Spoilers Discovery and the Novelverse - TV show discussion thread
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
That book was interesting, but it sort of bothered me because it's also an example of the other thing I'm talking about -- the assumption that the TNG-era "let them die rather than interfere" interpretation of the PD applied in the 23rd century as well. We know from "For the World is Hollow..." that it didn't -- Kirk explicitly said "The people of Yonada may be changed by the knowledge, but it's better than exterminating them," and nobody argued with him about that.
By 23rd-century standards, the Prime Directive was about making sure that societies were free to develop naturally. A society that goes extinct can't develop at all, so if anything, the TOS-era version of the Directive should've mandated saving a civilization from extinction, not forbidden it. As cool an episode as "Pen Pals" was, it did a terrible thing to the idea of the Prime Directive by introducing the extreme "let them die" interpretation.
The spore drive isn't worse than the transwarp in the TOS movies. The fact it's never mentioned again (except from the Borg, which it's not clear if it's the same tech) and the only explanation is Scotty's sabotage--that explanation literally explains nothing and would mean that no one actually tested transwarp tech before it was installed on the Excelsior. That's extremely unbelievable.
Voyager was finding "this will get us home now, really" tech fairly often too. The quantum slipstream drive and the infamous Threshold lizard incident come to mind.
The spore drive might be problematic, but it's not doing anything Trek hasn't already done extremely often.
But you know what, maybe in "For the World is Hollow.." gives us a hint that maybe some in Starfleet did indeed interpret the PD as let them die. The very fact that he feels the need to justify it may indicate that some in Starfleet may take a stronger view about the PD than he did. It may just be that the PTB in general agreed Kirk's action was justified on Yolanda. Maybe there was a period of transition that eventually led to the TNG view of the PD.
But in "The Rings...." writers (Wesley Smith & Rusch) may have been inadvertently influenced by TNG though, I agree a bit there. In a way it's a similar situation to Yolanda which also had a few thousand people. I'm sure part of it was to plant some discontent between Kirk and the Farragut Captain who is more BTB. I'm about halfway through but I have to think some conflict will arise between the two captains about saving the remaining population.
In "Pen Pals" there is even disagreement about what to do with Data's friend. And it does lead to an interesting ethical dilemma. What if saving them leads to some future catastrophe? Or are we meant to save them? It's actually a fascinating look into the consequences of the PD from both directions. I tend to agree with you though, that I'd have a hard time letting a civilization die if I had the power to stop it. But it's still important to consider all the repercussions. You certainly don't want to get to playing God. For instance I could see helping a civilization survive a natural disaster or even horrific accident (as in "The Rings...'). But it gets a bit dicier if you find out a civilization is close to wiping itself because of war. In that case you could certainly see the wisdom of the Prime Directive.
That's just not how the scene is played, though. When Spock suggests that revealing the truth to Yonada may violate the Prime Directive, Kirk just says the line I quoted and Spock promptly says "Logical, captain." It's not some big moral debate, it's an immediately self-evident counterpoint to Spock's question about a legal technicality. And when Kirk contacts Starfleet later, the Admiral doesn't seem to have any problem with his decision and indeed declares that Starfleet will take over the mission of diverting Yonada before it hits Daran V.
But the arrogance there -- that it should be our decision to decide whether a culture lives or dies -- is exactly what the PD was supposed to prevent. It wasn't about "We're smarter than they are so we get to choose for them" -- just the opposite. It was supposed to be "They're smarter about their own needs than we are so we need to preserve their freedom to choose for themselves." It's supposed to be about respecting their right and ability to decide their own fate, not condescendingly assuming they're too stupid to make any decisions and thus need to be kept in the dark while Starfleet decides their fate for them. "Pen Pals" and especially "Homeward" were so fixated on the letter of noninterference that they were completely backward about the spirit of the Directive.
Well, maybe. My guess is maybe something happened prior to the time of TNG where some officer went overboard, and Starfleet decided to get stricter about the PD. That's been known to happen. Something bad happens, someone reacts with good intentions but maybe goes a bit overboard. I imagine the interpretation of the PD has fluctuated over time a bit. It'll never be perfect.
But in general I'd agree. If we can help avert a natural disaster I think that should be ok (though I'd of course mitigate contact as much as possible--and try to help in the least intrusive way possible as to maintain the spirit of the directive--as was ultimately done in Pen Pals).
Where it gets a bit more muddled is you find a planet where war is close to wiping a civilization out. Does the Federation interfere then? That might be where the PD comes into play.
