• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Do you like destiny?

JoeZhang

Vice Admiral
Admiral
Ah-ha! you thought this was going to be about the recent blockbuster trilogy! Well suckers, there is no truth in advertising.

Do you like the concept of destiny in your Star Trek novels? where certain characters are the chosen ones and are moved to fulfil prophecy. I've been reading the DS9-R novels again and while prophesy and destiny are built into the concept of the series (and got out of control at the end of the actual TV series), it all seems tp be getting a bit too much like fantasy fiction to me.

What's your preference?
 
Last edited:
Oh I don't know, it can have its place. I didn't mind it in DS9 because there was a fairly good explanation for it, that I would say made it less destiny than really powerful aliens controling what will happen. When I think of destiny I think of an unseen deity, ancient prophecy, etc. While the Bajorans may see it that way, in the audience we know it is really just wormhole aliens. They live outside of linear time and they have controlled events in our time period, so it isn't the mysterious force of fate acting.

If that made any sense. I think I am just rambling . . .

My point is, no, in DS9 it doesn't bother because I don't consider it destiny in the religious sense. Just destiny in that the wormhole aliens already know what I am doing and will do, and have controled events to lead to their desired outcomes.

EDIT:
Now, that is as far as DS9 is concerned.
I think in a broader sense trek is about "choseness" for our characters.
Picard, Kirk, et al. will always succede, they aren't going to die, if they become disgraced they will be vindicated.
Sometimes it gets old, but then I don't think I would enjoy seeing our characters constantly losing, either!
 
Destiny (like Fate etc.) isn't something I believe in myself. But I don't find even in DS9 so much that the idea of destiny is overwhelming. The characters may act under their own belief that there is fate, but nothing ever happens that isn't just a reaction to what is occurring. Actions have consequences, bad things happen, coincidences occur, sometimes people are just in the wrong/right place at the wrong/right time. And there is always a reason for what happens in ST, so I think, like religion/the Bajorans etc. ST does a good job of catering to the general audience.
 
Generally speaking, 'destiny' is not a concept I like to encounter in my science-fiction (unless it's an overt conflation of sci-fi and fantasy generic conventions, like Star Wars), because a) it is a religious, or at the very least sprititual notion, which often rings false in the setting, and b) I expect that what makes a hero in science-fiction is external--knowledge accrued, tools, etc. To generalize, the wondrous elements in sci-fi, being technology-based, are available to any who can learn to use that tech. In fantasy, you're born with whatever wondrous abilities you have--Force powers, magical aptitude, planeswalker spark, etc.--and those who aren't born with such innate skills can't attain them (again, generalizing) which creates a kind of privileged class from the get go. Both formulations can be used to create good stories, by my preference has always been for the former, which I find is more humane.

That said, I agree with casey that I'm not particularly put off with 'destiny' as it operates in Deep Space Nine, because it's not really 'destiny'. Bajorans and other may choose to interpret it that way, but there is also a rational, secular explanation for the Prophet's 'prophetic' character, which is that they exist outside of linear time. When they speak of the future, they don't do so in any kind of oracular way, but because they've actually observed it. Further, it isn't 'destiny' as this is usually conceived, because we've seen a number of times when events did not unfold the way the Prophets had originally viewed it, when Sisko and other characters have resisted the Prophets' normative schemes for linear time unfolding. Predestination sensu stricto and free will cannot coexist, but free will obviously still exists in this context, so nothing can be predestined; instead, think of it as probability: if I release a pencil in mid-air, it is not predestined to fall but is overwhelmingly probable to do so. Likewise, events need not unfold as the Prophets have foreseen them, but are likely to do so, particularly when the Prophets intervene in linear time to guarantee the results they desire. This is apparent even in recent offerings; Sisko defied the Prophets twice towards the end of the series by going to Cardassia and marrying Kassidy; in Fearful Symmetry, Sisko attends a gathering of his counterparts across a number of universes, which indicates the high probability of Sisko(s) becoming Emissary, but one Sisko (the MU Sisko) is absent entirely, indicating that there is no ironclad notion of fate at work.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
 
Generally speaking, 'destiny' is not a concept I like to encounter in my science-fiction (unless it's an overt conflation of sci-fi and fantasy generic conventions, like Star Wars), because a) it is a religious, or at the very least sprititual notion, which often rings false in the setting, and b) I expect that what makes a hero in science-fiction is external--knowledge accrued, tools, etc. To generalize, the wondrous elements in sci-fi, being technology-based, are available to any who can learn to use that tech. In fantasy, you're born with whatever wondrous abilities you have--Force powers, magical aptitude, planeswalker spark, etc.--and those who aren't born with such innate skills can't attain them (again, generalizing) which creates a kind of privileged class from the get go. Both formulations can be used to create good stories, by my preference has always been for the former, which I find is more humane.

