I mainly found Brooks storyline interesting in that it allows the reader to visit and experience the "front lines" not only of the conflict, but early human expansion into deep space. Getting glimpses of Mars, Jupiter Station, Alpha Centauri, Archernar II and more in the Enterprise era was I think a smart way to really show the scale of the Coalition for the first time, not to mention the sheer size of the problem the Coalition faced during the Romulan War, and also to connect this kind of war reporting with what we see today with embedded TV journalism. Until that last few episodes, we never really got to see much of the other human colonies on the show. I agree, it takes away from the NX-01 characters, but it made the book interesting for me. My biggest problem with Brooks was that it was almost as if Martin forgot that Brooks was working for Starfleet Intelligence in the Demons/Terra Prime arc, unless that's something that's going to be recalled in the new novel. Speaking of which, the final cover art is now up, as reported in another thread... http://catalog.simonandschuster.com...&ob=0&pn=&ed=&showcart=&camefrom=&find=trek&a=
In all honesty, it depends on the conflict. Vietnam and the recent Gulf War has shown that censorship isn't all that great. Yet, we the war that we have shown in the book wasn't one of those types of wars. It was essentially a World War II-type of a war. So do we really need to have some reporter making comments about young men throwing their lives away when a belligerent enemy is just conquering and destroying their way to Earth? I do agree with you Zane about the showing of those colony worlds.
Not bad, but I'd expect to see Daedalus class ships in there rather than NXs. Maybe they fair better in this one. If the cover is this good, makes me wonder how much MORE AWESOME the German cover will be.
Do we need freedom of the press and freedom of dissent? Hell, yes. Otherwise what are we fighting for?
^"If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought, not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Even the worst tyranny lets its people speak out in favor of its actions and policies. The test of a free society is whether it protects people's right to speak against their own government.
The idea that the people on the home front know how the war is going depends on the people on the home front paying attention to the fact that a war is going on. I was born 18 years after WWII but I'd heard of D-Day, Midway, etc. when I was in grade school. I doubt many high school kids these days have any idea what country Helmand or Kandahar are in, and that war's been happening for half their lives.
I'm a believer of freedom of the press and also believe that if humans have grown/evolved into a better society then politicians should have nothing to hide. However, the problem of freedom, especially in such times as in the Romulan War is exercising that freedom responsibly. What happens when that reporter's freedom and my freedom to privacy are at odds or when her exercising her press freedom results in deaths? Too often, people are so concerned with their personal freedom and rights, they don't care if it violates the freedoms and rights of others. Another good point was made that the Brooks in Romulan War seems far different from the secret Starfleet agent from season 4. That does strike me as inconsistent.
Oh, come on. As I already said at the start of this digression, "Of course specific things like troop movements, stuff that would endanger lives, shouldn't be reported." That's already been stipulated. And American reporters are still Americans, and they don't want to see soldiers get killed. So the issue you're bringing up isn't even on the table here. Nobody is disputing it. The issue has to do with other kinds of wartime reporting, the kinds that keep the military honest and serve as a vital safeguard against abuses of power. Without that kind of transparency, we get things like Abu Ghraib.
This is one of the problems I have with the Romulan War series. When a novelist brings current political discussions into a novel about a fictional "advanced" society, it has to be done very deftly. Otherwise it destroys the illusion we all hold on to: that in the future mankind will be able to sort out its problems and live in peace and unity. If modern issues like "freedom of the press" and so forth are still being sorted out by the "advanced" democracy of the future, then the society in Star Trek is not really that ideal, and not that great after all. It is hard for me as a reader to believe that if the powers that be can still lean on the press, the press still has to serve as a guard against military brutality and corruption, mankind has truly "evolved". So when an author breaks that "wall" he has to do so very carefully. I personally feel that Mr Martin was rather heavy handed with his views. I can watch enough politics on TV and read enough arguments in the papers and magazines. When I read Star Trek I want to escape all that garbage and believe that humans can unite against an existential threat without all that "we better stand guard against brutality and the military brass are so mean and heavy handed" garbage.
Just a point. If the future society of humanity has pooled its resources, eliminated the drive for material gain, etc. then why does the press need to stand guard against "corruption"?
Correct. And I can see that perhaps Mr Martin was interested in discussing what happens when a large "advanced" democracy faces a threat. How would it respond? However that aspect of the story detracted from the thousands of interesting aspects of the WAR that could have been discussed.
^IMO it was an interesting aspect of the war. What other aspects would you like to see discussed? Given that we've only seen Part I thus far, it could be premature to assume other aspects won't be discussed in any case.
Watch "The Drumhead" again. And "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost." And Insurrection. The only way humanity can maintain that kind of morality is through eternal vigilance and self-discipline, otherwise we fall right back into the same old habits. While the societal ideal may be an abandonment of the pursuit of material gain, that doesn't mean the temptation won't still exist. And corruption isn't just about seeking money, it's about seeking power and privilege at the expense of others.
Have fun while waiting. It's planned for April 2013 at the moment. And that date was set before they announced a cutback in their output to one book per month recently due to dropping sales numbers, so I wouldn't be too surprised if it will be delayed.
Yep. Because if Star Trek has traditionally been about anything, it has been about making political commentary in a very subtle way.
True. Very true. Some of my least favorite shows were the ones that made overtly political statements. Some of FAVORITE shows were ones that made subtle statements. The episode were the Q wants to end his life was fantastic, and it made a subtle statement within the framework of a great story.
Correct. As a reader - my personal preference is for stories that don't touch on things I can read about in the Huffington Post/New York Times/The Daily Beast. When I read about an idealized future, I enjoy seeing the unity of races and species working together against common threats not policing themselves, or looking to root out corruption. What was remarkable about "The Drumhead" was how clearly out of place the actions of the antagonist were. It was easy to tell early on, that she was NOT like the rest of the society around her, and had no place there. She was clearly a villain albeit misguided. When corruption of that type is fictionalized, it is like a easily removed cancer. The reader or viewer can be reassured that everything is all right, and will be all right in the idealized future.
Personally I prefer the stories with a less idealized, more shades of gray universe, and find it more realistic than a universe where evil can always be easily identified and the heroes always triumph.