Spoilers DS9: The Missing by Una McCormack Review Thread

[Deranged Nasat]

One last note before I leave this.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/feminism

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feminism

Appeal to dictionary does nothing to present the reality of an ideology, the assumptions and implications upon which it is built, the greater weight of its actions modern and historic, the position its adherents generally take relative to wider social issues or the ideas it promotes within its discourse. It says nothing about the mode of action nor the potential for dynamic, organic social forces to shift from simplified mission statements and favourable self-promotion. It is also ludicrous to claim wide swaths of human thought as belonging to a specific ideology by fiat. A simplistic definition of a term assigned to an ideological worldview by those who wish to define it in positive terms is meaningless in a discussion of the impact and actions of those gathering under that ideological umbrella. Even the very definitions asserted on this page fall apart as it's clear there are assumptions and implications attached (often unquestioned) that are not present in the definitions given. Words - including labels - are assigned definitions that do not by any means reflect the full reality of the word's use, particularly when there are assumptions regarding one's automatic means of viewing the world built into that word. Definitions in these terms are fluid, and challenged when they are, in practice, shown to be misleading, false or unsuitable. As many would accuse the dictionary definition of feminism of being.

I have no real interest in discussing this topic further - for one thing, this thread is about The Missing - and I appreciate the respectful tone others have used. All I ask is that people understand - even if they as yet cannot accept or comprehend - that many people are opposed to the ideological movement that goes by the name of feminism, and that this isn't because they're sexist. Blanket resistance to the idea simply dismisses from consideration any and all positions and perspectives that do not fall within the boundaries of one, specific ideology. Even if one is to insist that all these people are wrong, that is the reality in which they live.

As said, I'll happily leave this now so others can discuss this fine book. And allow me to return the respects.

 

[Markonian]

As said, I'll happily leave this now so others can discuss this fine book.

Okay, back to the book.

What prefix and registry does the Athene Donald have? It's only ever referred to by name, and even its class is identified rather late in the book.

Given that it is a Federation civilian vessel, it's probably SS Athene Donald NAR-xxxxx, but it could be anything else, too.

Maybe we're lucky and get details the next time the ship puts in an appearance. The Olympic-class starship has been reproduced in CGI for the Eaglemoss Starship Collection. I don't know whether it was digitalized by Doug Drexler or somebody else, but if it's him, there's a chance the ship could end up on a subsequent cover. That's how we got the image of the Robinson, remember?

 

[Enterpriserules]

For me, as always, Una has knocked this out of the park. I loved everything she was doing here. I enjoyed the slower pace and "smaller" story. Even though, if this had gone horribly wrong, The Chain would have been a terrible new villain for Starfleet to make at this time, so in the end, the stakes were sufficiently high. I loved that the women of Star Trek really got to shine in this book. I'm a huge fan of Beverly, I've come to really like Ro and now...... Pulaski. I never thought I would utter or write those words, but leave it to Una to make me eat them

 

[Enterpriserules]

Finally were able to catch up with Una on Literary Treks about The Missing!

 

[Reanok]

That's a great podcast Interview with Una McCormack I hope she'll be writing more Star Trek books in the future.

 

[Enterpriserules]

As do I. I cannot believe Pocket has not already locked her in for another one!

 

[rfmcdpei]

In my mind the whole transphasic or what ever it's called beaming and having the murderer explode because because the beaming is unstable is the definition of deus ex machina. Maybe I'm wrong but that's how I see it.

Transporter failures that can gruesomely kill a person being transported aren't new to Star Trek.

And the insights that caused the problem resolution may not be the definition of DSM but some of them seem to be to come out of no where.

Deductive reasoning and a certain amount of intuition were involved, but nothing seemed implausible with either. YMMV.

 

[the_wildcard]

Catching up a little late on this book. But I was dissapointed in no updates from more characters in the DS9 world. Would have been great to see more of O'Brien and Nog (non existent).

 

[tomswift2002]

Would have been great to see more of O'Brien and Nog (non existent).

Even the Defiant was MIA in that book, with no mention of the ship being out on patrol or anything.

 

[Christopher]

Very late in getting around to this one...

The problem that I have with the Tzenkethi is that they have suddenly become these beings of pure beauty, grace and effortless power that one cannot simply hope to understand or even argue with.

