Have any of the novels ever just made you mad? (

[Rush Limborg]

I despise the dedication, but I think Last Full Measure was excellent.

Wasn't the book dedicated to a woman whose son was killed in the so-called War on Terror? Is that really so terrible?

There's an entire controversy about the "Cindy Sheehan" dedication, Therin, which I don't necessarily want to bring back full fledged. Suffice it to say, it was basically his wording in both books in question.

Again...if I were to, say, dedicate a book to a big-name conservative activist, and then go off on a rant about his/her brave stance against "the unjust, immoral, and totally unjustifiable policies of the (thankfully defunct) Obama Adminitration", etc.--the folks here would not let me hear the end of it--and rightfully so.

Even those who'd agree with me would condemn it, to be honest--and it would be the right thing to do.

Would I have the right to that sort of dedication? Absolutely. Would it be an uncalled for, overtly political cheap shot? Dang right, it would.

 

[Christopher]

That's apples and oranges, really. As I said before, both books still dealt with the immediate fallout from Destiny, except from different perspectives, and ended about at the same place with the introduction of the Typhon Pact.

That's not a fair assessment. A Singular Destiny is about the rise of the Typhon Pact. The revelation of the Pact's formation is the climax of the whole book. Losing the Peace is about something entirely different, the worlds of the Federation coping with the aftermath of disaster, and its climax is those worlds coming together and reaffirming their principles. The Typhon Pact is only briefly referenced in the epilogue, a passing mention like the allusion a page later to the prologue of Over a Torrent Sea. It's just a continuity nod, not something that has anything directly to do with the story of the novel. Indeed, that epilogue is set 2 months after the rest of the book.

 

[C.E. Evans]

That's apples and oranges, really. As I said before, both books still dealt with the immediate fallout from Destiny, except from different perspectives, and ended about at the same place with the introduction of the Typhon Pact.

That's not a fair assessment. A Singular Destiny is about the rise of the Typhon Pact. The revelation of the Pact's formation is the climax of the whole book. Losing the Peace is about something entirely different, the worlds of the Federation coping with the aftermath of disaster, and its climax is those worlds coming together and reaffirming their principles. The Typhon Pact is only briefly referenced in the epilogue, a passing mention like the allusion a page later to the prologue of Over a Torrent Sea. It's just a continuity nod, not something that has anything directly to do with the story of the novel. Indeed, that epilogue is set 2 months after the rest of the book.

Whatever floats your boat. It didn't float mine.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

Oops, you pissed off Christopher, now they will be a character in one of his books who dies an horrible but satisfying end: He is marooned on a planet where the Brady Bunch was taken as a bible and the religion of Marsha, Marsha is the dominant denomination. The most watched TV show is Bradys in Space with Capt Greg Brady and his alien co-captain, Commander Cindy Brady.

In regards to The Last Full Measure, I agree with Rush and I do dislike Martin's anti-war and anti-Bush analogues.

 

[Sci]

That's apples and oranges, really. As I said before, both books still dealt with the immediate fallout from Destiny, except from different perspectives, and ended about at the same place with the introduction of the Typhon Pact.

That's not a fair assessment. A Singular Destiny is about the rise of the Typhon Pact. The revelation of the Pact's formation is the climax of the whole book. Losing the Peace is about something entirely different, the worlds of the Federation coping with the aftermath of disaster, and its climax is those worlds coming together and reaffirming their principles. The Typhon Pact is only briefly referenced in the epilogue, a passing mention like the allusion a page later to the prologue of Over a Torrent Sea. It's just a continuity nod, not something that has anything directly to do with the story of the novel. Indeed, that epilogue is set 2 months after the rest of the book.

Whatever floats your boat. It didn't float mine.

I don't think Christopher is arguing about the relative quality of ASD and LtP, just about their structure. LtP isn't about getting to the point where the Typhon Pact emerges -- that's just something that happens, in passing, in the final pages, but it's a minor thing. LtP is about something fundamentally different. ASD is about the rise of the Typhon Pact. Whether or not either one floated your boat is irrelevant to the question of whether or not LtP is about the rise of the Typhon Pact.

ETA:

Am I the only one who thinks it's weird how many Trekkies object to anti-war messages, considering that Star Trek is generally anti-war?

 

[kkozoriz1]

I think it's unusual but I know a number of fans who seem to enjoy the battle scenes most of all. I know one guy who thinks that Duet and The Visitor are the worst DS9 episodes by far. Go figure.

Someone should do a book that has the Federation attacked and the Feds response is to attack someone who wasn't involved. They'd love it.

 

[JD]

Am I the only one who thinks it's weird how many Trekkies object to anti-war messages, considering that Star Trek is generally anti-war?

No it's not just you. I've actually had the same thought whenever anyone complained about there being a more liberal slant to Trek. Maybe I've misunderstood it's meaning, but I've always been under the impression that Trek was very liberal.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

I think it is you. Trek is not anti-war nor it is pro-war. Characters in Star Trek are not warhawks, but they don't shy away from taking up arms for the Federation's cause and ideals. Yes, we have Picard's throwaway line from INS, but I generally take that as a nostalgic comment.

