

^Not necessarily, because America won't be the dominant power on Earth forever.

Sure, but that's what I mean. The decline of the US is going to be a drawn out affair, the result of deeply-rooted global political, economic, and social issues, probably the most obvious being the rise of China--which has no immediately recognizable parallel in the Trek universe, either, I suppose, since they wrecked the RSE, maybe China in 1945.

But whatever the cause of our decline, it will not be because we were invaded by an evil army of cyborgs, or likely anything remotely analogous.

Question for Trent: do you hate "The Changeling"? Casual death of 4 billion there. Actually, now that I think about it, "The Changeling" does really suck.

 

[Trent Roman]

Looking it up now, I see that it is a TOS episode; I've never cared for TOS, so I've not seen it. From the summary on Wiki, it doesn't really sound like something I'd enjoy. (And it seems to suggest that Uhura recovers from getting her mind erased thanks to tapes in the library? Is that right?)

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Hober Mallow]

Looking it up now, I see that it is a TOS episode; I've never cared for TOS, so I've not seen it.

Can you really call yourself a Star Trek fan if you don't care for Star Trek?

From the summary on Wiki, it doesn't really sound like something I'd enjoy. (And it seems to suggest that Uhura recovers from getting her mind erased thanks to tapes in the library? Is that right?)

Yeah. Nurse Chapel reads some Dick and Jane books to her and ina few days she's relearned everything. Not only that, but when her mind is erased, she can't speak English, but she can speak Swahili, because, you know, Swahili is a base, primitive language akin to a caveman making gutteral "tonga tonga!" sounds. Really not one of Star Trek's finer moments.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman[/QUOTE]

 

[Amaris]

For me, the entirety of "Ghost Ship" was rather bizarre.

That might have something to do with the fact that it was written before TNG aired. "Bill" Riker pinning Data against a wall and telling him he's "not a real person" (or whatever the wording was) was a little strange for me too, reading it after TNG had finished

The first Voyager novel was a little weird too - it had "Doc Zimmerman" in the sickbay.

The first Enterprise novel tried to avoid dodgy characterizations by having half the story (consisting of a tabletop RPG game played in the mess hall...yes, really) star unknown below-decks nobodies.

I personally think the "wrongness" of all these early series books gives them a special charm.

Ah, that would indeed explain it. Perhaps the charm is difficult for me to grasp simply because I have become so familiar with these characters, what I would consider major deviations just don't sit well with me.

You see, the book was published in 1988, and at that point I thought it had followed "Encounter at Farpoint".

 

[Myasishchev]

Wait, there was a novel that spent half its pages detailing a (no doubt legally distinct for licensing purposes) D&D game?

Man, I thought holodeck episodes were a bit weightless and onanistic...

 

[JarodRussell]

A Flag Full of Stars again. The Klingon high school teacher secretly builds a little sphere with a revolutionary propulsion system. All inside his little apartment in New York. It's not necessarily dumb, but I still read it with this face: , lol.

 

[Thrawn]

....But I, for one, see absolutely no need, none whatsoever, to catastrophize the setting all over again; and no interest in spending the next X number of years wallowing in the subsequent misery.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

I dunno. I see what you're saying, but I can't shake the feeling that you're conflating something you shouldn't be conflating. I still feel like you're arguing that if a meteor wiped out the west third of the US, that it would suddenly make democracy a stupid idea.

Optimism and belief in making a better future is most important when things go poorly; I think that rebuilding after Destiny for every major AQ political player is going to be the most interesting application of the Federation's principles possibly ever. Any system can sustain itself if it's prosperous and wealthy; now we see how the ideals hold up when it's actually difficult to have them. That's MUCH more interesting to me than TNG's casual moral superiority.

I'm looking for a moral code that works in all situations, not just situations where things are 1-2% bad instead of 20-50% bad (or whatever values you feel are appropriate).

 

[Trent Roman]

Can you really call yourself a Star Trek fan if you don't care for Star Trek?

I'll assume that's tongue-in-cheek. I watched TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT. I think four out of five series (and twenty-four out of twenty-seven seasons) qualifies.

Wait, there was a novel that spent half its pages detailing a (no doubt legally distinct for licensing purposes) D&D game?

ENT, By the Book. It was the first original novel based on the series, and I guess they needed something to fill in space when they had little more than the series bible to go from. But, yeah--not exactly a thrill-ride.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Stevil2001]

It doesn't help that it's not even a very good D&D game...

 

[Vestboy]

I'm kind of fascinated by the aspect of the TrekLit business in which books are written at a point when there is only the series bible to go by. It does create some interesting divergences-- like "Bill" Riker. (Though I think Troi does call him "Bill" a couple times in early episodes.)

 

[Greg Cox]

I'm kind of fascinated by the aspect of the TrekLit business in which books are written at a point when there is only the series bible to go by. It does create some interesting divergences-- like "Bill" Riker. (Though I think Troi does call him "Bill" a couple times in early episodes.)

She does.

And one of the trickier parts of writing a book based on a bible for a show you haven't seen is that it's really hard to tell who the most interesting, stand-out characters are going to be.

As I recall, there was very little in the VOYAGER bible to suggest that "Doc Zimmerman" was going to be the most appealing character on the show--with the result that I gave him very little to do in my original outline for THE BLACK SHORE . . . . .

