Spoilers Catching up on the last 4 years of TrekLit

[Thrawn]

Fear Itself

James Swallow makes so much of this tie-in writing thing look easy. The escalation of conflicts, the lack of any need for a B-plot, the introduction of the theme and denouement of the piece in bookending sequences in Saru’s quarters (one where he fights of a holographic attacker, one where he disengages that protocol and engages with Burnham instead), the clockwork changing of the situation so one particular conflict never grows stale… This is textbook tie-in fiction, building on characters in ways we wouldn’t see on screen, connecting to past canon (great use of Peliar species), and wrapping it all in a perfectly paced tale of escalation of both physical and emotional stakes. The first quarter or so, in particular, is effectively flawless. I found the mounting tension as Saru discovers the Gorlans and then can’t keep himself from investigating further utterly enthralling, featuring surprising but believable turns of character and a great mystery partially fueled by the UT not working.

After that, I do think things become a bit more by the numbers. Once the hijacking happens, the UT starts working and some of the sense of mystery in the story is lost. There are a lot of characters just acting really aggressive and dumb for a solid part of the middle of the story, not even in their own best interests, just in prejudicial and irritating ways. And sure plenty of people in real life behave that way, but it isn’t as interesting a conflict as something a bit more carefully considered, where the different interests are genuine but incompatible. We, for instance, lost the ability to have a more complex discussion of immigration and self-determination when the planet was completely barren (instead of, say, a bit disappointing) and the Peliar admiral didn’t care about them at all and just wanted them to die. Just friction then for Saru to deal with. It's also true that there's tension the whole time about Saru defying orders, but in the end, by contrast with said craven stupidity, Saru does universally rather well. That leeches some tension out of the final moments – we know that Georgiou should basically be all compliments. If Saru hadn’t been there, this colony would’ve been dropped in an impossible place and been screwed. So I do think there is a slightly better story here, one with a bit more mystery, difficulty communicating, and subtlety; as it stands, it reads well and has a nice moral but doesn’t quite feel entirely genuine.

That all said, for my money it's absolutely the best of the Disco tie-ins so far by virtue of Saru’s outstanding characterization and the telling of a story that feels paced well and built properly. And man, that first quarter is just stunning. Saru getting to the cargo bays and seeing the refugees inside, the scale and mystery of it was as intensely fascinating as anything I've ever seen in a Trek book. That the later answers weren't as subtle as I'd hoped and came a bit too soon is unfortunate but not exactly unsatisfying; this book still makes good on all of its promises, and wraps the narrative in a powerful theme. The worst thing I can say about this is that it is absolutely what you'd expect from tie-in fiction; I wasn't surprised much in how things turned out, but I was satisfied.

Next up: The Way to the Stars. I love Una McCormack; I love Tilly; I can't imagine this will be anything other than an absolute joy.

 

[Thrawn]

The Way to the Stars

Oh this is just lovely. It falters a bit in the third part as Tilly’s magical solution to the away team situation is just too easy (and another few dozen pages where she proposes the idea to the ship and they run with it would’ve had exactly the same effect and been much more plausible), but aside from that plot oversight, this book is nearly perfect.

Tilly is so beautifully characterized – a wreck but also unstoppable – and her relationship with her mother is believable and devastating from the first page to the last. The emotions here are so raw and the story is so genuine that it’s powerfully compelling throughout. The scenes where Tilly is in danger feel much less dangerous than the conversations with her parents, and that’s a lovely trick of narration. In particular, I'm a teacher at a magnet school for very ambitious children (often with absolute terrors of parents much like Tilly's mother) and so a lot of this struck so close to home it was almost painful to read. I've been in those parent conferences before. The authenticity to McCormack's writing here is remarkable.

I suppose there’s an argument that, at least until the last third, almost none of this has much to do with Star Trek, but I think the tonal departure from the other books so far (and from basically Star Trek books in general) is another point in its favor – after hundreds of these things, it’s completely reasonable for stylistic experiments to be valid. If anything, the line since Marco left has been pretty sorely lacking stories that do wander outside the usual lines of action/adventure and/or planet of the week; this is a real treat. In all, this is clearly the best Discovery novel so far, and one of the better Trek books in recent memory.

Definitely still on the “keep letting Una McCormack write whatever the hell she wants” train. This is another absolute gem.

Next up: Available Light. More Dayton Ward...

 

[Thrawn]

Available Light

I actually liked this one!