I do believe Star Trek has become very equal in dealing with war issues. Anyways, another vote that Price of the Phoenix sucks, I dont think the authors even recognize that there are other crewmembers on the Enterprise, which is portrayed like a pleasure yacht running around the Federation-Romulan border.

 

[Christopher]

Oops, you pissed off Christopher...

I don't understand why you'd think that. As Sci pointed out, I wasn't debating opinions, merely clarifying a point of fact.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Am I the only one who thinks it's weird how many Trekkies object to anti-war messages, considering that Star Trek is generally anti-war?

No it's not just you. I've actually had the same thought whenever anyone complained about there being a more liberal slant to Trek. Maybe I've misunderstood it's meaning, but I've always been under the impression that Trek was very liberal.

No, it's not just you guys.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

Oops, you pissed off Christopher...

I don't understand why you'd think that. As Sci pointed out, I wasn't debating opinions, merely clarifying a point of fact.

I know I was just goofing.

 

[C.E. Evans]

That's not a fair assessment. A Singular Destiny is about the rise of the Typhon Pact. The revelation of the Pact's formation is the climax of the whole book. Losing the Peace is about something entirely different, the worlds of the Federation coping with the aftermath of disaster, and its climax is those worlds coming together and reaffirming their principles. The Typhon Pact is only briefly referenced in the epilogue, a passing mention like the allusion a page later to the prologue of Over a Torrent Sea. It's just a continuity nod, not something that has anything directly to do with the story of the novel. Indeed, that epilogue is set 2 months after the rest of the book.

Whatever floats your boat. It didn't float mine.

I don't think Christopher is arguing about the relative quality of ASD and LtP, just about their structure. LtP isn't about getting to the point where the Typhon Pact emerges -- that's just something that happens, in passing, in the final pages, but it's a minor thing. LtP is about something fundamentally different. ASD is about the rise of the Typhon Pact. Whether or not either one floated your boat is irrelevant to the question of whether or not LtP is about the rise of the Typhon Pact.

This is just splitting hairs or being too literal.

All I said was that A Singular Destiny and Losing The Peace both dealt with the immediate fallout of Destiny and both ended with the Typhon Pact as the new player on the scene. This is not incorrect. You may think it's too simple a generalization of both books, but that's not my problem as I did also say--from the very beginning--that both books dealt with the fallout from Destiny differently. I also still maintain that I could have chosen one book or the other and arrived in the same place in regards to the Typhon Pact, albeit they obviously would have been different journeys there.

But I suppose you'll argue with me over that too, won't you?

 

[William Leisner]

All I said was that A Singular Destiny and Losing The Peace both dealt with the immediate fallout of Destiny and both ended with the Typhon Pact as the new player on the scene.

No, that is not all you said. You also said:

IMO, A Singular Destiny and Losing The Peace both told the same story

 

[Christopher]

This is just splitting hairs or being too literal.

All I said was that A Singular Destiny and Losing The Peace both dealt with the immediate fallout of Destiny and both ended with the Typhon Pact as the new player on the scene. This is not incorrect.

You're the one retreating behind literalism here. That description may not be strictly factually incorrect, but only because it picks and chooses among the facts in order to convey a misleading impression. It would not be incorrect to point out that a giraffe and an iguana both have four legs and end in a tail, but if you used that highly incomplete selection of characteristics to argue that a giraffe is equivalent to an iguana, that would be a deceptive argument. In that way, by presenting information selectively and stripped of context, it is possible to use strictly factual statements to assert a complete falsehood.

Saying both books "end with the Typhon Pact" is true in the most superficial, literal sense, but it is also completely misrepresentative of the truth. As I said, the reference to the Pact in LtP is merely a passing allusion in a brief epilogue set two months after the conclusion of the book's actual story. Aside from that tiny addendum, the story of LtP wraps up well before A Singular Destiny even begins. They do not end in the same place, not in any meaningful way.

 

[Rush Limborg]

In regards to The Last Full Measure, I agree with Rush and I do dislike Martin's anti-war and anti-Bush analogues.

Thanks.

 

[C.E. Evans]

All I said was that A Singular Destiny and Losing The Peace both dealt with the immediate fallout of Destiny and both ended with the Typhon Pact as the new player on the scene.

No, that is not all you said. You also said:

IMO, A Singular Destiny and Losing The Peace both told the same story

Yes, but that story was the immediate fallout/aftermath from Destiny. Both books covered it in different ways, as I said from the start. I don't think I'm wrong in that.

You're the one retreating behind literalism here.

Utter nonsense.

That description may not be strictly factually incorrect, but only because it picks and chooses among the facts in order to convey a misleading impression.

Says you. I call it simply a generalization. Any "misleading impression" comes from a too literal or hardline stance.

