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

[F. King Daniel]

I just remembered: There is a novel that actually wound me up. I loved it so much, and then it dived off a cliff of absudity at the end like no other book before or since. It was The Wounded Sky. The crew being "idealized" in space-heaven was crazy enough, but when they woke a god and taught this god how to be a god (IIRC they had him create a whole universe to play with), it pretty much degenerated into a version of the Captain Robau thread for the TOS crew. I know others loved the ending, but I didn't. I still have fond memories of the early parts of the book.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

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.

You overstated your case, JD.

"Destiny" is a large part of trek lit - all subsequent books were affected by it.

And it does away with much of what was, fundamentally, star trek:
The unremitting negativity - starting with the ridiculously high body count - the federation was literally decimated (considering the situation, the ending, with the forced good mood of the characters, far from being uplifting, was grotesque, the characters, callous and uncaring);
The helplessness of our heroes, a complete departure from the humanism that characterised star trek;
The ineptitude of the heroes - ranging from obtuse to the point of incomprehensibility decisions to self-defeatist pasivity; etc.

 

[Sci]

I will never for the life of me understand why having the Federation face a threat that is simply too powerful for the Federation to defeat somehow constitutes an abandonment of Star Trek's humanism. Humanism is not predicated on the ridiculous and dishonest notion that humanity is or ought to be all-powerful and undefeatable.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

But humanism, amongst other things, means that when a more powerful foe attacks, our heroes don't retreat into the holodeck and start pitying themselves, don't begin making really incomprehensible/suicidal decisions, etc, etc.

Humanism means that, regardless of the circumstances, the heroes actually fight, believe in victory and try to beat the odds yet again.

Arguably, the borg was not even the most powerful adversary that ever attacked the federation - V'ger springs to mind.

 

[JarodRussell]

The novelization of First Contact. Instead of describing the space battle, which would have been cool, it describes how Picard looks at the viewscreen, is blinded by the phaser fire, and when he opens his eyes again, the Borg Cube is gone. Color me unimpressed. I know treklit is more about internal stuff than external, but whoa.

 

[Sci]

But humanism, amongst other things, means that when a more powerful foe attacks, our heroes don't retreat into the holodeck and start pitying themselves, don't begin making really incomprehensible/suicidal decisions, etc, etc.

Humanism means that, regardless of the circumstances, the heroes actually fight, believe in victory and try to beat the odds yet again.

And there were plenty of Federates who did just that. The fact that one character (Picard) did succumb to the emotional trauma of the Borg does not un-do all of Trek's humanism. Surely humanism isn't based on the ridiculous idea that no person ever succumbs to emotional trauma and proves unable to function rationally?

Arguably, the borg was not even the most powerful adversary that ever attacked the federation - V'ger springs to mind.

V'Ger was powerful, but it wasn't capable of exterminating all life on scores of planets simultaneously. And V'Ger, unlike the Borg, could be -- and was -- reasoned with. V'Ger was willing to negotiate; the Borg were not.

This is not an attack on humanism, either; the idea that all forces will be equally willing to negotiate for peace is just absurd, too. You can't blame the Federation for the Borg's choices.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Plenty? Not really.

You see, not only Picard acted defeatist ("regalling" us with a lenghty and decisively NON-humanist storyline); obtuse/inept decision-making and just waiting to be snuffed out, not bothering to innovate because 'it wouldn't work, anyway' was endemic in the federation.

Sci, in the 'Destiny' trilogy, our heroes, the federation in general lacked the will to fight, to survive, the 'never give up' spirit that always was a part of trek.
The reverse was the exception, NOT the rule.


About V'ger - considering that the caeliar, with their superior technology, eliminated all borg in existence - NOT just the alpha quadrant taskforce - in all of 5 minutes, V'ger - with his own magic-level technology - was, potentially, equally superior to the borg.

And Kirk&co had no ideea V'ger could be reasoned with. Did they defeatistically give up, waited for V'ger, fired their phasers at it (knowing that's pointless) and then said their prayers? NO.

