Spoilers Destiny: Lost Souls by David Mack Review Thread

[Thrawn]

Re: Star Trek: Destiny Book 3: Lost Souls - (SPOILERS)

TNG was a perversion. Right. Thanks for the chat, Sci.

I dunno, Trent. I mean, he was only talking about the first two seasons, and I think his characterization was pretty spot on. Exaggerated language, "perversion" is a bit strong, but that's a fairly valid critique.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Re: Star Trek: Destiny: Lost Souls - Discuss/Grade

I'm thinking this would pretty much have to be life for some of the highest ranking members. I'm mainly talking about the people who would have actually descided to try to wipe out the entire Changeling race, and murder the Federation President.

The Changeling plague always struck me as informed villainy. Due to the circumstances of the setting, Odo is the youngest member of their race and all of the Founders are guilty of war crimes (specifically unprovoked invasion of sovereign nations--which most of the Nazis were charged with) given their mind meld means ALL of them approved of it but Odo.

Thus, genocide against the Founders is merely a legitimate act of war since their entire race (but Odo) is involved. It's not as cut and dry as murdering the Daleks but it's a far more complicated action than people make it out to be. It also renders the Female Changeling's lone war crimes trial to be a farce of justice given she's nothing more than the Fall guy for hundreds of millions of deaths IN ADDITION to the genocide of Cardassia.

Anyway, a beautiful beautiful ending to the Borg War.

Bravo!

 

[Arpy]

Uh, Riker was right in "The Last Outpost" regarding the Ferengi as idiots. Don't romanticize diversity. Their whole society is based on swindling those they couldn't steal from or conquer or oppress or, well, eat - remember, the Ferengi weren't supposed to be comical at first. Just because they managed to develop warp doesn't make them equals any more than Nazi Germany was just as valid at mid-century America. If you're saying that it's just their way to be...basically assholes, and they can't change being that way, I find that a perverse interpretation of cultural diversity. Is there something special about us humans that we can let go of slavery and treating women like property that other beings simply can't come to?

 

[Charles Phipps]

Uh, Riker was right in "The Last Outpost" regarding the Ferengi as idiots. Don't romanticize diversity. Their whole society is based on swindling those they couldn't steal from or conquer or oppress or, well, eat - remember, the Ferengi weren't supposed to be comical at first. Just because they managed to develop warp doesn't make them equals any more than Nazi Germany was just as valid at mid-century America. If you're saying that it's just their way to be...basically assholes, and they can't change being that way, I find that a perverse interpretation of cultural diversity. Is there something special about us humans that we can let go of slavery and treating women like property that other beings simply can't come to?

It's the "It's easy to be perfect in a world of Replicators and Holodecks" as that's the Bread and Circuses of the 24th century. I like to think Season 1 reflects a time in Star Trek when humans have gotten slightly arrogant about their place in the universe. Q, in his Omnipotent TeacherTM role, shakes them out of this complacency. The Borg, Dominion War, and so on teach them humility.

 

[Sci]

Hmm. Re-reading that post of mine from 2009, I've got to say that I've reconsidered some of my opinions about the Federation. I still think it's often ethnocentric and patronizing to foreign cultures, but I'm less inclined to be as judgmental towards it as I was. I don't necessarily agree anymore that it's a fundamentally sinister culture -- but it I do think it has some very sinister elements.

Uh, Riker was right in "The Last Outpost" regarding the Ferengi as idiots. Don't romanticize diversity. Their whole society is based on swindling those they couldn't steal from or conquer or oppress or, well, eat -

Riker barely knew anything about Ferengi culture in "The Last Outpost." He'd interacted with the Ferengi crew for all of a half-hour, and knew only the briefest of brief summaries of how their culture worked and what they believed. He didn't know about their belief in the Great Material Continuum. He didn't know about the role of the Ferengi Commerce Authority. He didn't know about the role of Ferengi dissidents and Ferengi feminists; he didn't know about the roles of Ferengi Socialists, or about the inner conflicts of Ferengi society. He didn't know that for all the oppression caused by Ferengi Capitalism, the Ferengi had never had a history of mass violence or genocide. He didn't know the ups or the downs of their culture.