Why is it that whenever I try to critique the real-world creative process and the decisions of the writers, people around here insist on responding exclusively in terms of in-universe justifications? That's not the only level for discussing fiction. Critiquing fiction is about critiquing the ideas that go into it, the choices and judgment of the creators. I'm saying I regret that the writers of episodes like "Pen Pals" and "Homeward" so deeply misunderstood the philosophy of TOS's Prime Directive and ended up using it to justify the exact same condescension and cultural imperialism that it was meant to be a caution against. It just became "unilaterally decide to let them go extinct" rather than "unilaterally decide to make them worship us as gods." Consciously depriving people of the right to know they're in danger is still playing god. It made for a compelling moral dilemma in "Pen Pals," but it warped the idea of the Directive in an ultimately harmful way (that led to the sheer awfulness of "Homeward").
People can still critique the real-world process and discuss in-universe justifications. It's what people enjoy. They want to preserve the illusion and have fun. It also expands creativity.
Strictly speaking if one wants to discuss only out of universe topics, there are groups for that like writers' reddit groups etc.
It also just helps keep people in a more "neutral" state of mind. Coming from the Star Wars lit forums, critiquing writing techniques often bleeds into attacking the writer (Karen Traviss left theforce net I think over such issues), and people don't trust themselves not to slip into that state and instead just think "in-universe".
Star Trek and other entertainment franchises are refuges from those messy real world arguments regarding real people, and people come here to get away from that. Not jump back into it.
Last edited:
I'm not as comfortable with critiquing the writing angle. I couldn't write a page of fiction so I figure it's not really my place to try to critique the writing process. I know it sounds odd how much I critique Discovery's production design and technology elements. But I'm not as adept at critiquing their motivations.
I'm just more inclined to make my arguments for an in universe perspective. Even when I criticize the spore drive for instance, I always go back to the 'in-universe' elements, not as much from the writing angle or why the showrunners did it.
I think part of it may be because you are a writer. You are actually part of the inner workings of Star Trek, maybe not from a showrunning perspective, but you're much more familiar with the inner workings of Star Trek than I am. So it makes a lot of sense you'd want to look at it from that angle. That's much more your perspective
Me, not so much. I wouldn't even remember who wrote "Pen Pals" without looking it up. My general default is to discuss things from 'in universe'.
That's just it: "and." Both of them. All anybody here ever talks about is the latter part, and when I try to also discuss the former, people just ignore it and respond in in-universe terms.
Critiquing creators' choices is not at all the same as attacking them as people. You can respect someone as a person yet still think they made a wrong decision about something. (And conversely you can recognize that someone is a terrible person yet still admire the work they did -- e.g. Alfred Hitchcock, Woody Allen, Bill Cosby, and far too many others.)
So it's not about the creator. It's just about acknowledging that the story in question is a created work, an artistic construct that can be evaluated on a "behind-the-scenes" level, rather than a documentary from an alternate universe that can only be talked about in terms of its internal facts and events.
I learned how to critique fiction long before I became a writer. It used to be taught in English class. And my interest in the behind-the-scenes side of the creative process began when I got The Making of Star Trek in around first or second grade, 6-7 years before I decided I wanted to be a writer. I guess you could say that early curiosity about the creative process presaged my interest in doing it myself, though.
Honestly if you find everyone here is like that maybe this just isn't the group for you. No offense, you could sign up for writers' forums or meetups, there are a ton of them.
As a member of a lot of forums, if the people there aren't talking the way I want to, I'm not going to complain and make them all start talking the way I want them to. I would just leave and find people who do talk the way I want. And if I don't find them, I don't find them.
You yourself say that "everyone" here is talking mostly with in-universe terms. As you yourself say, you seem to be an outlier. So what justifies one outlier (unless that person is the group leader) trying to make a whole group speak in the terms of that one person?
That's not fair. I'm not "trying to make" anyone do anything. I'm just expressing regret that nobody else seems interested. Expressing an opinion is not an attempt at coercion.
I believe you, but I've noticed that you mentioned it enough times that it's starting to feel the latter. I've lost track of the amount of times I've responded to your "It's all fiction" posts. You even went as far as using a swear word at me--
I get where you're coming from. As someone critical of the new Disney Star Wars works, I mentioned it in practically every other post on Star Wars message boards. People pointed out to me that while I wasn't forcing anyone to see my point of view, it was becoming tedious to the Disney fans, so I'm guilty of these things myself. That's why I don't spend as much time on the Star Wars boards anymore, since the majority of the group like the new works.
Last edited:
That's probably part of it as well. You're interest is a lot on the external (not to the exclusion of in-universe of course).
Now me, I'm not as interested in the behind the scenes stuff. I'm almost ashamed to admit it but I don't always watch all the special features on my Star Trek discs or always listen to the commentaries. When I do and they're discussing the various behind the scenes stuff I sort of tune out. It's when they start talking about in universe stuff (this scene was reminiscent of such and such an episode, or we did this story this way because of these prior episodes) that my ears perk up.