 

[UncleRogi]

I can't recall ever being mad at a Star Trek novel to quite the same degree I was mad at, for instance, Star Wars: Legacy Of The Force: Inferno. I was kind of frustrated at how pointless a lot of Double Helix was, but nothing's ever made me mad.

I prettty much agree with this statement. Now, I've read novels that I just lost interest in, but Mad? Naw.

I actually enjoy reading all the different permutations of our beloved characters. AS for a novel grossly out of character,read "Dwellers in the Crucible', an admittedly older novel.

 

[JD]

I'm sorry, but IMO the post-Destiny books have been a perfect example of what makes Trek so great. The galaxy has faced what could easily be the worse disaster in history, and instead of simply giving up, they're still out there exploring and helping the victims. It's even helped to strengthen their alliances with the Klingons, Ferengi, Cardassians, The Imperial Romulans, and the Talarians. Not to mention the fact that it even brought about the creation of a new mini-Federation in the form of the Typhon Pact. So yeah, it was horrible, and has caused a lot of death and pain, but I really think that in the very very very long run the universe might actually end up a better place because of it.
Alot of the most horrible events in history have lead to some very good thing, like WWII leading to the UN, and in the Trekverse we have WWIII leading to United Earth, and the Romulan War leading to the Federation. I really think this will turn out to be just such an event.

 

[flandry84]

The only thing that..frustrated me latgely was the damn poor showing(militarily speaking) made by Starfleet during the recent Borg books.
It seems that the authors are stuck in a TV/small screen way of thinking when describing combat.
The Feds were fighting for their very lives against a plague of what are effectively,techno-organic zombies.If ever there was a time for a dark,gritty,game-changing war story,this was it.
(For future-war books,I think I'll stick to Dan Abnett's "Gaunts ghosts" books.)

 

[Therin of Andor]

... don't begin making really incomprehensible/suicidal decisions, etc, etc.

Spock in ST II made a "suicidal decision". So did Matt Decker in "The Doomsday Machine". And Will Decker in TMP. And Sisko in the finale of DS9. And Data in "Nemesis". And Trip in the ENT finale.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Therin of Andor

And in each of those instances (even in Matt Decker's, arguably - despite the man needing serious therapy) the heroes sacrificed themselves in order to win the day.
They beleived in their chance to prevail and gave the last full measure of devotion for it.

Not so in 'Destiny'.
As a rule, the federates we saw no longer believed victory was possible; they were resigned to defeat and death; they had given up.
They sought not to achieve victory, but to have a dignified death.

And this is why 'Destiny' lacks trek's humanism:
Not so much because our heroes failed to stop the borg, but because, in most cases, they have given up even believing they have a chance to do so.


flandry84

Not taking full advantage of their tech is a recurring theme in trek.
Military technology is a repeat offender in this area.

in 'Destiny', starfleet failed to use even simple tactics that had the potential to be far more effective against the borg than - scratch the collective with your phasers, wait for it to adapt and then die.
Never mind using potentially highly effective weapons whose specks we saw starfleet obtaining during the series.

The federation seems to have a very traditionalist/victorian attitude when it comes to weapons systems. Any weapon that's not a torpedo or beam is too exotic and, therefore, immoral - much like the thalaron weapon in the book.


JD

We're not at that utopic point, JD - in fact, we're far from it:

Unless the lit line goes through a reboot or does a rush job (therefore, unrealistic) of the post-destiny consequences, doubt we'll get there in less than a decade - that is, 2020.

Furthermore, I disagree with your assumptions that cataclismic events are necessary to bring about positive change, and that cataclismic events even bring about positive changes. most of the time.

 

[Turtletrekker]

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.

Exactly.

 

[JarodRussell]

Therin of Andor

And in each of those instances (even in Matt Decker's, arguably - despite the man needing serious therapy) the heroes sacrificed themselves in order to win the day.

Yeah, because it was possible to win the day with that action.

 

[JD]

JD

We're not at that utopic point, JD - in fact, we're far from it:

Unless the lit line goes through a reboot or does a rush job (therefore, unrealistic) of the post-destiny consequences, doubt we'll get there in less than a decade - that is, 2020.