"Suddenly?" Since the first time their appearance was revealed in Rough Beasts of Empire (I think it was), they've always been described as extraordinarily beautiful, angelic-looking beings, in contrast to their rigid, oppressive, militant society. This book's portrayal of them was entirely consistent with what we've seen in previous books.

He was identified as the person who broke in, but then it was never said "why" he stole the data. As far as the Chain were concerned, that data was part of technology that was at, essentially, the level of children's toy's. Apparently Ailoi broke into sickbay for no reason!s.

He was implied to be working for the Chain's equivalent of Section 31, and the Shedai meta-genome contain's information beyond the Federation's current science/technology. It's not much of a leap to assume that it may be the most interesting thing the Federation has that the Chain wants.

I'm surprised nobody's caught onto this... Everyone in this thread is using "he" to refer to the Chain and People characters, but in fact, none of them is ever identified by a gender-specific pronoun. They're referred to only by their given names or their group affiliations. There's even a scene where a character wonders about what pronouns they use or something like that, though that's the only time it comes up; otherwise, it's just done without comment, their androgynous identity (or rather, I should say, their non-gendered identity) treated as normally as anything else. I find it sadly unsurprising that every commenter here defaulted to the assumption that they must be male.

Still though, I would have liked The Missing to explain and reconcile "subspace beaming" with "transwarp beaming".

I see them as different labels for the same thing -- like "automobile" and "car," or "cell phone" and "mobile." Simplest that way.

Nasat, like Sci, I value your contributions to this BBS quite a bit and think you're a generally intelligent clever person.

So please understand that I speak with respect when I say you are completely wrong about what feminism means and Sci is completely right. There is no "disagreement" here. Despite the best efforts of sexists the world over to turn it into a dirty word, feminism means precisely what Sci says: belief in women's equality with men and a desire to not downplay or trivialize the contributions of women to society.

This. Absolutely this.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Nasat, like Sci, I value your contributions to this BBS quite a bit and think you're a generally intelligent clever person.

So please understand that I speak with respect when I say you are completely wrong about what feminism means and Sci is completely right. There is no "disagreement" here. Despite the best efforts of sexists the world over to turn it into a dirty word, feminism means precisely what Sci says: belief in women's equality with men and a desire to not downplay or trivialize the contributions of women to society.

This. Absolutely this.

While it's long-established that this is a point I contest, I believe I should clarify some measure of my position. I won't post beyond this, because I've derailed quite enough, but I'll address this here in order that I may be understood. In particular because the Trek BBS lit forum and all the people and writers who post here have indeed treated me with the utmost respect.

If words and phrases are to be addressed and understood on the basis of their claimed dictionary meanings alone, devoid of context, implications and the wider discourse in which they appear - a rather unconvincing approach to communication and language, in my opinion - then feminism is definitely included, as there is a clear definition stated in the dictionaries. The fact that the definition in question is in no way capable of actually defining or containing what feminism in practice is, and indeed is disputed by various feminist initiatives, behaviours, and assertions - shows precisely how important it is to understand a phrase or a word by what it implies, what it is commonly used to signify, the behaviour of those who claim it and wield it, the assumptions and assertions it denotes or connotes and the ideological positions that are intimately associated with it - not what it is said to represent at face value. This is a particularly true when people affiliating with a word relate to it as tribal identifier. Pointing to the definition is worthless when it's disputed as to whether the definition is correct, and it is most definitely disputed. Most especially since feminist behaviour regularly conflicts with their stated definition, and examination of the social phenomenon that is feminism will reveal the fundamental weaknesses of the definition used. Retreating to the motte does not mean one can deny the bailey.

Suffice it to say, that despite the efforts of ideologues, tribalists, hypocrites and sexists the world over, many of us will not accept or validate an ideology that rests upon, exploits, and promotes problematic and bigoted assumptions; that has near-consistently lied and pursued institutional and societal influence through unscrupulous means; that has warped research and social aid programs in pursuit of an ideological agenda; that rests upon traditional and likely largely innate approaches to perception of the sexes and of wider social dynamics; that promotes a false account of history in accordance with predetermined ideological assumptions; that vilifies dissent both among its own and among the outgroup; that seeks to monopolize discussions; that has engaged in threat narratives and fear mongering on a grand and destructive scale; that milks and augments existing problematic assumptions and social pathologies that remain unquestioned because they are useful to it; that is inconsistent and changeable as a matter of course; and which wraps itself in progressive rhetoric while resisting and overturning many attempts to promote change.

