Characters or situations you'd like to see in the books?

[Geoff Thorne]

I would like to see the story of the the Klingons killing their gods detailed in a way that doesn't involve myth making.

Who were these gods and how did a bunch of guys and gals with swords kick them off the planet?

KRAD?

Because the odds of me getting to do it are remote.

 

[Christopher]

I think that's far more interesting as a myth than it would be as some cliched "ancient astronaut" interpretation. I mean, we've had Apollo, Kukulkan, Megas-tu, and the Furies -- can't the Klingons at least have an honest mythology of their own, a set of culturally generated symbols codifying a society's beliefs and values, without there having to be aliens or some other kind of superbeings involved?

 

[Trent Roman]

There's no reason why there couldn't simultaneously be a kernel of thruth to the mythology without the involvement of off-worlders. Humanity's early history is rife with rulers who claimed divinity for themselves. The Klingon gods need only be Klingons who arrogated the same status to themselves before finally being overthrown and slain.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Vastator]

There's no reason why there couldn't simultaneously be a kernel of thruth to the mythology without the involvement of off-worlders. Humanity's early history is rife with rulers who claimed divinity for themselves. The Klingon gods need only be Klingons who arrogated the same status to themselves before finally being overthrown and slain.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

Well it wouldnt be the first time the Klingons distorted history. History is afterall written by the victors... the Kahless novel shows that the whole history regarding Kahless himself is practically nothing but a lie with the clone actually being Morath.

Clones of the Hur'q were used by Gothmara in her attempt to unseat Martok, but it's not clear how close these were to the real Hur'q. And yeah, they were in that videogame, but nothing's been done with them beyond mentions here and there.

Ah yes thats the one. I believe its two books, are they any good? I'm always interested in books that explore Klingon or Romulan or Vulcan culture as well as those that talk about ancient races that walked the stars long before anyone else... what can I say, B5 spoilt me in that regard.

 

[Geoff Thorne]

I don't know why we presume the worst possible exploration f the myth. There are lots of ways that could have played out. I kicked it off to KRAD because I think he's tapped into the Klingons very well but, honestly, I can think of several scenarios that involve none of the things mentioned here.

 

[Christopher]

There's no reason why there couldn't simultaneously be a kernel of thruth to the mythology without the involvement of off-worlders. Humanity's early history is rife with rulers who claimed divinity for themselves. The Klingon gods need only be Klingons who arrogated the same status to themselves before finally being overthrown and slain.

But what I mean is, I don't believe that a myth has to have some hidden historical truth behind it to be interesting. The meaning of a myth is in what it reveals about the ideas that define a culture. Myths are not actually about claiming that something happened in the past; they're about using tales of an imagined past as illustrations of a culture's definitions of right and wrong, explanations of its customs and priorities, ritualistic reinforcements of its ethos. To me, that's very interesting. I think an alien culture's mythology can be a great vehicle for exploring the culture itself, for illustrating the worldview and values of its present-day individuals. For instance, in Ex Machina, although the Fabrini myths I created were loosely based on historical figures and events, I was more concerned with what the Fabrini-descended characters in the story believed about their mythic past, and with the value systems that they used their myths to support and illustrate, than I was with the historical reality behind them.

 

[Geoff Thorne]

There's no reason why there couldn't simultaneously be a kernel of thruth to the mythology without the involvement of off-worlders. Humanity's early history is rife with rulers who claimed divinity for themselves. The Klingon gods need only be Klingons who arrogated the same status to themselves before finally being overthrown and slain.

But what I mean is, I don't believe that a myth has to have some hidden historical truth behind it to be interesting. The meaning of a myth is in what it reveals about the ideas that define a culture. Myths are not actually about claiming that something happened in the past; they're about using tales of an imagined past as illustrations of a culture's definitions of right and wrong, explanations of its customs and priorities, ritualistic reinforcements of its ethos. To me, that's very interesting. I think an alien culture's mythology can be a great vehicle for exploring the culture itself, for illustrating the worldview and values of its present-day individuals. For instance, in Ex Machina, although the Fabrini myths I created were loosely based on historical figures and events, I was more concerned with what the Fabrini-descended characters in the story believed about their mythic past, and with the value systems that they used their myths to support and illustrate, than I was with the historical reality behind them.