Riker has every right to be weary of extreme Capitalism, but he has no business passing judgment on a culture of billions based on a half-hour's interaction with a few guys. That's like deciding you can pass judgment on all of Brazilian or Arab culture because you once stood in line behind a guy from there at the bus station. It's absurd.

And it's just fucking creepy hearing him tell the Tkon that the Ferengi shouldn't die "because then they would learn nothing." Not because their lives have intrinsic value -- no. They should live so that we can spread Federation values to them. Disgusting.

Just because they managed to develop warp doesn't make them equals any more than Nazi Germany was just as valid at mid-century America.

But that illustrates my point perfectly -- by what right would someone pass judgment on all of German culture based on the Nazis? What about the role of German dissidents during the Nazi era? What about understanding that the Nazi era is one historical era in German history, not the defining historical era? What about understanding the role Germans played in the Enlightenment? In developing social democracy and the welfare state? Etc.

It would be unfair to judge all of German culture based on a half-hour's interaction with a Nazi. It is unfair to judge all of Ferengi culture based on a half-hour's interaction with the Ferengi crew in early TNG.

If you're saying that it's just their way to be...basically assholes, and they can't change being that way, I find that a perverse interpretation of cultural diversity. Is there something special about us humans that we can let go of slavery and treating women like property that other beings simply can't come to?

No. What I am saying is that a half-hour with a few guys is not enough time to get an adequate -- or even honest -- sense of what an entire culture is like, and that even if you object to some of their philosophical values, you shouldn't act like they themselves as unique individuals are necessarily inferior or that their lives only have value insofar as you can convert them to your beliefs.

I mean, hell, I'm a leftist in real life. I think unregulated Capitalism is pure evil, and I like that Star Trek depicts Capitalism as an oppressive era in Human history -- because it is. But if I'm Riker on that away mission? I'm gonna be weary of Ferengi Capitalism. I'm gonna stand up for the equality of my female crew members. I'm gonna defend my people and Federation property against Ferengi incursions, and I'm gonna make sure the Ferengi don't take control of Tkon technology or have the upper hand in influencing the Tkon sentinel. But I'm also gonna stop myself from coming to any final judgments about the nature of a society I've only just encountered and do not truly understand. I'm gonna stand up for the equal rights of those Ferengi crew members when the Tkon offers to kill them.

And I'm gonna bear in mind that, hell, maybe the Ferengi might have something to teach us, too -- because the whole point of exploration and seeking out new life is understanding that we don't know everything, and that wisdom can come from sources that defy our prejudices.

Thus, genocide against the Founders is merely a legitimate act of war

There is no such thing as legitimate genocide. Ever. Species have a right to exist, full stop.

since their entire race (but Odo) is involved.

Except that we know both from the canon, which established the existence of Founder infants, and from novels like The Dominion: Olympus Descending (which established the existence of Founders with minds not fully-developed and unaware of the outside universe) that the Founders are not all involved in the Dominion decision-making process, and are not all guilty of war crimes. There are in fact, what can only be described as Founder civilians, just like any other society. And we don't know that there aren't Founder dissidents who opposed policies but didn't carry the day.

 

[Charles Phipps]

There is no such thing as legitimate genocide. Ever. Species have a right to exist, full stop.

And what if a race consists of a single (remaining) person who is a mass murderer and attempting to kill others? Which capture is not an option? By killing him, you have committed genocide. *

Which is the essential problem. The Founders as a political organization are evil, repressive, cruel, and genocidal. Odo is not a Founder but he's a Changeling. The Changelings not involved in the Founders are blameless and infecting Odo to infect the Founders is an act of murder on Odo.

I liken it to the Doctor's destruction of the Gallifreyans who, during the last period of their life, decided as a group to destroy everyone else in the universe with only 2 objections. Every Gallifreyan is a criminal with intent to commit genocide on a massive scale. It's just so they're the last of their race.