I've had the book "The Making of Star Trek" for a few years around (a first edition by the way I found at a used book store
) but have yet to read it----though I will. I've heard from some people here 
that it was the basis for a lot of early Star Trek writing and I want to read it. Esp. since in that case is will probably enhance some of my understanding of the in-universe stuff. In fact, maybe after "The Rings of Tautee" I'll read that next.
"The Red Angel" was the first time Trek has used current-day sexual identity labels (Stamets says he and Culber are gay, Georgiou says the version of Stamets him she knew was pansexual). It felt a little odd, since the fanon assumption has always been that Trek's world was beyond such labels. IIRC The Best and Brightest was forbidden from using any identifying term for it's same-sex relationship.
That wasn't because of being "beyond labels," it was because TB&TB was written at a time when it still had to be circumspect and only vaguely imply a same-sex romance rather than being able to portray it openly. I don't think it was until 3 years later (with Section 31: Rogue and Dark Passions, both in 2001) that Pocket Trek was able to openly portray gay/lesbian characters.
Still, I had a similar reaction when Sisko said "black people" in DS9: "Badda Bing Badda Bang." That seemed a bit dated to me. Although who knows? Since then, "black" has come back into vogue as an ethnic and cultural label. Maybe it could continue to do so in the future.
I think that, with the associated cultural baggage that has been attached to the labels, they’ll persist, due to the societal pressures that have existed upon people who identify with these labels in the past - for so long, they’ve been a source of solidarity and connection for people that makes it hard (at least in my view) to just let them go, even if they no longer have the need that they once did.
And, speaking as a gay viewer, I was happy to hear the use of the word, the absolute confirmation that yes, gay people are a part of this world. Because I’ve seen in other fandoms people using the fact that the word not being used, despite the characters being in solely same-sex relationships, being referred to as gay by the creators, as justification for claiming ‘but they could be bi!’ And that argument was meant purely in the name of in effect invalidating them as representation for gay people, just because it didn’t fit their preferred interpretation.
I think of it as a concession to the fact that this is fiction - in the 23rd century, it may be a difference that makes no difference, but for the audience in the 21st century, the use of that label matters for those who sit under that umbrella.
And, speaking as a gay viewer, I was happy to hear the use of the word, the absolute confirmation that yes, gay people are a part of this world. Because I’ve seen in other fandoms people using the fact that the word not being used, despite the characters being in solely same-sex relationships, being referred to as gay by the creators, as justification for claiming ‘but they could be bi!’ And that argument was meant purely in the name of in effect invalidating them as representation for gay people, just because it didn’t fit their preferred interpretation.
I think of it as a concession to the fact that this is fiction - in the 23rd century, it may be a difference that makes no difference, but for the audience in the 21st century, the use of that label matters for those who sit under that umbrella.
Christopher has been posting here for the better part of two decades. (So have I! Jesus!) This is indeed the place for him.
I have no idea where the idea that Trek's world was "beyond" labels comes from. To me, that looks more like denying the existence of a minority group than it does like being a part of their liberation. I for one certainly hope that in the 23rd and 24th Centuries, LGBTQIA+ people still exist and have their identities affirmed. "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination."
Things change. I was just repeating what @Christopher himself said about how "everyone" on this forum was now speaking using in-universe terms instead of the out of universe terms he preferred:
In any case what I said was just a suggestion, it's up for him to decide obviously. But I know from experience when you feel everyone is speaking in different terms than you yourself are, it's telling.
Star Trek hasn't had any main tv show in over a decade, and during that time there was more interest in the literature that filled the void. Now that Discovery is here, there are newer fans who prefer the new tv show and are more concerned with how the prose can be bent to fit that, in-universe, rather than the writing debates that may have permeated older times when there was no weekly tv Trek.
I was a poster on theforce net Star Wars forums for the better part of 2 decades too. Once I realized the things I wanted to talk about were gone and the old people were gone filled with fans of Disney's work (which I have many disagreements on their story strategy), I realized it was time to go.
Length of time means nothing. When something isn't the place for you anymore, it isn't your place anymore (speaking about myself only in this latter example).
Last edited:
I will say as someone who's gotten into plenty of, um, debates with Christopher, he isn't singularly focused. He may be a bit disappointed that some of us aren't as engaged by the behind the scenes stuff, but I don't think that means it's the only thing he's interested in.
Plus I don't want Christopher to go anywhere, and I'm sure many people here would hate to see him go bye bye. How often do you get to 'chat' with an insider. Sometimes I scarcely believe it myself. We get to hear from guys like Christopher, Greg Cox, Dayton Ward, David Mack, and how many others.
Plus I don't want Christopher to go anywhere, and I'm sure many people here would hate to see him go bye bye. How often do you get to 'chat' with an insider. Sometimes I scarcely believe it myself. We get to hear from guys like Christopher, Greg Cox, Dayton Ward, David Mack, and how many others.
Last edited: