Agreed, but it was significantly amped up in the third film to the point that the climactic event basically took place across all of time simultaneously. (Possibly in alternate universes as well? Some of the time travel logic in Face the Music was confusing at best. Amazing movie all the same though.)
Seems pretty arbitrary to me to doubt the science characters this time. It was as internally consistent in its depiction of time travel as ST usually is. I mean, yes and no? I agree the books would have been improved by showing more political complexity to Devidian society. But "gorging themselves on death energy" is basically what we in real life are doing right now with our civilizational addiction to fossil fuels. And anyone who has ever known or loved a drug addict knows how self-destructive people can get. So it's not that unrealistic. Of course it's a choice. All narratives are constructed using choices. It didn't have to be about the inevitability of death -- but it did if the authors wanted to be honest about the quest for meaning in a mortal life. Yes, we have established that some fans want their Star Trek to avoid dealing with the inevitability of death, even though that is literally the only experience every human being has in common. And that hostility to the idea of Star Trek depicting the inevitability of death is the real motivation behind every other petty, arbitrary complaint.
It's one thing for the science officers' own crewmates to trust their judgment. It's another for strangers to trust them, especially when they're saying something nobody wants to hear.
Am I misunderstanding, or is your premise that when Spock (for example) gave his scientific opinion of the best course of action for the needs of the many, everyone went along with it without any qualms? The whole thing reminds me of this exchange from DS9.
Sure -- for characters in the story. But I'm saying it's arbitrary for an audience member to suddenly decide that Spock, Data, Geordi, and the other scientific expert characters are no longer reliable arbiters of the scientific plot developments occurring within the story. No. I am asserting that Spock, Data, et al, are reliable sources of information about what his happening in the narrative -- to wit, that the First Splinter Timeline is unstable and will inevitably collapse, that every other timeline is in danger of being destroyed by the Devidians, and that the only way to save every other timeline is to retroactively nullify the existence of the First Splinter Timeline. The question is whether you go into denial about the inevitability of death, or you take action to imbue your death with meaning by protecting others. Absolutely not the same. The act of nullifying the First Splinter Timeline was the mechanism by which to defeat the enemy; it was not an act of surrender. ETA: It's also pretty clear from "Statistical Probability" that the calculations Bashir and the Jack Pack come up with are a few people getting high on their own supply, not actual inevitability. Whereas in Coda, you literally have multiple independent genius-level scientific intellects verifying the data and its conclusions.
Nobody said anything of the sort. Lawman's comment that you were responding to was, and I quote, "Sure, Spock (and Data and Wesley) said so, but everyone else basically just had to trust their expertise and/or insight... IOW, take it on faith." That is obviously talking about the characters' trust for them, not the audience's. Lawman was saying it was unrealistic for the characters to trust the science officers' assertions as implicitly as the audience would.
Then in fairness, I must concede that I misread the original post and thus inaccurately understood the critique. But even from a Watsonian POV, I think it's arbitrary to imagine that no one would trust Data, Spock, et al. I mean, the narrative made it clear that there were plenty of people who distrusted them. But the ones who did trust their judgment were people who knew these characters and had good reason to trust them, or were people who trusted the folks who had decided to trust them. For example, Mirror Picard may not have had the training to understand all the science, but he trusted Director Saavik and the Memory Omega scientists whom Data and Geordi worked with when figuring the situation out. Edited to add: It wasn't faith in the religious sense -- it was trust given to people who had earned their trust many times in the past. End edit. Plus, y'know, reality was collapsing around them, so it wasn't like their assertions lacked for empirical verification as the story went on.
Speaking as someone who had complaints about the trilogy, they didn't come from the fact that I have a problem with Star Trek depicting the inevitability of death. Was I happy that Coda ended by killing off the entire First Splinter universe? No. I was hoping for an "And the adventures continue" type of ending. I can dislike the ending without having a problem with the authors making a big statement about how everyone dies. That said, many of the complaints I had would still exist even if we had been given an ending closer to the one I desired. I thought the action scenes became repetitive and a chore to sit through. I just started skimming over them, and I'm someone who likes reading action scenes and thinks all three authors have written thrilling action scenes in the past. I wasn't a fan of how they focused primarily on TNG characters and on characters from the TV series. This was an ending to Treklit as it had been for decades, and I wanted to spend time with characters that we have no chance of seeing ever again. The detour to the Mirror Universe took up way too much time and we really didn't need yet another Picard to draw attention away from other characters. The entire plot with Riker going insane and most of the Titan crew either not noticing or being unable to do anything about it was pointless and frustrating because it made the Titan crew look incompetent, especially since this isn't the first time this has happened with Riker. Ignoring all of DRGIII's plots and characters in the very small section we actually spend on DS9. Sure, I loved Ro and Quark being a couple again so I can't complain too much about this one but still. Also, it was weird that they never used Rebecca who has time manipulation powers. Rene being aged up went nowhere. They didn't do anything special with the older Rene and it didn't make the threat posed by the Devidians any worse. They were already literally killing off entire universes. It felt like wasted time that could have gone to other characters. I don't want this entire thing to be negative. I liked aspects of all three novels even if I wasn't happy with the end goal. All three are written well and I'm happy that the writers cared enough to create a trilogy of books to end the litverse.