I regretted that later on.

 

[Thrawn]

^ I personally am amazed by how hardcore the production schedule for the Voyager novels was, that the first (apparently) 13 were in production before any aired episodes were available to watch.

 

[Greg Cox]

My memory is fuzzy, but I believe the show was on the air by the time I was actually writing the book. I just had to write the outline on the basis of the bible alone . . . .

Ditto for DS9.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Didn't James Blish write all his TOS episode novelizations and Spock Must Die! without ever actually seeing an episode?

 

[Garm Bel Iblis]

Didn't James Blish write all his TOS episode novelizations and Spock Must Die! without ever actually seeing an episode?

yes, shooting scripts only, some were early drafts

 

[Vestboy]

As I recall, there was very little in the VOYAGER bible to suggest that "Doc Zimmerman" was going to be the most appealing character on the show--with the result that I gave him very little to do in my original outline for THE BLACK SHORE . . . . .

I regretted that later on.

I recall them using "Doc Zimmerman" in the early publicity stuff-- I specifically remember the article in Entertainment Weekly before "Caretaker" aired which named him. It made watching the first season, with all the constant mentioning of the Doctor getting a name, felt like a drawn out affair with that plot point.

I do wonder, at what point did the producers decide that name wasn't what they were going to use?

 

[Trent Roman]

I dunno. I see what you're saying, but I can't shake the feeling that you're conflating something you shouldn't be conflating. I still feel like you're arguing that if a meteor wiped out the west third of the US, that it would suddenly make democracy a stupid idea.

I'm not sure I grasp your meaning. Certainly I don't recall advancing such an argument. Reminds me of "Jericho"... although, in reality, it took far fewer casualties than that to endanger American (and allied) democracy.

Optimism and belief in making a better future is most important when things go poorly.

But one also needs a payoff. If optimism and belief in a better future never actually yields any results, than it's no better than the false hope peddled by preachers, faith healers, snake-oil salesmen and Democratic presidencies. With regards to the morality, the idea of the ethical actor in an uncaring universe works well in other franchises--Angel's nihilistic "If nothing we do matters, what we do is all matters comes to mind" comes to mind--but things like Angel are inherently dark, noirish. Trek isn't dark--or wasn't until Destiny overturned a universe of light into one of shadows. The idea of the Federation was that the better future had arrived--that the better society, better humanity, was indeed achievable. It was the promise of the humanistic vision fulfilled. For it to fail, as it did repeatedly, on so many levels, and to such extremes in Destiny, is to deny the validity of that vision. Better future? Not anymore, certainly, and the failure--that the Federation, as it stood, was incompatible with its own survival--means it never was. To claim to now want to strive for a better future, when one already had such a society and it failed, is not only redundant, but downgrades such a vision to the status of false hope because it is unachievable.

It doesn't help that it's not even a very good D&D game...

Didn't one of the characters' characters (I wanted to say that) die right from the outset or something? The cute ensign wasn't much of a GM.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Thrawn]

^ Right, Trent, that's it exactly. You're saying that the Federation failed, because of what is essentially a natural disaster that had nothing whatsoever to do with those ideals in the first place. It's exactly like saying that an asteroid wiping out California makes democracy a silly idea.

 

[LightningStorm]

^ Right, Trent, that's it exactly. You're saying that the Federation failed, because of what is essentially a natural disaster that had nothing whatsoever to do with those ideals in the first place. It's exactly like saying that an asteroid wiping out California makes democracy a silly idea.

For me, I don't consider the Borg to be a "force of nature" or any other such uncontrollable phenomenon usually attributed to them. The Borg are/were controlled by a sentient mind, and in Destiny (and Before Dishonor) they had active intent on killing everyone and everything in the Federation and anyone near. A comet (or hurricane or earthquake) has no such ill-intent and is essentially an accident that such things occur. The Borg were no accident they didn't stumble across the Federation and in the process accidentally destroy billions, they actively made a decision to seek out the Federation specifically and made another decision to actively destroy everything in their path.

 

[OverlordSpock]

The idea of the Federation was that the better future had arrived--that the better society, better humanity, was indeed achievable. It was the promise of the humanistic vision fulfilled. For it to fail, as it did repeatedly, on so many levels, and to such extremes in Destiny, is to deny the validity of that vision. Better future? Not anymore, certainly, and the failure--that the Federation, as it stood, was incompatible with its own survival--means it never was.

I know I coming to this party late and am a relative newbie around here, but I'm not sure that the events of Destiny are wholly incompatible with your argument here.

Yes, the Federation showed that humanity had overcome all its adversity. The better future, as you put it, had arrived. Now, a horror has occurred that, was outside of humanity's control. During the crisis, hard decisions had to be made and some of those decisions may not have been the best ones. But, the crisis, by whatever method, has been averted. Yes, there are many, many aftereffects that must be dealt with.

But, here is where humanity's better future can really shine.

If humanity had not advanced as it had by the 24th Century, just the aftermath of this crisis might be enough to cause its fall. Internal bickering and other in-fighting could ruin everything. However, in the better future, humanity (and all the other species) can rise above it and rebuild and regain what it had lost.

I think that's what we'll end up seeing in TrekLit's 24th Century future, and rather quickly. Working together, that better future will be quickly regained.

- OverlordSpock