Saying both books "end with the Typhon Pact" is true in the most superficial, literal sense...

No, it's simply true in the most simplest sense. Where do both books end? With a devastated Federation recovering from the last Borg offense and the awareness in the end that there's a new status quo in the Galaxy. Is this wrong? No, I don't think so. Anything else is just quibbling over particulars and being nitpicky, especially in light of me saying--as I must point out yet again--that both books approached the fallout differently. I really thought it was obvious that this meant that both books told different aspects of the post-Borg situation.

I'm totally amazed that you and a few others have the inability--or reluctance--to see when someone is talking either figuratively or in a very generalized way. This is not the first time we've had this conversation, Christopher, and I have no intention of changing the way I talk to suit you. Taking me to task again and again for not writing a full detailed synopsis of everything is pointless.

 

[Trent Roman]

Yes, I have. Curiously, though, where most people here seem annoyed at bad books, that's never something that would make me mad; disappointed, perhaps resentful, but rarely angry. What does get to me is not quality but content, deliberate decisions affecting or depicting the universe that bother me. Someone mentioned Well of Souls upthread--not one of my favourites; I had to take something like a six-month break to get through it. What bugged me about that one wasn't the poor quality of the turgid plotting, but the fact that it seemed to go out of its way to piss all over the Trek ideal of a better humanity. One would think it would make more sense to be angry about a purchase that turns out to be of poor quality than about what happens in a fictional universe, but I suppose that the time spent watching/reading Trek represents an investment that trumps a mere book. To a degree, it might be a question of intent: nobody deliberately sets out to write a bad book (as difficult as it may be to fathom in cases like Dyson Sphere); it's an accident, and I'm more forgiving for it. Issues dealing with the state of the universe, however, are deliberate decisions, taken with presumable causes, and as such easier to get angry at. Of course, the two are not necessarily opposites. I'd be hard pressed to seperate my irritation at the awful story direction from the jejeune writing in the case of the VOY-R, for instance.

So what has made me mad? Well of Souls, as mentioned. Trill: Unjoined, with a Federation world suddenly turning into Baghdad circa 2006, and the suppression of much of what made the Trills an interesting species. Repeated attempts to shoehorn human religion into Trek's better future. And, of course, the total abandonment of the idea of a better future with the destruction-derby of Destiny. Although not the thing that's angered me the most, its lasting effects means that it has also had the most lasting effect on me, in that I've basically stopped reading the line. When I spot Singular Destiny and Over a Torrent Sea on my shelf, the first thing that comes to mind is how fully vexed I was with the way Destiny ended, and I move on to something less likely to arouse my frustration.

But nothing tops Before Dishonor and the callous butchering of Janeway. That pissed me off more than I ever would have thought a fiction book could, and I still fume to think about it now. Terrible idea atrociously executed.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[ProwlAlpha]

I agree with some parts of Destiny, but ASD and OATS are really good reads. In fact I quite enjoyed the Titan adventure.

Another that I do believe is terrible would be Shadowlord in which I think the author got confused that he was writing for Star Trek.

 

[JD]

Repeated attempts to shoehorn human religion into Trek's better future.

What's so horrible humans still having their religions in the Trekverse? I'm not a religious person at all, but this really doesn't really make any sense to me. These religions have been around for thousands of years, and I doubt very much that they would completely vanish by Trek's future.

And, of course, the total abandonment of the idea of a better future with the destruction-derby of Destiny. Although not the thing that's angered me the most, its lasting effects means that it has also had the most lasting effect on me, in that I've basically stopped reading the line. When I spot Singular Destiny and Over a Torrent Sea on my shelf, the first thing that comes to mind is how fully vexed I was with the way Destiny ended, and I move on to something less likely to arouse my frustration.

Except that is not in any way shape or form true.

 

[DevilEyes]

Repeated attempts to shoehorn human religion into Trek's better future.

What's so horrible humans still having their religions in the Trekverse? I'm not a religious person at all, but this really doesn't really make any sense to me. These religions have been around for thousands of years, and I doubt very much that they would completely vanish by Trek's future.

ITA. They might be less popular, but there is no way that they would absolutely vanish on their own. That's in the realm of completely unrealistic. And I presume that nobody is arguing that the Federation eradicated religion by force.

Anyway, we've already had religious Human characters in the 24th century - Chakotay, anyone? There was still a mass being held in the Church of St. Peter in Rome in the 22nd century (according to Phlox in ENT); there was a chapel on Enterprise in the 23rd century (TOS, "Balance of Terror"). And we know at least that major religious holidays are still celebrated - the Hindi festival of Lights is still celebrated in the 24th century (according to Data in TNG), Christmas (Generations). Not to mention Kirk's remark to Apollo that 'we find one god enough'... Canon sources suggest that human religions are alive in the future, and I can't see any evidence to the contrary. Is there anything to suggest that human religions are dead in the future, except some fans' wishful thinking?