The A plot is the usual Starfleet competence tale but plotted out nicely so that the full situation didn’t emerge until much of the way through so there was more mystery than is often the case. The slow escalation of both engineering problems and attackers is also pretty strong. A lot of it doesn’t quite hold up to scrutiny; for one thing, the relative power levels of the Enterprise and the salvagers is pretty random, with the first fight with one salvager doing a lot of damage but then the damaged ship able to hold off five without too much trouble later. But still, one thing Dayton Ward is good at and always has been is absolutely nailing the tone of a Trek episode, and this feels exactly like that – the rhythm is right, the dialogue is Starfleet AF, etc.

What makes it more than just generic though is the simmering Section 31 fallout plot underneath, which, again, isn’t exactly perfectly executed, but it’s juicy enough that it intersperses real drama into the storyline as a nice contrast to the enemy of the week stuff. In particular, Ross’s death and Picard’s conversations with Worf and Beverly, as well as his announcement at the end, are all strong work. Dayton misses some huge opportunities (hilariously, early on there’s a scene from Hearts & Minds recreated from the other side of the conversation - talk about excessive summary! - while the much more emotionally juicy moment where Picard informs his crew of his role in the Zife affair is skipped entirely, and I also wish that the crew had had more doubt along the way so that the moment at the end surprises us as well as him) but the story is there if you read between the lines and it’s a good one that works much better than Akaar’s speech to Picard at the end of Hearts & Minds implied.

This is a solid entry. Not outstanding, not seamless, and not quite tied together perfectly, but it’s like one good edit away from awesome; the bones are all here, and I'm happy to fill in the rest myself. I’m certainly intrigued by what Collateral Damage will do with the setup!

Next up: The Captain's Oath. I know almost nothing about this book and have no idea what to expect. I'm even going in with no reading of the blurb at all. Looks like a cool ship on the cover?

 

[Damian]

Next up: The Captain's Oath. I know almost nothing about this book and have no idea what to expect. I'm even going in with no reading of the blurb at all. Looks like a cool ship on the cover?

I'll be curious to read your thoughts on this book. I thought it was a good read (Christopher's usually are) but I had one thing that bothered me about it and I'll wait to see if you had similar thoughts.

I also get the sense Christopher and Michael Jan Friedman have the same thoughts about Kirk's early career in Starfleet. If you've read "My Brother's Keeper" you'll see what I mean. It's not that they can fit together in a single narrative (though I think parts of MBK could fit, in particular the parts from before Kirk was made captain). But in Kirk's demeanor and attitude as a Starfleet officer. I know Christopher has argued that this image of Kirk as a maverick is not really accurate, particularly in his early career. And I get the sense that Friedman would agree, at least judging from his trilogy.

And I tend to agree as well. Kirk simply had a gift for understanding the spirit behind the regulations. It ruffled feathers simply because he didn't always stick to the 'letter' of the regs word for word. But even that was something that developed as Kirk's career went on, which is to be expected as he gains more experience.

But anyway, I'm getting off track a bit. I'll only say that it's a good book, except for the 'one' thing I won't mention until after you've read it. And if anyone's read and enjoyed MBK I think they'll very much enjoy TCO as well--even if they don't fit together completely from a continuity perspective. The 'feel' is similar, for lack of a better word.

 

[Christopher]

And I tend to agree as well. Kirk simply had a gift for understanding the spirit behind the regulations. It ruffled feathers simply because he didn't always stick to the 'letter' of the regs word for word. But even that was something that developed as Kirk's career went on, which is to be expected as he gains more experience.

What a lot of people misunderstand about TOS, and what I tried to convey in Oath, is that it was specifically part of a frontier captain's job to interpret how and whether to apply regulations to a given situation, because there was no higher authority on the scene. So it's misunderstanding the situation to think he was violating his duties by interpreting the regs. That was his responsibility and his prerogative. And every other captain in Starfleet probably did the same. Certainly we saw Picard, Sisko, and Janeway doing so when the situation called for it. That's not being a maverick, it's being in command. When faced with unusual and unprecedented situations, adaptability is essential.

If anything, TOS showed that Kirk was less of a renegade than other captains like Decker and Tracey and post-breakdown Garth, or civilians like Merik and Gill. He was the one who understood that you could only bend so far and no further, while others crossed the line and damned themselves.

 

[Damian]

What a lot of people misunderstand about TOS, and what I tried to convey in Oath, is that it was specifically part of a frontier captain's job to interpret how and whether to apply regulations to a given situation, because there was no higher authority on the scene. So it's misunderstanding the situation to think he was violating his duties by interpreting the regs. That was his responsibility and his prerogative. And every other captain in Starfleet probably did the same. Certainly we saw Picard, Sisko, and Janeway doing so when the situation called for it. That's not being a maverick, it's being in command. When faced with unusual and unprecedented situations, adaptability is essential.