Star Trek, of course, dodges this issue entirely and the Founders presumably learn from Odo how to be happy and peace-loving beings--which is probably a more realistic ending to the war and reflects what might happen in real life. In RL, you have to forgive and sometimes let bad people off the hook if it means more people are saved in the long run. That's how peace gets made and cycles of revenge are ended.

However, saying Section 31 is absolutely evil for their actions also ignores that the only reason the Cardassians are alive is the THREAT of the plague. The Founders didn't learn reason or compassion, they learned surrender.

Except that we know both from the canon, which established the existence of Founder infants, and from novels like The Dominion: Olympus Descending (which established the existence of Founders with minds not fully-developed and unaware of the outside universe) that the Founders are not all involved in the Dominion decision-making process, and are not all guilty of war crimes. There are in fact, what can only be described as Founder civilians, just like any other society. And we don't know that there aren't Founder dissidents who opposed policies but didn't carry the day.

I'm merely going from the DS9 series and my observations of it. Odo's position as a being divorced from the Great Link means he has a different perspective from the other Founders. That, other than themselves, they are unified in their opinions and ideals. I took them to be a Gestalt intelligence by the Female Changeling's description they are an ocean and only become drops by conscious will. In short, they're a hive mind like the Borg. Odo's individuality is a unique concept (or semi-unique) because he and the other Changelings "cast into the wind" are different from the other Founders.

The lack of dissent being based on the fact no changeling has killed another (or seemingly disagreed) until Odo.

Point taken, however, on the novels. I don't LIKE the message that Section 31 is justified in creating a WMD bio-weapon but I thought it was ambiguous since the only way to save billions of lives was through it's use. The mercy shown at the end of the series seemed "tainted" in a way that's never really acknowledged. For me, it seemed, "We can destroy you at any time. Stop attacking us."

* I'd like to also clarify in RL, there's no such thing as "tainted blood" and genocide is the vilest crime in the world. Any human being, no matter his parents or their actions, can learn to be a good person and "sins of the father" is nonsense. Thus questioning whether it's right or wrong to kill "purely evil" races like Daleks or destroying the Borg is a fantasy ethical question, of no real relevance in RL.

However, the issue of WMDs and the threat of their usage as well as letting war criminals go seems to have been papered over in the episode and intrigues me.

 

[Charles Phipps]

I'd also like to add that this ties into what's good about Lost Souls. The Borg as cybernetic zombies is dealt with in a respectful manner. The Borg, like the Daleks, are treated both seriously in their concept (they are a race of "pure evil" because they're each without free will) but that destruction of them is evil in itself.

J.R.R Tolkien, frequently accused of being a racist in his own life, was actually troubled by the concept of "purely evil" Orcs as they were the first real race of note created solely to be cannon fodder for our heroes to effortlessly cut down. He was aware of the troubling consequences of this as it conflicted with his Catholic faith and, in all likelihood, reminded him of the kinds of arguments he heard in the 1940s.

Star Trek created one of the best "cannon fodder" races in the Borg for these fantasy ethical discussions and the best use of the Borg after BOBW was the merciless deconstruction of this. "Hugh" showed the Borg who grew up in the Collective were not evil or malicious (like the Founders) but simply mislead as to the nature of their situation. Seven of Nine ran with this premise and the "Cooperative" indicates that without the merciless driving will of the Queen, the Borg might actually be something people could willingly join.

Star Trek Destiny is all about the redemption of the Borg and the Caeliar is a necessary deconstruction of their role as absolute evil. It's a tight balance to walk but addresses the issue of universal slavery, "innate evil", redemption, and so on without failing. That's probably the biggest accomplishment of Lost Souls.

It nicely says, "No, Picard was RIGHT not to kill the Collective. He might have saved sixty billion but he'd have killed trillions."

 

[Sci]

There is no such thing as legitimate genocide. Ever. Species have a right to exist, full stop.