I'm the opposite. I think all myths are, essentially, fish stories. I'm much more concerned with the roots than the branches.

 

[KRAD]

I'm the opposite. I think all myths are, essentially, fish stories. I'm much more concerned with the roots than the branches.

And the winner for worst mixed metaphor goes to.....

 

[Geoff Thorne]

I'm the opposite. I think all myths are, essentially, fish stories. I'm much more concerned with the roots than the branches.

And the winner for worst mixed metaphor goes to.....

Hey. I'm still the new guy.

I'm allowed some stumbles.

 

[Trent Roman]

But what I mean is, I don't believe that a myth has to have some hidden historical truth behind it to be interesting. The meaning of a myth is in what it reveals about the ideas that define a culture. Myths are not actually about claiming that something happened in the past; they're about using tales of an imagined past as illustrations of a culture's definitions of right and wrong, explanations of its customs and priorities, ritualistic reinforcements of its ethos. To me, that's very interesting. I think an alien culture's mythology can be a great vehicle for exploring the culture itself, for illustrating the worldview and values of its present-day individuals. For instance, in Ex Machina, although the Fabrini myths I created were loosely based on historical figures and events, I was more concerned with what the Fabrini-descended characters in the story believed about their mythic past, and with the value systems that they used their myths to support and illustrate, than I was with the historical reality behind them.

I'm the opposite. I think all myths are, essentially, fish stories. I'm much more concerned with the roots than the branches.

I mostly agree with Christopher on this one. While investigations of the historical roots of myths is certainly a fascinating field, and particularly useful when confronted with those people who have enourmous difficulty seperating fact from fiction, the truth is that, for the most part, it is the branches rather than the roots that hold the most ideaological sway. One is certainly free to dislike the situation--just look at the popularity of fundamentalism, whose central myth is a return to the roots of the faith--but dismissing a cultural mythography because of the permutations and outright fabrications that have become woven into the belief system over time seems dreadfully limiting. As a scholar, the great advantage of myth (and it needn't only be religious myth; national mythology, like Washington and the cherry tree and Manifest Destiny, for instance, would qualify, as would popular mythology like the UFO movement) is the privileged insight into the mindset of a culture or subculture. Mental landscapes are always the most inaccessible, uncertain areas of study. You can map and measure a culture's physical dimension, as do geographers and archaeologists; you can observe and analyse their social sphere, as do historians and sociologists; but how do you gain access into what they are thinking, their conceptual life, how they view their relationships with the world around them? A concern not so much with what they do (which is, of course, very important in its own right), but what they are thinking when they are doing it, goals and motivations. The stories that a culture tells itself reveal their ideology and worldview; that these are frequently idealizations mean that one must be cautious not to overgeneralize, to distinguish between the real and imagined, but at the same time the purity of idealization makes for the starkest evidence of the mentality a culture believes itself to be acting upon. That myths are essentially 'fish stories' is besides the point, in this case; the important thing is the implications behind a people placing their trust in certain stories as revelatory information or pedagogical tools.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

I've always felt that the stories a culture tells can say more about them than their actual history. It shows how they view themselves. It doesn't matter if there is a core to the Klingon Gods Myth, what is important is that it shows how the Klingons see themselves.

 

[Christopher]

While investigations of the historical roots of myths is certainly a fascinating field, and particularly useful when confronted with those people who have enourmous difficulty seperating fact from fiction, the truth is that, for the most part, it is the branches rather than the roots that hold the most ideaological sway. One is certainly free to dislike the situation--just look at the popularity of fundamentalism, whose central myth is a return to the roots of the faith--

Which is certainly a myth, because fundamentalist movements create their own modern definitions of what the "roots of the faith" are in order to suit their own present needs and agendas. Or else, to look at it another way, they base their definitions of the roots of the faith on their beliefs -- their myths -- about what the faith was like in the idealized past. Which are bound to be different from the reality.