If anything, TOS showed that Kirk was less of a renegade than other captains like Decker and Tracey and post-breakdown Garth, or civilians like Merik and Gill. He was the one who understood that you could only bend so far and no further, while others crossed the line and damned themselves.

Yeah, that's what I meant . I think the reason people sometimes got that impression of Kirk is that sometimes desk bound paper pushers, esp. later on, didn't seem to like Kirk's frontiersman style command, even though that's exactly what he needed to be. And of course TSFS happened, though those were unique circumstances.

It helped, though, that whether Kirk's decisions stretched the intent of the regulations according to his superiors or not throughout his command--he was typically right. He had a gift more making the right decisions and being a wise captain. I know we've debated in the past as to whether Kirk was truly unique or if most of the 12 captains of constitution class ships were similarly gifted (except for obvious examples like Captain Tracey). And I agree most of those 12 had to have certain gifts to be given command of Starfleet's most advanced ships. But I do think it's possible Kirk was especially gifted. That he could be the best of the best. I mean, maybe you feel the same way so maybe this is a moot issue.

 

[Christopher]

But I do think it's possible Kirk was especially gifted. That he could be the best of the best. I mean, maybe you feel the same way so maybe this is a moot issue.

I don't think the intent was for the Enterprise crew to be larger-than-life superhumans, but to be realistic people whose jobs happened to be in space. Roddenberry started out wanting TOS to be a naturalistic, grounded show in its storytelling and characterizations, if not necessarily in its science (although it was less nonsensical in its science than any of its contemporaries). Certainly they were highly skilled officers, as you would expect of the crew of a frontline naval vessel-cum-spacecraft, but that's just the thing -- you'd expect it of any such crew. The idea that crept in by TNG that the Enterprise crew had to be more gifted and capable than anyone else in Starfleet was elitist crap that was more about fannish sentimentality than common sense -- that's no way to run a fleet. If there are all these really gifted people around, then spread the wealth, don't concentrate them all in one place!

So yeah, Kirk was meant to be really good at his job, good enough to be one of the very few who'd earned command of a capital ship like the Enterprise. But he wasn't supposed to be the only one who was that good, and he sure as hell wasn't supposed to be a godlike superman standing on a pedestal. If anything, he was probably the least experienced commander of a Constitution-class ship, earning the post at a mere 30-odd years of age and lacking the seasoning of senior commanders he looked up to like Decker and Wesley and Garth. He could make mistakes and he was often weighed down by the burden of the decisions he had to make. He was human. He wasn't supposed to be better than everyone else.

 

[KRAD]

The reading of Kirk as a maverick, as a devil-may-care renegade who thumbs his nose at authority is purely an artifact of the movies -- and a misreading of them, as well.

If you actually go through the 79 episodes that aired from 1966-1969 (not to mention the 22 that aired from 1973-1974), you will find in Kirk a captain who always was by the book, who obeyed orders, even if it was to ill effect. As an example, he's such a maverick, such a rebel against authority, that he paused a mission to deliver medicine to sick people because of a standing order he had to observe quasar-like phenomenon. He went to Eminiar VII despite the warning because he was ordered to, he participated in the M5 experiment because he was ordered to, he went into orbit of Excalbia because he was ordered to, and so on.

There are precisely two (2) occasions when Kirk disobeyed orders on the original series: "The Doomsday Machine," when the orders he was being given were by a superior officer who was clearly not in his right mind, and "Amok Time," when Spock's life was at stake.

The next time he disobeyed orders was in The Search for Spock, and it was for the same reason as it was in "Amok Time": to save Spock. But the whole damn point of the story in TSFS was that it was an unusual situation, and Kirk had to take unusual action (heisting the Enterprise) to do what needed doing.

And then suddenly everyone had amnesia and an inability to understand story because the book on Kirk since 1984 has been that he's a maverick who disobeys orders and goes his own way to get shit done which a) is in opposition to the evidence of his character in 100 or so episodes and movies and b) contravenes the entire plot of the third movie.

(Yes, I'm a bit passionate on this subject.......................)

 

[Damian]

The idea that crept in by TNG that the Enterprise crew had to be more gifted and capable than anyone else in Starfleet was elitist crap that was more about fannish sentimentality than common sense -- that's no way to run a fleet

Sometimes, though, these are things you don't realize until after they've happened. I think it's possible after the 23rd century, when people are looking at it historically, that they realize of all the Constitution class ships, the Enterprise was the most successful. That looking back on their mission they were the best of the best. Sometimes you don't realize these things as they are happening, only upon later reflection. And you realize he had a great team around him, that perhaps wasn't recognized in the moment.

NOW, that works for the TV show era. You wouldn't know at the start of the mission how great they would turn out to be, that takes time. But I do agree by the movie era, particularly by the time of TWOK which is 10+ years later, that it stretches credibility a bit that most are still together. Though TWOK did split some of the crew off. Chekov was 1st officer of the Reliant for instance, Kirk is an admiral and Spock is captain...and so forth.

 

[Damian]

The reading of Kirk as a maverick, as a devil-may-care renegade who thumbs his nose at authority is purely an artifact of the movies -- and a misreading of them, as well.

If you actually go through the 79 episodes that aired from 1966-1969 (not to mention the 22 that aired from 1973-1974), you will find in Kirk a captain who always was by the book, who obeyed orders, even if it was to ill effect. As an example, he's such a maverick, such a rebel against authority, that he paused a mission to deliver medicine to sick people because of a standing order he had to observe quasar-like phenomenon. He went to Eminiar VII despite the warning because he was ordered to, he participated in the M5 experiment because he was ordered to, he went into orbit of Excalbia because he was ordered to, and so on.

There are precisely two (2) occasions when Kirk disobeyed orders on the original series: "The Doomsday Machine," when the orders he was being given were by a superior officer who was clearly not in his right mind, and "Amok Time," when Spock's life was at stake.

The next time he disobeyed orders was in The Search for Spock, and it was for the same reason as it was in "Amok Time": to save Spock. But the whole damn point of the story in TSFS was that it was an unusual situation, and Kirk had to take unusual action (heisting the Enterprise) to do what needed doing.

And then suddenly everyone had amnesia and an inability to understand story because the book on Kirk since 1984 has been that he's a maverick who disobeys orders and goes his own way to get shit done which a) is in opposition to the evidence of his character in 100 or so episodes and movies and b) contravenes the entire plot of the third movie.

(Yes, I'm a bit passionate on this subject.......................)

I think some of that impression might occur also because of the few times he, er, might have interpreted the Prime Directive a bit differently than maybe others might. And I'm not really talking about TNG interpretation (TNG was a different era so I always interpreted the change in how the PD was interpreted in that era to that being a century later and maybe something happened in the intervening years that caused Starfleet to be more reactionary...but I digress). There are times he made the decision to 'interfere' when other captains may not have. And Spock and McCoy at one point or another questioned Kirk about it. And Kirk, as was his duty, interpreted it in a way that made sense and if you read the PD was legally correct. But sometimes people might misread that as 'he broke the PD, he's a cowboy diplomat'

In some ways he had to be a cowboy style diplomat because that was his job as the only cop in the area, as it were. But I think people may misinterpret that.

But I agree, TSFS gave the impression he was a maverick, and of course in later eras some of the shows perpetuated that. But that too could be due to the different attitudes of the 24th century. Times change and what was acceptable during Kirk's era can be explained in story as not being so acceptable in TNG-Voyager era. That happens in real life after all. Things that are acceptable/not acceptable today were vastly different 100 years ago and it's probably unfair to apply today's standards in that situation--as it is for 24th century folks to judge Kirk a maverick by 24th century standards.

 

[Christopher]

As an example, he's such a maverick, such a rebel against authority, that he paused a mission to deliver medicine to sick people because of a standing order he had to observe quasar-like phenomenon.

Although I explain in The Captain's Oath why that standing order exists -- based on a thought I voiced in the comments of your "Galileo Seven" Rewatch column, in fact. Microquasars (the most plausible modern interpretation for what Murasaki 312 could be, and what it was depicted to be in the Remastered edition) can give off intense bursts of radiation that could endanger nearby worlds, so it would be as urgent to monitor them as it would be to monitor earthquake faults or tropical storms.

Sometimes, though, these are things you don't realize until after they've happened. I think it's possible after the 23rd century, when people are looking at it historically, that they realize of all the Constitution class ships, the Enterprise was the most successful. That looking back on their mission they were the best of the best. Sometimes you don't realize these things as they are happening, only upon later reflection. And you realize he had a great team around him, that perhaps wasn't recognized in the moment.

No, I'm talking about how the Enterprise-D was depicted in TNG, as this elite "flagship" that attracted the best of the best and that was more prestigious than any other posting in the fleet. Not as an opinion of a historical ship in retrospect, but the way the E-D itself and its crew were perceived in real time, as better than their peers. I always felt that kind of hierarchical thinking was incompatible with Starfleet's egalitarian values.

