Dumb and Bizarre Trek Novel Moments...

[ProwlAlpha]

^ The difference being, Destiny was freaking incredible and the BSG finale was the largest pile of horseshit this side of the Kentucky Derby.

See, we can agree on things!

I want to say I actually do like the ending to Destiny, if for no other reason than

Spoiler: Bruce Willis is a ghost

the Borg are destroyed,

but also because it works very well as a Trek trope, and it didn't come across as deus ex mechanistic like some of Trek's similar moments wound up being ("Hey, guess what, Jean Luc? I've decided to give you a new heart" and "Fine, we'll take care of those adversarial Dominion ships").

Also, I liked the beaten-down Picard (it's one of the few non-Hernandez/Inyx, non-Titan elements I thought was rather good).

Deranged Nasat compared it to the end of the Shadow War, which is indeed an interesting comparison, because Destiny's ending is a lot more satisfying than that. I didn't mind the concept of a peaceful, talky solution, but... wow, was that unbelievable. "We will not be... alone?" Oh God. Of course, not you stupid Vorlon, you stayed behind on purpose! It didn't help that the whole Shadow War, barring Londo, fell flat for me, basically because the threat of the Shadows was primarily told, not shown, built up as an apocalyptic threat, but puny humans are able to just slaughter them like Cobra Vipers. At least the Borg and Caeliar really were beyond our ken.

The Humans weren't defeating the Shadows, it was the alliance of everyone but the Humans. Even the Centauri started to fight the Shadows in the closing the days of the war. The Humans were too busy with President Clark to really care. I can agree with the ending of the Shadow War because Sheridan and Company make great points. The Ending of the Borg seem too convenient, almost like the ending of the Battle of Pelenor Fields.

 

[Myasishchev]

Puny humanoids, then.

 

[kkozoriz1]

"Worthy of survival" is not something I would apply to a single BSG character.

I was under the impression all the suffering they brought down upon themselves was because, deep down, they liked it. Inflicting and absorbing misery was what they all lived for. It's how they defined themselves.

Star Trek characters, on the other hand, are always trying to better themselves (in their naive boy scout way). Trek people start with what took BSG until the finale to figure out.

I really enjoyed NuBSG up to the New Caprica arc. After that I found it harder and harder to like or even care about any of the characters.

Trek is supposed to be an optimistic view of the future. That we can and will learn and grow. We may sumble from time to time but we won't stand still and we won't go backwards. That's something that's missing in much of Trek these days.

 

[The Super Brando]

I haven't read Destiny, but from what I gather:

1. The Borg were killing billions of innocent people.

2. The Federation government/Starfleet had access to a weapon that would stop them.

3. The Federation government/Starfleet refused to use it.

Yes, kill the Borg. Kill every last one of them. They're evil murdering enslaving bastards, and the Federations is peace-loving people trying to make the galaxy a better place. Yes, kill the Borg. I mean, billions, man. . . billions. C'mon.

When you refuse to save the innocent peace-lovers by killing the evil murdering enslavers, well then you have a problem. If my wife and family were murdered by them, or if my entire planet was destroyed by them, I would be a little pissed at the guys who made that decision, and I would think it's a lot more than just dumb and bizarre.

Now I haven't read Destiny yet, so this might all be incorrect. But this still applies to Picard's decisions with Hugh in "I, Borg".

 

[Garm Bel Iblis]

Let us not forgetthe borg are One. Not individuals. Wiping out the Borg should have been done as far back as "I,Borg." the deaths of 63 billion people should be laid at the feet of the "great Jean-Luc Picard."

 

[Christopher]

2. The Federation government/Starfleet had access to a weapon that would stop them.

As has been pointed out time and time again, that claim is false. At best, it would've slowed them down a bit. At worst, it would've given them a new weapon they could use against everyone else.

Yes, kill the Borg. Kill every last one of them. They're evil murdering enslaving bastards...

See, the problem there is, "every last one of them" is a slave. There is no overseer class that preys on the slaves; there's just the overall collective program that holds them in its thrall. Every single Borg drone is an innocent or a victim. So it's inappropriate and immoral to treat the Borg as a conventional type of enemy. If you physically attack the Borg, you're the one murdering helpless innocents.