Again, you're misrepresenting what was said. The statement wasn't that "no one" would trust them, just that it seemed implausible that everyone would trust them so easily, given how much was at stake.
But everyone didn't. The narrative was very clear on that. The ones who did were people who had good reason to trust these experts.
People questioned them, but didn't they all eventually come around and agree to participate in the plan? Which would mean they did ultimately trust them.
It's really not. I'm not the only poster who's explained the difference. Also, there's another big difference between those close to them believing their claims (say, Picard and Beverly), and essentially all of Starfleet plus lots of allies from a mirror universe jumping on board the bandwagon. Wasn't anybody trying to say "wait, hold on, there must be some solution where the universe survives, or at the very very least we know if we've succeeded in saving another one?" It really wasn't. Yesterday's Enterprise was much better than this. Trials and Tribble-ations was better. CLB's DTI books are better. And that's just off the top of my head. Not to mention countless examples from other SF (Asimov's End of Eternity springs to mind, for instance). Besides, why set the bar so low? "Trek usually sucks at time travel, so it's okay if the story does too" is a very lenient standard for a story that's supposed to be A Big Deal. "Petty and arbitrary"? Are you trying to offend people? We're sharing aesthetic opinions here. We certainly don't have to agree, but being dismissive of all contrary opinions doesn't lend itself to productive discussion. I went into this trilogy wanting to like it. Like I said, I've very much enjoyed other work by these authors. And to be sure, even this trilogy had its effective, affecting moments! (David Mack, in particular, had many of them in the final volume.) But on the whole, the story simply didn't hang together in a satisfying way. Not in terms of plot, nor of theme, nor of characterization.
I mean, it's been almost a year since I read the trilogy, but as I recall, most of Starfleet, the Federation, and the Commonwealth rejects their claims. Starfleet literally hunts Picard and company down. Edited to add: The only Starfleet crews that side with Picard are the Enterprise, DS9/Defiant, and Titan crews. End edit. It was a handful of Memory Omega ships. Most of the Commonwealth, as explained in the Parliament scene, rejected Spock's explanation, and as a result most of the Commonwealth's resources weren't released to them. Literally the Parliament scene.
Yeah, that scene kinda bothered me. It wasn't presented as people pulling together to solve a problem against the odds (as in most of Trek), or even just being determined to go down fighting as a matter of principle (as in the DS9 dialogue quoted upthread), but instead as a bunch of short-sighted self-serving types trapped in denial, sticking their heads in the sand. Also, there were precious few actual characters in the story arguing against the sense of fatalism. When I said "everyone" jumped on board, I grant I was generalizing for rhetorical effect... but the fact remains that those with opposing views were mostly nameless "off-screen" figures, or if they had a scene, just straw men. That's the kind of argument that needs steel-manning. If it all really, really had to play out the way it did, I'd have liked to see our heroes with their backs to the wall having to explain exactly how and why, to the satisfaction of actual credible challengers.
.... I really don't know what you're asking for then. First you say you want to know, "Wasn't anybody trying to say 'wait, hold on, there must be some solution where the universe survives, or at the very very least we know if we've succeeded in saving another one?'" I point out that that's what happened in the Parliament scene, and now you're complaining that people didn't accept Spock's word? What fatalism? Recognizing the inevitability of mortality but acting to ensure one's death has meaning and purpose to protect others is not fatalism. President zh'Tarash was not a nameless offscreen character. She was a pretty significant long-term recurring character.
I only really got into the nove'verse this decade, around 2013-2014 (though I did have the one of the 'A Time To...' and a couple of the Titan Novels before that, I didn't spread out to other series until those years), so maybe that's why i feel this way. But the ending didn't bother me. With the new 24th Century shows coming in, there was almost no way for them to continue it. I'm glad they went out with a bang instead of a whisper.
I'm back in the past reading though "A Time To..." and knowing the end isn't ruining my enjoyment one bit.
Exactly, it's the journey, not the destination. I'm still buying and reading Star Wars Legends books I've never read before even though that continuity really isn't continuing anymore outside of the SWTOR MMO.