I think some of that impression might occur because of the few times he, er, might have interpreted the Prime Directive a bit differently than maybe others might. And I'm not really talking about TNG interpretation (TNG was a different era so I always interpreted the change in how the PD was interpreted in that era to that being a century later and maybe something happened in the intervening years that caused Starfleet to be more reactionary...but I digress). There are times he made the decision to 'interfere' when other captains may not have. And Spock and McCoy at one point or another questioned Kirk about it. And Kirk, as was his duty, interpreted it in a way that made sense and if you read the PD was legally correct. But sometimes people might misread that as 'he broke the PD, he's a cowboy diplomat'

Except he didn't break the PD, not as it was defined in TOS. He intervened to stop other sources of interference, to remove the interference so that populations would then be free to develop naturally going forward. So by TOS definitions, he was upholding the PD, not breaking it. ("Friday's Child" is a little ambiguous on this point, since Maab's coup was apparently his own idea, but Kras does say in Kirk's hearing that he and Maab had an agreement. So the coup -- and thus the threat to Eleen and her baby -- probably happened due to Klingon intervention, and thus Kirk was countering the effects of their interference.)

And one thing that gets conveniently forgotten by everyone who wants to perpetuate the fallacy that Kirk broke the PD was that in episodes like "The Return of the Archons," "A Taste of Armageddon," and "The Apple," the situation was contrived so that the Enterprise was under attack and within hours of being destroyed (and in "The Gamesters of Triskelion" it was threatened with destruction). So Kirk wasn't arbitrarily intervening for the sake of cultural imperialism. He was doing what he had to do to save the lives of his crew. And arguably he was defending against acts of war, something that the PD certainly does not forbid. If the ship hadn't been under attack, for all we know, he might have left the situations as they were. But the need to save his ship from attack forced his hand, which is why the writers kept going back to that well. (The first-draft TNG writers' bible actually codified this, saying that a captain could make an exception to the PD in cases where the ship and crew were endangered.)

 

[Damian]

No, I'm talking about how the Enterprise-D was depicted in TNG, as this elite "flagship" that attracted the best of the best and that was more prestigious than any other posting in the fleet.

Oh, sorry. I thought you meant how later generations saw Kirk and co. \

I can maybe see some of that. Though maybe all the galaxy class ships were similarly prestigious. The show depicted the Enterprise as being the best of the best--but part of that was probably since it was the feature ship of the show it kind of ends up being that way naturally. Kind of like how the star of any show becomes the focus. Doesn't make it realistic or even right, but I can kind of understand why the show runners might approach it that way. You want the viewers to think this is the best of the best and that's why you're watching them every week, and not just some random ship and crew.

But they probably could have done more to give the impression that this was the norm for all the galaxy class ships.

So by TOS definitions, he was upholding the PD, not breaking it

I agree with that. And that was clearly explained a number of times, like in "The Return of the Archons" and "The Apple" when Kirk said that applies to living, growing civilizations, and he saw those cases as not growing. Now where some haggling might occur is among some of Kirks desk bound superiors, who may feel Kirk incorrectly applied the PD. BUT, that being said, that's an opinion that was obviously not shared by the PTB's at Starfleet or he would have been hauled in for an investigation at the very least, or a court martial. After all, it is said a Starfleet officer would rather give up their life than actually break the PD. So I think Kirk would exercise that judgment carefully and only interfere if it was in keeping with the spirit and intent of the PD. Perhaps the diciest interpretation was in "A Private Little War" where probably some might disagree with Kirk on his interpretation there. But he makes a rational justification there. I think you could justify doing what he did and not doing what he did and probably both are right. That would be why Kirk is paid the big bucks though Those are the times he has to make a judgment call, which is his job, one of the reasons he is there.

The first-draft TNG writers' bible actually codified this, saying that a captain could make an exception to the PD

It never bothered me that TNG had a stricter interpretation of the PD--what bothers me a bit is when it's retroactively applied to the original series. "The Rings of Tautee" almost did that, but it seemed the authors pulled back and instead provided a possible bare beginnings for how that change in interpretation would take place.

But one thing I would have loved to have seen is a Lost Era novel that maybe explained WHY Starfleet became stricter about the PD. It's reasonable to assume something happened that caused Starfleet to tighten it up. It'd be interesting to see a story where someone interfered and things went horribly wrong which led Starfleet to react with it's more stricter interpretation (which has been known to happen in history).

 

[Christopher]

Now where some haggling might occur is among some of Kirks desk bound superiors, who may feel Kirk incorrectly applied the PD. BUT, that being said, that's an opinion that was obviously not shared by the PTB's at Starfleet or he would have been hauled in for an investigation at the very least, or a court martial.

We never really saw how Kirk's superiors reacted to his handling of Prime Directive cases. I think the perception that he was bending the rules comes from the fact that Spock often questioned his interpretation of the PD in a particular situation. But that's misunderstanding Spock's duties the same way it's misunderstanding Kirk's. It's a first officer's job to question the captain's proposals, to offer counterarguments for the captain to weigh before making a decision. That doesn't mean the captain's decisions are wrong or rebellious. It means they're made after considering all the angles, as any good decision should be.