The real enemy isn't a physical being, but a software code and the emergent collective behavior that arises from it. That's why the only ethical way -- not to mention the only truly effective way -- to fight the Borg is on a software level: change the program, sever the connections, free the minds. Force never really works against the Borg, because they've adapted to every kind of force ever used against them and are thus much, much better at using force than anyone else. With the exception of Species 8472's biotechnology, the only tactics that have ever really set the Borg back have been on a software or psychological level: introducing individuality through Hugh and removing an entire cube from the Borg's control; allowing the Unimatrix Zero drones to retain their personalities while conscious and form a resistance; getting the Caeliar to repair the corrupt code that created the Borg in the first place and turn it back into the positive thing it was meant to be.

When you refuse to save the innocent peace-lovers by killing the evil murdering enslavers, well then you have a problem. If my wife and family were murdered by them, or if my entire planet was destroyed by them, I would be a little pissed at the guys who made that decision, and I would think it's a lot more than just dumb and bizarre.

And what if your wife and family and entire planet's population were assimilated rather than killed? What if the drones battering down your door were the people you loved most in all the world? Would you be that eager to kill them then? All Borg are hostages.

 

[JarodRussell]

Yes, kill the Borg. Kill every last one of them. They're evil murdering enslaving bastards...

See, the problem there is, "every last one of them" is a slave. There is no overseer class that preys on the slaves; there's just the overall collective program that holds them in its thrall. Every single Borg drone is an innocent or a victim. So it's inappropriate and immoral to treat the Borg as a conventional type of enemy. If you physically attack the Borg, you're the one murdering helpless innocents.

That's good to know for any dictator. Just send slaves to war and your enemy will be the bad guy, automatically.

And what if your wife and family and entire planet's population were assimilated rather than killed? What if the drones battering down your door were the people you loved most in all the world? Would you be that eager to kill them then? All Borg are hostages.

So basically if you had to choose between living people and comatose cannon fodder that could only be saved under enormous costs... you wouldn't choose those who are still alive and well.

 

[flemm]

All Borg are hostages.

Granted, but throughout Destiny Starfleet is using every means at their disposal to stop them by force, knowing full well that the effort is probably futile and that the Borg will probably adapt.

Transphasic torpedoes, for example, aren't going to stop the Borg either, can also be assimilated presumably, and are definitely used by the Enterprise to kill large numbers of "hostages" in defense of Federation planets. So, the fact that the borg drones are not responsible for their own actions does not seem to stop Starfleet from killing them, generally speaking. There has to be something about the Thalaron weapon specifically.

What makes the Thalaron weapon different? The two reasons, as I recall, are that Geordi considers it to be innately immoral to use that particular weapon, and Data died to stop it from being used, meaning Geordi would be dishonoring his friend's memory by obeying Picard's order. These justifications seem a tad flimsy to some, in the face of armageddon. He does not (again, as I recall) object on the grounds that the weapon will be ineffective.

To enjoy these scenes, I think you just have to accept the premise that the Thalaron weapon is an especially hideous and destructive weapon, which is basically what I did, and anyway I am just a sucker for scenes where Starfleet characters refuse to take orders on moral grounds, so the question of whether or not the Thalaron weapon really deserves its status as deeply immoral, compared to say transphasic torpedos, did not receive much scrutiny from me personally.

Perhaps that is a failing on my part as a reader, but I read these books while commuting on the train, so often I'm not pouring over every page

 

[Trent Roman]

Even "one good shot" would've been a temporary respite at best, not an actual solution. So it would've been throwing away their principles for no reason.