As a scholar, the great advantage of myth (and it needn't only be religious myth; national mythology, like Washington and the cherry tree and Manifest Destiny, for instance, would qualify, as would popular mythology like the UFO movement) is the privileged insight into the mindset of a culture or subculture. Mental landscapes are always the most inaccessible, uncertain areas of study. You can map and measure a culture's physical dimension, as do geographers and archaeologists; you can observe and analyse their social sphere, as do historians and sociologists; but how do you gain access into what they are thinking, their conceptual life, how they view their relationships with the world around them? A concern not so much with what they do (which is, of course, very important in its own right), but what they are thinking when they are doing it, goals and motivations. The stories that a culture tells itself reveal their ideology and worldview; that these are frequently idealizations mean that one must be cautious not to overgeneralize, to distinguish between the real and imagined, but at the same time the purity of idealization makes for the starkest evidence of the mentality a culture believes itself to be acting upon.

Well said. I would add that it's important, not only to a scholar, but to a writer engaged in worldbuilding. To understand how an alien culture thinks and interprets the world, working out its mythology can be very useful. It's part of their cultural language, their shared heritage, and can help you gain insights into how they see the world. Myth, legend, and religion have often played an important part in the alien worldbuilding I've done.

 

[hellsgate]

I'd *L-O-V-E* to see the Hur'q mentioned in FAR more specific future-history detail & maybe a cover art depiction of them. Plus, more about the Vulcan Science Academy's missions to catalog & analyze the Hur'q rise to influence & fall from grace (leading to the discovery of The Kam Jathae in the "Star Trek: Invasion" game,) as I've heard that the DS9 relaunch series has briefly mentioned the crew of the Defiant finding subjugated Hur'q civilizations/contacts & artifacts in the Gamma Quadrant.

 

[foravalon]

I'd *L-O-V-E* to see the Hur'q mentioned in FAR more specific future-history detail & maybe a cover art depiction of them. Plus, more about the Vulcan Science Academy's missions to catalog & analyze the Hur'q rise to influence & fall from grace (leading to the discovery of The Kam Jathae in the "Star Trek: Invasion" game,) as I've heard that the DS9 relaunch series has briefly mentioned the crew of the Defiant finding subjugated Hur'q civilizations/contacts & artifacts in the Gamma Quadrant.

I don't recall that from the Relaunch, but I much prefer the Hurq and their mythology established in The Left Hand of Destiny then those insect things from a video game, and for anyone who hasn't read TLHoD yet, do so, it's awesome!

 

[Geoff Thorne]

Wow.

Me, I'm just interested in stories. If you don't think there's a great one to be told about the beginnings, the "real" beginnings of the Klingon society (or any society) and faith (or any faith), I think you're missing something.

Mythologizing about ethnicity alone is of great importance as it exerts profound influence, mostly negative, on our culture.The origins of those views is far more interesting to me than just digging the abstract cultural ripples they inspired.

Race. Ethnicity. Gender. All of these (and more) are connected to social mythologizing. The foundational Klingon myth, the the central driving ethos of their culture, is, to me, far less interesting than the events that spawned the myth.

The simple contrast between myth and truth is too educational and illuminating to be passed off as just another unimportant seed. The answer to the question "Why?" is never unimportant.

But, as I said, I'm not the guy to write it. I'd rather see someone whose hand I trust and who's more deeply connected to the fictional society take a crack.

 

[Steve Roby]

The foundational Klingon myth, the the central driving ethos of their culture, is, to me, far less interesting than the events that spawned the myth.

You're starting with the assumption that myths are spawned by events. Sometimes people just make shit up.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

The foundational Klingon myth, the the central driving ethos of their culture, is, to me, far less interesting than the events that spawned the myth.

You're starting with the assumption that myths are spawned by events. Sometimes people just make shit up.

Absolutely. Some myths do have their beginnings in a historical event, but many others have no basis in history at all. Just as some fiction novels are based or inspired by true events, whether they be from the author's own life or not, and some are just made up from the author's imagination. Personally, while finding the historical kernel of a myth/story can be interesting and/or informative, I find that by focusing on the historical roots of myths that many really miss the meaning that they hold or held for the people that tell or told them.

 

[Christopher]

Me, I'm just interested in stories. If you don't think there's a great one to be told about the beginnings, the "real" beginnings of the Klingon society (or any society) and faith (or any faith), I think you're missing something.

I never said that such an approach couldn't be interesting. I merely said that the other approach can be interesting also. And that we've already had plenty of Trek-universe stories offering "real" explanations for various mythical figures, so it's become kind of a cliche by this point -- maybe taking the other route, exploring a culture's myths as pure myths, would be a fresh alternative.

