There once was a guy named Q who could traverse all of time and space at will. How? Did he have a ship? No. Did he have technology? No. The one & only answer we're given is that he's really good at snapping his fingers.
For all intents & purposes, Q (as a concept) is not a science-fiction character. He is a fantasy character. Even Harry Potter goes to the trouble of casting spells, but Q's finger-snapping is all we get.
Someone might say, "Well, the unexplained always looks like magic until it's understood." Awesome. So I can come up with the most far-fetched and outlandish ideas, and as long as I don't *explain* it, it's plausible and acceptable? Q made all kinds of appearances in THREE Star Trek series, and after all of that, we're still left with more finger-snapping. Is this the standard of good science-fiction?
So if "less is more" when it comes to explaining things, maybe DSC should've done all the same stuff, but without explaining any of the science behind it, just taking it on faith. It's ironic that when the Red Angel was first introduced, lots of people found any religious undertones to be offensive (before it was revealed to have mechanical/artificial properties by Saru). But Q amounts to a supernatural entity in pretty much every way, and he's been embraced by 3 series. People take him and his abilities "on faith."
For years, I wanted to see sci-fi do a simple task: 1) pick up a real science journal, 2) glean the latest theories/breakthroughs/technology, 3) develop & incorporate them into storylines that were realistic and challenged the imagination. DSC has done exactly that, incorporating the work of the real-life Paul Stamets. They are doing exactly what science-fiction is supposed to do, and it's to be applauded.
And let me say that it's always good science to dissect and challenge theories, even those of Stamets. But my point is that it's a double-standard to hate on a scientifically-based idea in favor of one that isn't science at all - namely Q. If you find Q's finger-snapping methods of traversing time & space to be more favorable, you might be in the wrong genre of fiction. May the force be with you if that's you.
For all intents & purposes, Q (as a concept) is not a science-fiction character. He is a fantasy character. Even Harry Potter goes to the trouble of casting spells, but Q's finger-snapping is all we get.
Someone might say, "Well, the unexplained always looks like magic until it's understood." Awesome. So I can come up with the most far-fetched and outlandish ideas, and as long as I don't *explain* it, it's plausible and acceptable? Q made all kinds of appearances in THREE Star Trek series, and after all of that, we're still left with more finger-snapping. Is this the standard of good science-fiction?
So if "less is more" when it comes to explaining things, maybe DSC should've done all the same stuff, but without explaining any of the science behind it, just taking it on faith. It's ironic that when the Red Angel was first introduced, lots of people found any religious undertones to be offensive (before it was revealed to have mechanical/artificial properties by Saru). But Q amounts to a supernatural entity in pretty much every way, and he's been embraced by 3 series. People take him and his abilities "on faith."
For years, I wanted to see sci-fi do a simple task: 1) pick up a real science journal, 2) glean the latest theories/breakthroughs/technology, 3) develop & incorporate them into storylines that were realistic and challenged the imagination. DSC has done exactly that, incorporating the work of the real-life Paul Stamets. They are doing exactly what science-fiction is supposed to do, and it's to be applauded.
And let me say that it's always good science to dissect and challenge theories, even those of Stamets. But my point is that it's a double-standard to hate on a scientifically-based idea in favor of one that isn't science at all - namely Q. If you find Q's finger-snapping methods of traversing time & space to be more favorable, you might be in the wrong genre of fiction. May the force be with you if that's you.