When your civilization is being annihilated hour-by-hour, even a temporary respite is a very good thing. It gives you time to work out the next tactic or possible solution. And what do principles have to do with anything? They spent the entire trilogy finding new ways to kill Borg. Either that's ethical or it isn't. Ultimately, it all has little to do with the weapon itself, which would work or not work as the narrative dictated, but with its role in the story. From its introduction in Mere Mortals, the thalaron debate was a false ethical dilemna, and every subsequent passage about it did nothing more than belabour the futility of the argument. If one is going to chose to bring it up, at least have it be relevant; don't, instead, construct false moral arguments around it, and then abandon it out of some astonishingly irrelevant mopey grief for Data, leaving the characters to embrace a fatalistic lack of fallback positions if the "let-the-higher-beings-deal-with-'em" plan hadn't worked, or worse still, backfired. That kind of lunacy and irresponsibility only damages the characters further, and they've already taken quite a few hits during this trilogy.

Why is it so hard for Star Trek fans to accept the notion that violence is not automatically the best solution to a problem? That's pretty much inherent to the whole philosophy of the franchise. If Destiny had been structured in such a way that the right answer to the whole crisis was to build a bigger gun, then it wouldn't have been a Star Trek story.

Well, I don't think a celebration of failure and passivity resulting in the failure of the nominal heroes to prevent the genocide of untold billions and the crippling of the Federation only to be Saved by higher powers made much of a Star Trek story in the first place. But I've never advocated a might-makes-right approach, which is, after all, what Destiny does: the Caeliar win simply because they've always been more powerful.

All you can do is be the best person you know how to be, and accept that events are beyond your control.

"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change... Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace; taking, as He did, this sinful world as it is, not as I would have it; trusting that He will make all things right if I surrender to His Will; so that I may be reasonably happy in this life and supremely happy with Him forever and ever in the next."

If I was able to resist this position throughout years of attempted childhood indoctrination, I don't think a set of Trek novels is going to convince me of its validity.

EDIT:

^ The difference being, Destiny was freaking incredible and the BSG finale was the largest pile of horseshit this side of the Kentucky Derby.

I'll agree with half that statement.

See, the problem there is, "every last one of them" is a slave. There is no overseer class that preys on the slaves; there's just the overall collective program that holds them in its thrall. Every single Borg drone is an innocent or a victim. So it's inappropriate and immoral to treat the Borg as a conventional type of enemy. If you physically attack the Borg, you're the one murdering helpless innocents.

So everybody who fought the Borg in the course of the trilogy is a war criminal, then? Although, by that logic, Picard already was, since he destroyed the cube in First Contact.

The real enemy isn't a physical being, but a software code and the emergent collective behavior that arises from it. (...) With the exception of Species 8472's biotechnology, the only tactics that have ever really set the Borg back have been on a software or psychological level

This, however, is very true. Too bad our characters seemed to complete forget about it until the third book.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Garm Bel Iblis]

All Borg are hostages.

Granted, but throughout Destiny Starfleet is using every means at their disposal to stop them by force, knowing full well that the effort is probably futile and that the Borg will probably adapt.

Transphasic torpedoes, for example, aren't going to stop the Borg either, can also be assimilated presumably, and are definitely used by the Enterprise to kill large numbers of "hostages" in defense of Federation planets. So, the fact that the borg drones are not responsible for their own actions does not seem to stop Starfleet from killing them, generally speaking. There has to be something about the Thalaron weapon specifically.

What makes the Thalaron weapon different? The two reasons, as I recall, are that Geordi considers it to be innately immoral to use that particular weapon, and Data died to stop it from being used, meaning Geordi would be dishonoring his friend's memory by obeying Picard's order. These justifications seem a tad flimsy to some, in the face of armageddon. He does not (again, as I recall) object on the grounds that the weapon will be ineffective.

To enjoy these scenes, I think you basically just have to accept the premise that the Thalaron weapon is an especially hideous and destructive weapon, which is basically what I did, and anyway I am just a sucker for scenes where Starfleet characters refuse to take orders on moral grounds, so the question of whether or not the Thalaron weapon really deserves its status as deeply immoral, compared to say transphasic torpedos, did not receive much scrutiny from me personally.

Perhaps that is a failing on my part as a reader, but I read these books while commuting on the train, so often I'm not pouring over every page

ya , the whole "dishonors" Data thing. What if data had been vaporized while destroying a by a hand phaser on overload? would Geordi have refused to ever use one again.