Perhaps the diciest interpretation was in "A Private Little War" where probably some might disagree with Kirk on his interpretation there.

That situation was forced by the Klingons' ongoing interference. Kirk was just trying to cancel it out in the only way he could think of. I'll never understand why people want to blame Kirk for that instead of blaming the Klingons.

But one thing I would have loved to have seen is a Lost Era novel that maybe explained WHY Starfleet became stricter about the PD. It's reasonable to assume something happened that caused Starfleet to tighten it up. It'd be interesting to see a story where someone interfered and things went horribly wrong which led Starfleet to react with it's more stricter interpretation (which has been known to happen in history).

I think it's more just the atrophy that sets in when people just follow the letter of the law and stop thinking about the reason for it. Starfleet forgot that the PD was about keeping themselves humble, remembering that other cultures were just as intelligent and understood their own needs better than outsiders could, no matter how advanced. So they started thinking it was about assuming that other cultures were too backward to share in our enlightenment and needed to be sheltered for their own good, which is exactly the kind of condescension that the PD was meant to counteract. That's evidently the reason the writers interpreted it differently, because they misunderstood its original point. So it stands to reason that the people in-universe changed their view of it due to the same kind of forgetfulness.

 

[Damian]

We never really saw how Kirk's superiors reacted to his handling of Prime Directive cases. I think the perception that he was bending the rules comes from the fact that Spock often questioned his interpretation of the PD in a particular situation.

Well I guess that's true. Though Kirk didn't always get along well with commissioners and ambassadors. But then that has nothing really to do with the PD. Maybe that added to the maverick perception--that he sometimes got a bit heated around bureaucrats.

I agree about Spock though. That's his job as an exec. He's supposed to give his Captain opposing viewpoints, play the devil's advocate as it were. He'd be a bad first officer if he failed to do that.

I'll never understand why people want to blame Kirk for that instead of blaming the Klingons.

Well, I agree with Kirk's reasoning. But that's one area where I could see someone taking a different approach and being right as well. That's what made that situation so tragic in a way. There were no good answers really. McCoy was a bit more heated than Spock would be, but he seemed to come around (though he wasn't thrilled about it--though neither was Kirk).

So they started thinking it was about assuming that other cultures were too backward to share in our enlightenment and needed to be sheltered for their own good, which is exactly the kind of condescension that the PD was meant to counteract.

I don't know. I'd like to take a more positive view and say that it was because they felt societies deserved to develop at their own pace without interference. You can argue they took it too far, but I'd rather think it was out of an overabundance of caution--'why should we think we know better' then it be because the Federation thought they were backwards. Where it got a bit extreme is when they thought they had to let societies die for the PD. But again I think that was too much caution.

At the same time, to be fair, Picard had also himself interfered a number of times and in his case, even with a more stricter interpretation, Starfleet must have agreed he was justified as they did not haul him in for a court martial. So maybe it wasn't quite as strict as all that. Maybe it's a bit more tightened but maybe there's still some flexibility.

 

[Christopher]

I don't know. I'd like to take a more positive view and say that it was because they felt societies deserved to develop at their own pace without interference.

But they misunderstood the reason for it, especially in the execrable "Homeward." It's not because those societies are "too primitive to understand" our advanced knowledge. That's BS. There are societies on Earth that have gone from being hunter-gatherers to computer experts in a single generation, that use laptops and GPS to help them with their hunting and gathering. It's always possible to assimilate new knowledge. It's called learning, and every child does it starting from zero. The reason for the Prime Directive protection of other cultures is because we do not understand them well enough to assume we have the right to make decisions for them. And that means we sure as hell do not have the right to dictate that they should die because they don't fit our definitions of sufficient advancement. The whole point of the PD is to stop us from playing god, and choosing to abandon a society to destruction rather than help them is the epitome of playing god.

 

[Damian]

But they misunderstood the reason for it, especially in the execrable "Homeward." It's not because those societies are "too primitive to understand" our advanced knowledge. That's BS. There are societies on Earth that have gone from being hunter-gatherers to computer experts in a single generation, that use laptops and GPS to help them with their hunting and gathering. It's always possible to assimilate new knowledge. It's called learning, and every child does it starting from zero. The reason for the Prime Directive protection of other cultures is because we do not understand them well enough to assume we have the right to make decisions for them. And that means we sure as hell do not have the right to dictate that they should die because they don't fit our definitions of sufficient advancement. The whole point of the PD is to stop us from playing god, and choosing to abandon a society to destruction rather than help them is the epitome of playing god.

Yeah, I don't disagree. Captain Picard did put it well when he said the biggest reason for the PD is to protect us. Protect us from thinking we can play God. But I agree it can be taken to far. I think non-interference in general is a good idea. It's good that the Federation basically leaves planets alone to develop at their own pace. And sometimes you have to let civilizations make mistakes. Many times we learn best from the mistakes we make.

BUT, that's a far cry from letting an entire civilization die in the name of noninterference. A society can't develop and learn from mistakes if they are dead, particularly from natural disasters. "Pen Pals" comes to mind. They had the power to help from a distance and until Data's friend 'asked' for help, Picard's hands were tied by the PD. Now, I can understand that why you might want to help without revealing yourself if possible. But clearly in that case they could do just that. Help anonymously, the best of both worlds. "Homeward" is another example, though in that case I would argue helping anonymously make sense. The scribe (I forget his name) when he found his way out committed suicide because his whole world was turned upside down and he couldn't handle it. That supports the argument why even when the Federation must interfere for their survival, that it should use the least disruptive method. What is the bare interference they need to do to help the civilization survive. Preferably it would be like "Pen Pals". Where they can help from a distance without ever revealing their presence. "Homeward" was more challenging because the people needed to be moved. But they found the least disruptive method for doing that. Now had Starfleet sanctioned such methods they might have been better prepared and avoided the technical glitches they encountered without exposing the scribe to something he was not prepared for.

So in general I like the idea of a non-interference directive. But like all directives it can't be the end all/be all. Life is full of complications. And I can't imagine allowing a civilization to perish would be considered a good idea.

That's why I'd rather think there was some precipitating event that caused Starfleet to adopt more stricter standards. They're not perfect. Maybe something happened during the Lost Era that caused Starfleet to overreact. I'd prefer that than to thinking they just got lazy about it and cold.

 

[Christopher]

"Pen Pals" comes to mind. They had the power to help from a distance and until Data's friend 'asked' for help, Picard's hands were tied by the PD. Now, I can understand that why you might want to help without revealing yourself if possible. But clearly in that case they could do just that. Help anonymously, the best of both worlds.

I mostly like "Pen Pals," but its strict interpretation of the PD was an arbitrary choice for the sake of manufacturing a moral debate, and in retrospect it doesn't hold up. As Kirk said in "For the World is Hollow," "The people... may be changed by the knowledge, but it's better than exterminating them." Back then, it wasn't seen as some intractable moral question, it was just a given that the priority is their protection and that means you do intervene if their very existence is at stake.

"Homeward" is another example, though in that case I would argue helping anonymously make sense. The scribe (I forget his name) when he found his way out committed suicide because his whole world was turned upside down and he couldn't handle it. That supports the argument why even when the Federation must interfere for their survival, that it should use the least disruptive method.

No, no, no. That was awful, bogus, and stupid. Having that scribe die because he "couldn't handle" the knowledge was an artificial, forced outcome designed to "prove" a premise that was false to begin with. Like I said, if you look at real history and anthropology, there's plenty of evidence that cultures can handle being exposed to new knowledge. When Europe was exposed to the more advanced science and invention of the Mideast and Asia, like stirrups, gunpowder, the printing press, decimal numbers, and the magnetic compass, it didn't destroy European culture; on the contrary, Europeans embraced it, benefited from it, and used it to try to destroy everyone else's cultures. The only times the less advanced culture is endangered by a contact is when the more advanced cultures actively tries to stamp it out or assimilate it. The pretense that it happens automatically due to some inherent weakness in less advanced cultures is a lie to let Europeans off the hook for our active efforts to repress or eradicate other cultures.

As a rule, when people aren't forced to change their ways, then they'll only accept outside ideas if they want to -- if those ideas are reconcilable with or adaptable to what they already believe, or if they have an agenda of their own that's advanced by adopting those ideas, or if they were already questioning their beliefs and looking for alternatives. Otherwise, if they're exposed to an outside idea that doesn't fit their preconceptions, they'll just reject it as false. They just won't believe it. Heck, look at all the people in our supposedly enlightened society who reject the reality of easily confirmed facts like climate change, evolution, or the Earth being round. People whose minds aren't open to new ideas won't have their worldviews shattered by those ideas; they'll just dismiss them as lies. And if their minds are open, then they can handle the novelty. "Homeward"'s treatment of that character's reaction was stupid, wrong, and nonsensical, just like everything else about that episode's awful treatment of the Prime Directive.