Mythologizing about ethnicity alone is of great importance as it exerts profound influence, mostly negative, on our culture.The origins of those views is far more interesting to me than just digging the abstract cultural ripples they inspired.

There is nothing "abstract" about the beliefs and values that shape your characters' choices and actions. Your characters aren't affected by the distant historical origins of their mythos; what matters in terms of the choices your characters make is what they believe about their civilization, their morality, their universe. That's very real to them.

The simple contrast between myth and truth is too educational and illuminating to be passed off as just another unimportant seed. The answer to the question "Why?" is never unimportant.

Again, I never said it was unimportant. I just said it wasn't the only thing that's important.

 

[Vastator]

All this Klingon stuff makes me want to know more about the early expansions of the Empire... *shakes fist at everyone*

Not sure if its been touched but what about those Hunters that went after Tosk? I heard that a Tosk is seen in the DS9 Relaunch novels but don't know if the Hunters are seen. I was checking Memory Alpha the other day and don't know if its accurate or not but it says that the Hunters were going to be called Drai and were going to be implied members of the Dominion. But thats not what we saw on screen so...

 

[Geoff Thorne]

Me, I'm just interested in stories. If you don't think there's a great one to be told about the beginnings, the "real" beginnings of the Klingon society (or any society) and faith (or any faith), I think you're missing something.

I never said that such an approach couldn't be interesting. I merely said that the other approach can be interesting also.

I think that's far more interesting as a myth than it would be as some cliched "ancient astronaut" interpretation. I mean, we've had Apollo, Kukulkan, Megas-tu, and the Furies -- can't the Klingons at least have an honest mythology of their own, a set of culturally generated symbols codifying a society's beliefs and values, without there having to be aliens or some other kind of superbeings involved?

And that we've already had plenty of Trek-universe stories offering "real" explanations for various mythical figures, so it's become kind of a cliche by this point -- maybe taking the other route, exploring a culture's myths as pure myths, would be a fresh alternative.

I don't believe any myth exists without a foundation in reality either via observation of nature or inspiration from the activities of human beings. Myths are not made up out of people's heads out of whole cloth but out of real events filtered/shaped by collective desire and agreement. They serve a survival purpose. Indeed, myth is just a term for faiths people aren't using anymore. Klingons still believe in all that stuff so they're not myths. They are Faith.

It's interesting that anyone writing any form of fiction would assume a cliche based on such sketchy info as has been presented here. Any story can be reduced to its component cliches. I don't assume anything on that score. If the Borg show up in a book or Q, I don't go in expecting "Oh, hell, more silly magic crap with Q, more zombie action with the Borg." I go in cold, expecting nothing.

There is nothing "abstract" about the beliefs and values that shape your characters' choices and actions. Your characters aren't affected by the distant historical origins of their mythos; what matters in terms of the choices your characters make is what they believe about their civilization, their morality, their universe. That's very real to them.

Well. That's what you think about your characters. It's valid. I disagree. Also valid. I find most of the cultural myths people live by to be pretty much arbitrary and that exploding those myths with actual facts tends to diminish their impact and influence which is, almost invariably, a Good Thing. My own life has been rife with the negative effects of people acting on their arbitrary mythological constructs. YMMV.

I never said it was unimportant. I just said it wasn't the only thing that's important.

Again, you're assuming a lot based on pretty much zero data. Who said it was the only thing? Why would you assume the worst, thinnest, least illuminating iteration when there is a rainbow of possible approaches to such a story regardless of approach?

I want to see the truth behind the myth. I think it would be fun to have KRAD write that story. Where in there is any indication that said story would be cliche, involve alien attack/domination or any of the other no-nos on your list? There are many ways such a story could be told without falling into any of those "traps" and many ways to tell the story using one or more of those things you've made off-limits that would be both original and interesting.

My only criterion for telling or enjoying any story is "Is it a good story?"

Right now I can see a double volume, one detailing the myth, treating it the way the Bible treats history, and another telling the "actual" facts, whatever they turn out to be. It can be a DeCandido/Osborne collaboration.

Seems like a win-win.

If no one has done it in a few years, when I'm better at this, this conversation has pretty much guaranteed I'm pitching something.