I knew a man once - a teacher - who I recall fondly. He was wonderfully intelligent and insightful, witty, principled, but it all went completely out of the window with feminism, or indeed anything related to one of the human sexes. Complete indoctrination and zealotry. Cultural conditioning augmenting instinctual social and sexual impulses; it was clear that human behaviour distorts greatly to accommodate certain instinctual needs. The sheer power of the conviction is hardly surprising, though, when you consider the textbooks of sociology, etc., that we had available. The chapter on gender - which was nothing but feminist perspectives - was quite simply forceful propaganda, and completely different in tone and approach from anything else in the book. Same in Literature, Psychology, etc. It would have been almost laughable were it not clear that the reason it was pushed so hard and so uncompromisingly was that if you actually interrogated it, the feminist approach didn't hold water, and that it had a hook into people's psyches all too easily. The more I investigated, the more the entire ideology fell apart when put to scrutiny, just as one who actually reads a holy text and looks at the history of the religion comes to see that the evidence is against it and that without faith or blanket rejection of heresy it falls apart. Feminism's self-description and entire platform hold no water; both are simply tools that enable and "justify" a typically tribalist social manoeuver, one that dovetails near-perfectly with cultural and likely biological imperatives.

The teacher and I had a productive, respectful, mutually fond relationship - I owe him a lot - but his perspective was well and truly bolted down to feminist ideology, a massive blind spot in an otherwise insightful man. It was even clear at times that he knew he was at odds with his own values, but simply couldn't bring himself to acknowledge it. He had to talk the party line as a matter of psychological stability.

Now, don't imagine that I disagree with any and all points that individual feminists or schools of feminism make - you will find me having what may seem a surprising amount of sympathy for one who paints himself a committed opponent; be it for academic feminists of varied stripes or the many "But the Bible says!"/"Jesus Loves You" feminists-on-the-street. But the organic societal power, the phenomenon of feminism - which all of them bolster and believe in even as they misunderstand its nature - is something I cannot abide. Do not believe that because I follow the golden rule I justify the existence of the church as an institution, when the church has always been something ugly - though clothing itself in piousness.

Nor do I believe that people are defined by their group affiliations or belief structures, though they tend to disagree, making such things a matter of their identity. It is but one facet, and they can change. Not that ideologues of any description ever want to.

The consequences for wider society and the betterment of the population are dire, though. When the tool is not appropriate, one has not correctly diagnosed the problem, and using that tool will ultimately harm more than it heals, or impede rather than enable - and when one incorporates the tool into a larger approach to life, one risks an awful lot falling apart or going down with it when it crashes. When important matters of social cohesion are approached with the wrong assumptions in place - particularly when one is using a tool as labelled but it has been labelled wrong - then we're in trouble.

The implication that people who oppose and challenge feminism are automatically a) sexist and b) ignorant is simply not true, any more than those who oppose the church and its institutionalized structures are amoral servants of Satan. If one insists that all those people, with their varied paths through life and their distinct experience (which often involves immersion within feminism) can be dismissed as easily as is tried here - "sexists try to make it a dirty word" - then one will alienate those they might wish to court and one will stagnate through inability to take alternate positions. Indeed, one haemorrhages allies by pushing an ideology that is at odds with its supposed purpose - internally inconsistent - and at odds with the overall flavour of their politics. If one relates to those who oppose an active ideology - an organic social force - through the prism of their own perspective, complete with in-built assumptions reinforced by self-serving ideologues, then they will see only illegitimacy.

Those who oppose and dispute the phenomenon known as "feminism" are a very varied bunch; much more varied than those cloistered under its umbrella. It would be a mistake to assume that a number of them don't have valid reason to oppose as they do, or that they "don't understand" feminism - particularly when many are former feminists.

We don't live in a world of static definitions. We live in a world of active social and political forces. You can support and defend feminism as much as you wish, and promote it as a good and noble thing, but many more will attack it and, yes, consider it a dirty word - because of feminists, and the nature of feminism as a phenomenon, not because of sexism. Though you'll get those too.

Intolerant ideologies always work the same way when it comes to their defenders. Remember too what happened to Cardassia during the Dominion War. Garak worked it out quicker than the rest.

 

[DimesDan]

^sweet jesus, you really have no idea do you.

As for the book itself, I thought I already commented but looking back I didn't, I really rather liked it and I enjoyed it alot more that DRGIIIs last DS9 novel.

 

[SPCTRE]

Nasat, like Sci, I value your contributions to this BBS quite a bit and think you're a generally intelligent clever person.

So please understand that I speak with respect when I say you are completely wrong about what feminism means and Sci is completely right. There is no "disagreement" here. Despite the best efforts of sexists the world over to turn it into a dirty word, feminism means precisely what Sci says: belief in women's equality with men and a desire to not downplay or trivialize the contributions of women to society.

This. Absolutely this.

While it's long-established that this is a point I contest, I believe I should clarify some measure of my position. I won't post beyond this, because I've derailed quite enough, but I'll address this here in order that I may be understood. In particular because the Trek BBS lit forum and all the people and writers who post here have indeed treated me with the utmost respect.

If words and phrases are to be addressed and understood on the basis of their claimed dictionary meanings alone, devoid of context, implications and the wider discourse in which they appear - a rather unconvincing approach to communication and language, in my opinion - then feminism is definitely included, as there is a clear definition stated in the dictionaries. The fact that the definition in question is in no way capable of actually defining or containing what feminism in practice is, and indeed is disputed by various feminist initiatives, behaviours, and assertions - shows precisely how important it is to understand a phrase or a word by what it implies, what it is commonly used to signify, the behaviour of those who claim it and wield it, the assumptions and assertions it denotes or connotes and the ideological positions that are intimately associated with it - not what it is said to represent at face value. This is a particularly true when people affiliating with a word relate to it as tribal identifier. Pointing to the definition is worthless when it's disputed as to whether the definition is correct, and it is most definitely disputed. Most especially since feminist behaviour regularly conflicts with their stated definition, and examination of the social phenomenon that is feminism will reveal the fundamental weaknesses of the definition used. Retreating to the motte does not mean one can deny the bailey.

Suffice it to say, that despite the efforts of ideologues, tribalists, hypocrites and sexists the world over, many of us will not accept or validate an ideology that rests upon, exploits, and promotes problematic and bigoted assumptions; that has near-consistently lied and pursued institutional and societal influence through unscrupulous means; that has warped research and social aid programs in pursuit of an ideological agenda; that rests upon traditional and likely largely innate approaches to perception of the sexes and of wider social dynamics; that promotes a false account of history in accordance with predetermined ideological assumptions; that vilifies dissent both among its own and among the outgroup; that seeks to monopolize discussions; that has engaged in threat narratives and fear mongering on a grand and destructive scale; that milks and augments existing problematic assumptions and social pathologies that remain unquestioned because they are useful to it; that is inconsistent and changeable as a matter of course; and which wraps itself in progressive rhetoric while resisting and overturning many attempts to promote change.

I knew a man once - a teacher - who I recall fondly. He was wonderfully intelligent and insightful, witty, principled, but it all went completely out of the window with feminism, or indeed anything related to one of the human sexes. Complete indoctrination and zealotry. Cultural conditioning augmenting instinctual social and sexual impulses; it was clear that human behaviour distorts greatly to accommodate certain instinctual needs. The sheer power of the conviction is hardly surprising, though, when you consider the textbooks of sociology, etc., that we had available. The chapter on gender - which was nothing but feminist perspectives - was quite simply forceful propaganda, and completely different in tone and approach from anything else in the book. Same in Literature, Psychology, etc. It would have been almost laughable were it not clear that the reason it was pushed so hard and so uncompromisingly was that if you actually interrogated it, the feminist approach didn't hold water, and that it had a hook into people's psyches all too easily. The more I investigated, the more the entire ideology fell apart when put to scrutiny, just as one who actually reads a holy text and looks at the history of the religion comes to see that the evidence is against it and that without faith or blanket rejection of heresy it falls apart. Feminism's self-description and entire platform hold no water; both are simply tools that enable and "justify" a typically tribalist social manoeuver, one that dovetails near-perfectly with cultural and likely biological imperatives.