After all, no planet has only one single culture. It's a natural part of any planet's development that different cultures will come into contact and expose each other to new ideas and technologies. You don't have to wait for contact with aliens for that process to occur. So if cultures couldn't survive that process, then no planet's culture would ever survive or advance in the first place. Again, the PD is not supposed to be about the pre-warp cultures' inherent fragility. It's supposed to be about recognizing our limitations and the other cultures' intelligence and ability to take care of itself.

The idea isn't that any exposure to knowledge of space will automatically damage or corrupt a culture, but rather that we might be too tempted to go beyond mere contact and start thinking we're entitled to boss the locals around and impose our values on them. Merely making contact with alien life is something a pre-warp civilization surely could endure, as long as it were left free to manage and interpret that contact on its own terms. But the PD is about recognizing that we'd be tempted to push too far, and thus it's safest not to intervene unless we absolutely have to, and then no more than necessary. And making contact to relocate an endangered population should absolutely, unquestionably count as an appropriate and necessary exception to the hands-off rule. "Pen Pals" got that wrong, and "Homeward" got it grotesquely wrong.

That's why I'd rather think there was some precipitating event that caused Starfleet to adopt more stricter standards. They're not perfect. Maybe something happened during the Lost Era that caused Starfleet to overreact. I'd prefer that than to thinking they just got lazy about it and cold.

I just think the latter is more likely and realistic. Not everything in real history has a single, pat, dramatizable explanation. Lots of things are just a matter of more gradual shifts, of perspectives changing so incrementally that you only see in retrospect how much they've changed.

 

[Krupp]

We also see the doctrine of the prime directive change with circumstances, as in Insurrection when they’re courting a newly minted warp civilisation thanks to the war. It’s probably like American foreign policy if you want to think of it that way - lot different in the 20-30’s, 50-70s, 80s, 90s and post 9-11, events change a lot of underlying existing systems. Lots of contradictions, too. No reason that shouldn’t be so in Star Trek.

The federation is often classed by its enemies - Romulan, Cardassian, Klingons at times - and even some of its friends (Bajor) as being a group of do-gooders who interfere and cause more trouble than they solve. Actually that’s probably a realistic view of the situation, rather than simply classing the others as nefarious all of the time. I’d say we would see a real Federation go in to help and accidentally sit on and crush a lot of the time. And in STP we’re perhaps seeing them shying away from interventionist and do-good tendencies given all the real world consequences of Starfleet adventuring to date (they discovered both the Borg and the dominion).

 

[Christopher]

We also see the doctrine of the prime directive change with circumstances, as in Insurrection when they’re courting a newly minted warp civilisation thanks to the war.

Once a species has warp drive, the PD restriction on contact no longer applies, as we saw in the episode "First Contact." They were allowed to interact at that point, as long as they didn't do things like taking sides in an internal conflict or violating local laws or pressuring them to change their culture or belief system. In this case, they fast-tracked the process of making the Evora a Federation protectorate, which would basically mean they'd be entitled to Starfleet protection if the Dominion came after them, and probably to Federation material, medical, or humanitarian aid if they needed it.

And in STP we’re perhaps seeing them shying away from interventionist and do-good tendencies given all the real world consequences of Starfleet adventuring to date (they discovered both the Borg and the dominion).

That hardly seems fair. Q brought the Enterprise into premature contact with the Borg -- and if anything, probably helped the Federation by giving them that advance warning. And though it was Starfleet that discovered the Bajoran wormhole, it was actually the Ferengi who first learned of the Dominion's existence and pursued contact with it, and the first armed conflict between the Dominion and an Alpha Quadrant power was the Jem'Hadar's massacre of a Bajoran colony in the Gamma Quadrant.

 

[Krupp]

That hardly seems fair. Q brought the Enterprise into premature contact with the Borg -- and if anything, probably helped the Federation by giving them that advance warning. And though it was Starfleet that discovered the Bajoran wormhole, it was actually the Ferengi who first learned of the Dominion's existence and pursued contact with it, and the first armed conflict between the Dominion and an Alpha Quadrant power was the Jem'Hadar's massacre of a Bajoran colony in the Gamma Quadrant.

I’m not sure the general public would see the nuance, to be honest - not universally. Just the same as groups of citizens in our world today ascribe very different views on common topics. The federation of STP is obviously mirroring a lot of our own and what we’ve seen in recent decades. The public has not responded universally positively to all that has occurred - the rise of nativism, protectionism, etc. Driven by political, economic and military events.

A citizen of the federation who has taken the knocks of the Borg, the dominion war and the Romulan supernova and their involvement in that is likely to be a more inward looking one than during the time of TNG, when the galaxy was mostly at peace but for the fringes. And you could easily see Starfleet taking the blame for a lot of do-gooderism, and its own officers - war weary after all - changing their world views also.