Furthermore, I disagree with your assumptions that cataclismic events are necessary to bring about positive change, and that cataclismic events even bring about positive changes. most of the time.

Woah, I think you completlely misinterpreted what I was saying here. I know I don't always communicate my thoughts well. I didn't mean that we were at a utopic point, I was just pointing out that most of the major events that we've seen post-Destiny have been good, and that it wasn't all death and destruction.

As for you're second point, I didn't mean to say that cataclysmic events were necessary for positive change, I was just trying to say that there have been times were good things have happened because of horrible Destiny caliber events. I wasn't trying to make some big dramatic statement, I was just trying to provide a counter to all of the people talking about how dark TrekLit has become.

 

[Nardpuncher]

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:

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.


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.

Remember that when you start a debate with Christopher you're pretty much debating with http://seat42f.com/images/stories/t...jim-parsons-sheldon-big-bang-theory-photo.jpg

 

[Therin of Andor]

Yeah, because it was possible to win the day with that action.

And yet they didn't know that the tactic would actually work. Spock and Data would often even calculate that the odds were against winning.

 

[Christopher]

Woah, I think you completlely misinterpreted what I was saying here. I know I don't always communicate my thoughts well. I didn't mean that we were at a utopic point, I was just pointing out that most of the major events that we've seen post-Destiny have been good, and that it wasn't all death and destruction.

Right. I can't understand why some people assume that just because one trilogy went to a dark place, that means everything after it has to be equally dark forever and ever. I mean, "The Best of Both Worlds" put the TNG characters through hell, and the writers were honest enough to do a followup episode showing the healing process after those events and to give it long-term consequences on Picard's character, but for the most part, things got back to the status quo pretty quickly. Similarly, Trek Lit has given us two novels dealing with directly with the healing process after Destiny, along with other novels in the VGR and TTN series that are about getting back to exploration-type stories, and now they're moving on from there.

Sure, things are different now astropolitically, but not radically so from a storytelling perspective. Yeah, there's a Typhon Pact, but the books in that series are mainly dealing with its members on an individual or dual basis, and all in all those books shouldn't be too different from previous books about Starfleet crews dealing with rival political powers. (Well, there are differences -- we can have lasting change now, so the stakes are higher -- but I mean it won't be all war and chaos and death all the time.) And beyond that the books are branching into other areas with things like Indistinguishable from Magic and DTI: Watching the Clock. We're not all retelling Destiny. Destiny was one specific thing, a special event. It was the Federation's darkest hour, which by definition means that what follows is brighter.

 

[Sci]

Therin of Andor

And in each of those instances (even in Matt Decker's, arguably - despite the man needing serious therapy) the heroes sacrificed themselves in order to win the day.
They beleived in their chance to prevail and gave the last full measure of devotion for it.

Not so in 'Destiny'.
As a rule, the federates we saw no longer believed victory was possible; they were resigned to defeat and death; they had given up.
They sought not to achieve victory, but to have a dignified death.

This is complete bullshit. Every single Starfleet death we saw in Destiny, even when undertaken knowing that there was no way to achieve victory, was undertaken for a reason. Even during the destruction of Deneva, for instance, the Starfleet ships that sacrificed themselves did so knowing that every single second they distracted the Borg allowed more civilian ships to escape from the planet. They did it to save lives.

And even at the very end, when civilians are facing death, they do it either to save others' lives (Tuvok's son and his wife), or in a way demonstrating their refusal to be cowed or to panic. There is nothing un-humanist about facing inevitable death with dignity -- nor is there anything un-humanist about acknowledging when death is inevitable. (It is inevitable for all of us, after all.)

That is why, even when facing inevitable death at the hands of an indestructible foe that simply cannot be defeated, Destiny embodies Trek's humanism.

 

[captcalhoun]

It was the Federation's darkest hour, which by definition means that what follows is brighter.

you mean we had it's blackest night, now we get the brightest day?