The teacher and I had a productive, respectful, mutually fond relationship - I owe him a lot - but his perspective was well and truly bolted down to feminist ideology, a massive blind spot in an otherwise insightful man. It was even clear at times that he knew he was at odds with his own values, but simply couldn't bring himself to acknowledge it. He had to talk the party line as a matter of psychological stability.

Now, don't imagine that I disagree with any and all points that individual feminists or schools of feminism make - you will find me having what may seem a surprising amount of sympathy for one who paints himself a committed opponent; be it for academic feminists of varied stripes or the many "But the Bible says!"/"Jesus Loves You" feminists-on-the-street. But the organic societal power, the phenomenon of feminism - which all of them bolster and believe in even as they misunderstand its nature - is something I cannot abide. Do not believe that because I follow the golden rule I justify the existence of the church as an institution, when the church has always been something ugly - though clothing itself in piousness.

Nor do I believe that people are defined by their group affiliations or belief structures, though they tend to disagree, making such things a matter of their identity. It is but one facet, and they can change. Not that ideologues of any description ever want to.

The consequences for wider society and the betterment of the population are dire, though. When the tool is not appropriate, one has not correctly diagnosed the problem, and using that tool will ultimately harm more than it heals, or impede rather than enable - and when one incorporates the tool into a larger approach to life, one risks an awful lot falling apart or going down with it when it crashes. When important matters of social cohesion are approached with the wrong assumptions in place - particularly when one is using a tool as labelled but it has been labelled wrong - then we're in trouble.

The implication that people who oppose and challenge feminism are automatically a) sexist and b) ignorant is simply not true, any more than those who oppose the church and its institutionalized structures are amoral servants of Satan. If one insists that all those people, with their varied paths through life and their distinct experience (which often involves immersion within feminism) can be dismissed as easily as is tried here - "sexists try to make it a dirty word" - then one will alienate those they might wish to court and one will stagnate through inability to take alternate positions. Indeed, one haemorrhages allies by pushing an ideology that is at odds with its supposed purpose - internally inconsistent - and at odds with the overall flavour of their politics. If one relates to those who oppose an active ideology - an organic social force - through the prism of their own perspective, complete with in-built assumptions reinforced by self-serving ideologues, then they will see only illegitimacy.

Those who oppose and dispute the phenomenon known as "feminism" are a very varied bunch; much more varied than those cloistered under its umbrella. It would be a mistake to assume that a number of them don't have valid reason to oppose as they do, or that they "don't understand" feminism - particularly when many are former feminists.

We don't live in a world of static definitions. We live in a world of active social and political forces. You can support and defend feminism as much as you wish, and promote it as a good and noble thing, but many more will attack it and, yes, consider it a dirty word - because of feminists, and the nature of feminism as a phenomenon, not because of sexism. Though you'll get those too.

Intolerant ideologies always work the same way when it comes to their defenders. Remember too what happened to Cardassia during the Dominion War. Garak worked it out quicker than the rest.

Dude, yo. Dude.

Dude.

 

[Kemaiku]

Snip.

 

[trampledamage]

Everyone - stop now please.

Nasat - please leave the subject alone, entirely, in this forum. Trek Lit isn't the place for it.

Everyone else, the conversation as far as this forum is concerned is finished.


Obviously I don't mean that feminism can't be debated if it is an issue worthy of discusion in another book, but feminisn and people's understanding of it is not a general topic to be discussed here.

This is me asking nicely

 

[woodstock]

It seemed to me that as readers, we're privy to some information that the characters aren't, but we were kind of kept out of the loop by the author with the way she wrote the story.

 

[woodstock]

I didn't see any post yet about Peter Alden's comment about the Chain's seeming perspective on the Federation... "'mostly harmless' he muttered". Great reference.

 

[kktwin]

Woah... those were some off the left field wall posts those were.
I al consistently enjoying Una's works. I hope she signs up for more Trek books. Thanks to all for keeping this thread about Trek Lit.

 

[Kilana2]

I'm late on this one as the German edition has just been released recently.
I enjoyed it much more than Brinkmanship. I never thought that the Tzenkethi could be interesting, but now I'm convinced. And it was nice to meet Kathrine Pulaski again.

 

[Markonian]

What's the German name for the Chain - die Kette?