Hum.. thank you, you've articulated something I've always thought but never been able to put into words.
 
Personally I don't mind the idea of destiny in thing as like Star Trek, as long as it is done in way that fits with the universe and the story they are telling, like DS9. This is where it can be hard though, because concepts like destiny don't always fit in a very scientific universe like Trek's.
 
I don't mind people using the term "destiny," but the notion of predestination or whatever seems to cut against some of the democratic ideals of Trek -- reminds me of Brin's old article on Trek vs. Star Wars, and the antiegalitarian ideals in Star Wars. I prefer my Trek to have a different underlying philosophy.
 
I don't think I've read that article. Do you have a link at hand?

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
 
My take is that DS9 was ALL about destiny. several instances showed up throughout the series that sisko was headed for something big...in the end he couldnt deny it or avoid it. i think a very good definition of destiny is basically your destiny is there, ya just gotta wait for the right moment to accept it. sisko did eventually accept his role as the Emissary, and i think he did alright at it.
 
Very interesting thread. I would normally find destiny in Science Fiction kind of grotesque but for me it works in DS9. But it's also limited to one man. It could easily go overboard but it is deeply enmeshed in the story line right from the beginning. No "Suprise! You're the Messiah!" stuff as a deux ex machina.

I had to stop reading VOY relaunch at the Spirt Walk books because of the whole "your baby is a Messiah" thing made me throw those books against a wall. And I loved that relaunch in the first two books.

I like destiny that can have a concrete explanation and I guess Sisko's destiny does provide that to a large extent. There are other kinds of destiny such as Kirk attracting temporal incursions. There was something about Kirk that made him more likely to slip into temporal anomalies, and that is a kind of "you are special" destiny. But of course there is an answer to that within physics (just not discovered yet), we all know it's not because Kirk was spiritually important in any way.

But the whole Messiah, savior thing.. well lets not have any more of that please. Star Wars did it best and interestingly the concrete explanation offered in The Phantom Menace for the Chosen One sat awkwardly with a lot of fans--it was jarring in what was more fantasy than sci-fi.
 
^ That was an odd addition to the mythos, particularly coming hot on the heels of the whole 'midichlorian' thing; two examples of each constituant genre's frequent trespasses, technobabble particules and jejune messianism, just smooshed together.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
 
My take is that DS9 was ALL about destiny. several instances showed up throughout the series that sisko was headed for something big...in the end he couldnt deny it or avoid it. i think a very good definition of destiny is basically your destiny is there, ya just gotta wait for the right moment to accept it. sisko did eventually accept his role as the Emissary, and i think he did alright at it.

I think that worked on the basis of the wormhole aliens being able to see outside linear time, more than "destiny" but thats just my opinion...
 
How are we defining "destiny?"

Doing or being something special because the universe intends it to be so.

"The universe?" The universe is just a collection of stuff; it can't have an intention.

Do you mean, "Doing or being something special because a supernatural intelligence intends it to be so?"


"The universe" is currently the least threatening term for anything that might be a god or higher power. People often say "the universe is telling me something!" (usually about some coincidence).

So go ahead and substitute whatever you like in place of universe--supernatural intelligence is fine. Or you can be like Gene Roddenberry and say "A Ginormous and Powerful Computer".
 
I have a friend who does not not not believe in God (or anything to that effect), but believes in fate/destiny or... he doesn't have a "name" for it...
 
Hmm.

One thing to consider is the idea of "destiny" as simply, "Something that is inevitably going to happen." For instance, if I'm reading a Peanuts comic strip, if I could communicate with Charlie Brown, I might tell him that in the third panel, Lucy will move the football and he'll miss it. Charlie Brown might accuse me of trying to control his choices, but that's not it at all -- I just happen to know what's going to happen, even if I can't control it.

Does "destiny" have to have a guiding intelligence behind it, or can it be something that just happens?
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top