And what if a race consists of a single (remaining) person who is a mass murderer and attempting to kill others?

1. Could you possibly come up with a more ridiculous scenario? "What if there's a nuclear bomb that an Orc is planting in downtown Manhattan, and the only way to stop him is to go to Mount Doom to re-create the One Ring?!"

2. That race is already extinct in any meaningful sense. Killing one guy in an act of immediate self-defense is not genocide; that culture no longer exists, because cultures need more than one person.

However, saying Section 31 is absolutely evil for their actions also ignores that the only reason the Cardassians are alive is the THREAT of the plague.

The only reason the Female Shapeshifter ordered the genocide of Cardassia was that she was driven to irrationality by the virus and the knowledge that her people were dying. Had she been in her right state of mind, she would not have so ordered the extinction of the Cardassian people.

Except that we know both from the canon, which established the existence of Founder infants, and from novels like The Dominion: Olympus Descending (which established the existence of Founders with minds not fully-developed and unaware of the outside universe) that the Founders are not all involved in the Dominion decision-making process, and are not all guilty of war crimes. There are in fact, what can only be described as Founder civilians, just like any other society. And we don't know that there aren't Founder dissidents who opposed policies but didn't carry the day.

I'm merely going from the DS9 series and my observations of it.

DSN canonically established the existence of Founder infants and of dissent within the link -- remember the debate over what to do about Odo's killing another Founder? So canonically, all DSN established was that the Founders mind meld, that not all Founders make decisions, and that the Founders who do make decisions can disagree with one-another. Hardly reasonable to decide they all deserve death.

Odo's position as a being divorced from the Great Link means he has a different perspective from the other Founders. That, other than themselves, they are unified in their opinions and ideals.

Nope. This is canonically inaccurate. Re-watch the DSN Season Four finale. Disagreement exists within the link.

Point taken, however, on the novels. I don't LIKE the message that Section 31 is justified in creating a WMD bio-weapon but I thought it was ambiguous since the only way to save billions of lives was through it's use.

Not really. The Dominion lost the war through conventional means, not through the virus. Their forces had been beaten and forced to mass at Cardassia. Had the Female Shapeshifter been thinking rationally instead of facing imminent species mortality, she almost certainly would have surrendered and left the Alpha Quadrant -- her order that the Jem'Hadar and Breen stand their ground was the result of her irrationality from the virus, not the kind of cool, calm, calculating decision she'd normally make. The virus damn near cost the Federation thousands more lives than the war would otherwise have cost.

ETA:

I'd also like to add that this ties into what's good about Lost Souls. The Borg as cybernetic zombies is dealt with in a respectful manner. The Borg, like the Daleks, are treated both seriously in their concept (they are a race of "pure evil" because they're each without free will) but that destruction of them is evil in itself.

J.R.R Tolkien, frequently accused of being a racist in his own life, was actually troubled by the concept of "purely evil" Orcs as they were the first real race of note created solely to be cannon fodder for our heroes to effortlessly cut down. He was aware of the troubling consequences of this as it conflicted with his Catholic faith and, in all likelihood, reminded him of the kinds of arguments he heard in the 1940s.

Star Trek created one of the best "cannon fodder" races in the Borg for these fantasy ethical discussions and the best use of the Borg after BOBW was the merciless deconstruction of this. "Hugh" showed the Borg who grew up in the Collective were not evil or malicious (like the Founders) but simply mislead as to the nature of their situation. Seven of Nine ran with this premise and the "Cooperative" indicates that without the merciless driving will of the Queen, the Borg might actually be something people could willingly join.

Star Trek Destiny is all about the redemption of the Borg and the Caeliar is a necessary deconstruction of their role as absolute evil. It's a tight balance to walk but addresses the issue of universal slavery, "innate evil", redemption, and so on without failing. That's probably the biggest accomplishment of Lost Souls.

It nicely says, "No, Picard was RIGHT not to kill the Collective. He might have saved sixty billion but he'd have killed trillions."

Agreed completely.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Point taken and conceded on the Dominion War. I was incorrect.

And thanks!

 

[Charles Phipps]

Here's my final review, which was inspired by this discussion:

http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/2013/06/star-trek-destiny-lost-souls-review.html

​

Note: This review goes into a VERY long digression on ethics in science fiction.

The planet-shattering, literally, conclusion to the Star Trek Destiny story arc. The Borg have finally brought the entirety of their military assets to the Alpha Quadrant and are exterminating the whole of the Federation. Faced with oblivion on all sides and an Andromeda-esque ending as the best seeming outcome, our heroes must figure out a way to guarantee civilization's survival. Part of what has made Star Trek Destiny so appealing is its avoidance of the usual Star Trek-esque deus ex machina that characterized the series--can it keep it up?

No, no it can't.

What prevents this from being bad is the ending is entirely consist with the themes of Star Trek, carefully laid out, and worked for by our heroes from beginning to end. Furthermore, it has an ending which nicely wraps up the "Paradox of the Borg." The Paradox of the Borg is something that my fellow Trekkies and I discussed long and hard over Doritos, once. Basically, the Borg are innately anti-Trek in their theme.

If you believe the Borg are based on Doctor Who's Cybermen, you might actually believe this is by design. Doctor Who frequently has its protagonist run into purely-evil aliens. These aliens serve as personifications of Nazism, communism, and various other political ideologies so the idea of obliterating them is not quite so disgusting as it might be were they Klingons.

Even so, the show has the Doctor debate over these acts of xenocide as they challenge his brain that mass murder of an entire species could ever be justified. It's a brain teaser more than an ethical question, undermining arguments for genocide by showing the ridiculous lengths you'd have to go to in order to justify it in RL. Unfortunately, this bit of satire is frequently lost on fans who just think it's a justification of genocide (even if only in a fantasy environment). Warhammer 40K is less subtle about its satire but equally mishandled by its fans.

The Paradox of the Borg is that in a series that is about finding the value in differences, there is a species with no value. The Borg exist only through enslaving others and destroy all that is different about people. They are the ghostly specter of the Other brought back to life and the only rational response to them is hatred. Hatred for what they stand for, hatred for what they represent. In a series about understanding, compromise, and peace--there can be none with the Borg.

Which, when you think about them, makes them crap villains since they undermine the series' entire theme. If forgiveness and love is not an option, Star Trek's Federation is painfully naive and wrong about the universe. Yes, the Feddies can make peace with Klingons and Xindi but THOSE guys? Yeah, not happening.

I think Star Trek's writers must have realized this on a subconscious level because the best episodes of the Borg are actually about trying to find the good in them. "Hugh", "Unity", and Seven of Nine's entire arc are about finding ways the Borg might peacefully co-exist with the Federation. I love Star Trek: First Contact but but the Borg are zombies and exist to be shot at with a Tommy gun.

Star Trek Destiny: Lost Souls is about solving the riddle of how to live with the Borg without violating every ethical principle you hold dear. If you destroy the Borg, you're murdering trillions and justifying xenocide. If you leave the Borg alone, you're sanctioning the slavery of trillions. They're a race which exists on the violation of the soul and are seemingly impossible to reconcile with the Federation's values.

There's a bunch of stuff I could address in this book about Erika Hernandez's role, Captain Picard's breakdown, and Geordi LaForge making a principled stand in the face of genocide. I don't always agree with the characters, Geordi's refusal to build a super weapon based on Data's sacrifice to stop a similar one sounds good, but to refuse to do so even to save countless lives--it borders on sophistry. I had similar problems with Insurrection as a fairly typical, 'stop people taking the locals' stuff' story becomes problematic when the 'stuff' in question is medical supplies.

I'm a fan of ethical dilemmas in my science fiction. "In the Pale Moonlight" has Sisko not only murder two people to bring the Romulans into the Dominion War on the Federation side, it also has him directly responsible for the thousands of Romulans who will likely die as a result of his actions.

Section 31 using a biological WMD on the Founders has been argued at my table many a time between my fellow fans--asking whether the Founders are a legitimate military target if their entire race is a gestalt. However, any fantasy fiction which justifies genocide has gone down a very slippery slope. In RL, George W. Bush used 24's contrived, "what if there's a nuclear bomb that needs to be stopped" to justify torture.

The book's heart is a reaffirmation of the Federation's values of tolerance, respect, and understanding in the face of an absolutely unthinkable situation. Maybe it ended on a deus ex machina but the circumstances which precipitated it were ones as contrived as the resolution.

In real life, there is no such thing as purely evil human beings. There are people who choose to be evil and who are damaged, broken, or insane. We can only meet these people with compassion, refusal to submit, courage, and even forgiveness (if so warranted). I may not like the final choice of the book's central protagonist but the rest of it is a breath of fresh air in a world of very dark science-fiction.

10/10

 

[Iamnotspock]

Part of what has made Star Trek Destiny so appealing is its avoidance of the usual Star Trek-esque deus ex machina that characterized the series--can it keep it up?

No, no it can't.

What prevents this from being bad is the ending is entirely consist with the themes of Star Trek, carefully laid out, and worked for by our heroes from beginning to end.

Surely that's what prevents it from being a deus ex machina, full stop?

 

[Charles Phipps]

DEM, I'd argue is not a bad thing. Greek theater wasn't necessarily bad just because Zeus showed up at the end to sort things out. But, perhaps you're right and I'm simply wrong.

 

[David Mack]

Technically, the role of the Caeliar is not that of a DEM; their role has been established and foreshadowed throughout the trilogy. A DEM is a force that, without prior establishment or involvement in the narrative, appears at the end to resolve the story. The Caeliar's participation in the story is directly impelled by the actions of Erika Hernandez as well as Picard, Riker, and Dax.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Thanks! I corrected my review.

 

[Arpy]

Uh, Riker was right in "The Last Outpost" regarding the Ferengi as idiots. Don't romanticize diversity. Their whole society is based on swindling those they couldn't steal from or conquer or oppress or, well, eat - remember, the Ferengi weren't supposed to be comical at first. Just because they managed to develop warp doesn't make them equals any more than Nazi Germany was just as valid at mid-century America. If you're saying that it's just their way to be...basically assholes, and they can't change being that way, I find that a perverse interpretation of cultural diversity. Is there something special about us humans that we can let go of slavery and treating women like property that other beings simply can't come to?

It's the "It's easy to be perfect in a world of Replicators and Holodecks" as that's the Bread and Circuses of the 24th century.

How would replicators and holodecks by themselves make it easy to be perfect? Couldn't replicators make it more difficult to understand the worth of things, and holodecks make it easier to become unsocial and alienated? Wealth and leisure alone do not make one a moral a person.

…by what right would someone pass judgment on all of German culture based on the Nazis? … What about understanding that the Nazi era is one historical era in German history, not the defining historical era?

Exactly why Riker argued for their survival against the Tkon who was ready to kill them.

Plus Riker was telling the Tkon to spare the lives of the three Ferengi that actually were "Nazis."

...Not because their lives have intrinsic value -- no. They should live so that we can spread Federation values to them. Disgusting.

This may be off-topic but what exactly do you believe are Federation values are that shouldn't be spread?

Riker was arguing that they be permitted to live in the hopes that they'd naturally evolve (you suggested the Federation teach them anything) to something other than what they'd showed themselves as: thieves and killers. In fact Riker says though the Ferengi [Alliance] may one day destroy [the Federation], that's a chance his people are willing to take in the hope that the Ferengi will change their ways. That's a pretty damn admirable, if a little too idealistic.

What I am saying is that a half-hour with a few guys is not enough time to get an adequate -- or even honest -- sense of what an entire culture is like, and that even if you object to some of their philosophical values, you shouldn't act like they themselves as unique individuals are necessarily inferior or that their lives only have value insofar as you can convert them to your beliefs.

It's episodic television. Riker cut to the chase. He wasn't wrong about them. That they were farcically simplistic and loathsome wasn't the issue; that was the conceit that set up the moral dilemma actually being discussed - what to do about such a people.

Regarding the "intrinsic value of all life," here's a brain teaser, if the Ferengi were incapable of being anything but thieves and killers (if they were like the xenomorphs from Alien…alive but anti-life) should the Tkon have permitted them to be a perpetual threat or should he have eliminated the threat? As Hicks said queasily comically, "nuke them from orbit"?

Finally, Phipps, if the remaining survivor of a race is a mass murderer, I say it is genocide and wrong to kill them in the 24th century. Given their level of psychiatric and genetic-engineering/cloning tech, I'm sure both the murderer and their race could be saved. Not that most people would want to.

 

[Charles Phipps]

How would replicators and holodecks by themselves make it easy to be perfect? Couldn't replicators make it more difficult to understand the worth of things, and holodecks make it easier to become unsocial and alienated? Wealth and leisure alone do not make one a moral a person.

It's more the issue that I am a believer that "civilization is needed to be civilized." It's not that people are necessarily more primitive but it becomes easier to be compassionate and peaceful when there's less concern about day-to-day survival. I don't see this as a flaw, merely a state of reality that absence and struggling to survive makes it hard to care about things other than survival.

Finally, Phipps, if the remaining survivor of a race is a mass murderer, I say it is genocide and wrong to kill them in the 24th century. Given their level of psychiatric and genetic-engineering/cloning tech, I'm sure both the murderer and their race could be saved. Not that most people would want to.

I'm not a believer in the death penalty nor do I approve of WMDs. However, I enjoy postulating questions that put us in tough places. In the case of our hypothetical, "last surviving member of a race is a scumbag" I actually do believe there's a point that the loss of something unique in the universe is something to be avoided (so says Data in MOAM).

My point was more a "devil is in the details" sort of question. Genocide is the most horrific crime in the history of the world but operating from the assumption that every single Founder is a consenting adult in a campaign of mass murder and conquest--makes the thing more questionable than I thought DS9 was meant to do. I'm actually rather glad to find out I was wrong since I always felt that was troubling.

As I mentioned in my review of the book, I want Star Trek to always come down on the side of peace-making.

 

[Mizrach]

Most beautiful ST book I read so far.
Why I see no animated Destiny movies? Are those CBS's people mad? This story is on par with the best space operas of the new millennium. Much better than Expanse for example.
Really a great work. But I'm sad: no Borg forever? Maybe some Cubes in other dimensions survive... I don't know if other enemies can really equal the Borg.

 

[Nyotarules]

The Borg only exist due to a human temporal cockup as an agent of the DTI novels recognised. Now why didn't the DTI go back in time and stop the Columbia from disappearing???

 

[Christopher]

The Borg only exist due to a human temporal cockup as an agent of the DTI novels recognised.

I'm pretty certain nobody in my novels ever said that. My understanding is that the temporal incident in Destiny would've happened anyway and that the Columbia crew's role in events was peripheral.

 

[Idran]

I'm pretty certain nobody in my novels ever said that. My understanding is that the temporal incident in Destiny would've happened anyway and that the Columbia crew's role in events was peripheral.

I've mentioned this before, but even if that was what was intended, I still think it makes more sense for the Columbia to have been the instigator that "caused" the formation of the closed loop (not sure if that's the proper language, but in the sense that were the Columbia not there, there would have been no closed loop); thematically it fits for humanity to have been such a key part of the Borg's history, and narratively the tunnels were only temporal as well as spatial specifically because of the influence of the Columbia crew in corrupting the Caeliar's equations.

Though still, even if given that, @Nyotarules: 1) because that's not what the DTI does, 2) because even if they did it anyway, I imagine some downstream agency would've pulled rank and stopped them, and 3) even if no downstream agency stopped them, the Caeliar themselves might well have done something to prevent it considering they were nearly as focused on not changing history as Lucsly, and there's no way they wouldn't have detected it.