 

[flemm]

ya , the whole "dishonors" Data thing. What if data had been vaporized while destroying a by a hand phaser on overload? would Geordi have refused to ever use one again.

Well, I don't think Geordi's argument is that absurd. In other circumstances, refusing to deploy an especially vicious and brutal weapon might be perfectly valid. What is less clear, is that Geordi's argument stands up to scrutiny in the specific context of Destiny, where the human race is on the brink of extinction, basically, against a merciless foe that has already slaughtered, what? billions? and that the Enterprise crew has already been killing in large numbers using other means.

Again, I didn't give this part of the Destiny novels much scrutiny at the time, so the whole question of the Thalaron weapon didn't really stand out to me as a weak point (though Picard's characterization did). In retrospect, however, I can see why some readers found Geordi's (and later Worf's) reasoning to be suspect.

 

[Trent Roman]

^I think it is worthwhile to ask ourselves: why do we imbue weapons with characteristics like as brutality and viciousness, such that they are considered, in and of themselves, to be hiedous and abominable? We don't even need to speculate of sci-fi conceits like thalarons: in the here and now, I certainly feel that way about nuclear weapons. But an honest, objective appraisal finds that a weapon is ethically inert; it has no more intrinsic morality than a hammer or a knife. It's not about the tool, but how it's wielded. The distinction is that when it comes to weapons, they are almost always wielded against people, and to deadly results; and then we get into the realm of intent and justified use. For a weapon of such destructive power like nuclear weapons, it is next to impossible to conceive of a scenario where such devastation can be called just, and so its very existence implies murderous use. But next to impossible isn't impossible; it's a statement of probabilities, that the most (indeed, overwhelming) scenario in which such weapons are deployed are abominable ones. Yet if something was hurtling towards the planet and the only way to knock it off course or destroy it was with weapons of such yeild that only nukes could do the trick (and this is a hypothetical; I don't need lessons in why the physics of Armageddon were messed up), it is justified to use such weapons--one wouldn't refuse because of an intrinsic morality about the weapon, because it then becomes evident that what we thought was inherent is actually situational. (Not that this means I'm going to cease advocating for nuclear arsenal reduction any time soon, mind you: the probabilities remain unchanged.)

So it is with the thalaron weapon. In conventional warfare, such weapons are abominable. But this isn't conventional warfare; it's annihilation. The Borg, themselves, are a weapon of mass destruction (at least as Destiny portrays them), and to refuse to use thalaron weaponry is to misunderstand the source of our moral feelings about it.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Let us not forgetthe borg are One. Not individuals. Wiping out the Borg should have been done as far back as "I,Borg." the deaths of 63 billion people should be laid at the feet of the "great Jean-Luc Picard."

The 63 BILLION dead in the Alpha/Beta quadrant invasion are just the tip of the iceberg.

The borg assimilated and killed countless beings between 'I, Borg' and 'Destiny'. Their blood stains Picard's hands too.

And in the 'Destiny' trilogy, Picard utterly failed to redeem himself. All he displayed was self-pity and defeatist behaviour - much like the rest of the Federation. It's not that they tried and failed to stop the borg - that would have been acceptable; it's that they didn't even try - just waited for the collective to adapt to transphasics and kill them all.
Not him, nor any other federation party played any role in convincing the Caeliar to stop the borg - Hernandez was, by her own admission, a Caeliar; thematically, the half-divine being that reaches full divinity in the end, as opposed to the defeatist insects she took pity on.

 

[Garm Bel Iblis]

Let us not forgetthe borg are One. Not individuals. Wiping out the Borg should have been done as far back as "I,Borg." the deaths of 63 billion people should be laid at the feet of the "great Jean-Luc Picard."

The 63 BILLION dead in the Alpha/Beta quadrant invasion are just the tip of the iceberg.

The borg assimilated and killed countless beings between 'I, Borg' and 'Destiny'. Their blood stains Picard's hands too.

And in the 'Destiny' trilogy, Picard utterly failed to redeem himself. All he displayed was self-pity and defeatist behaviour - much like the rest of the Federation. It's not that they tried and failed to stop the borg - that would have been acceptable; it's that they didn't even try - just waited for the collective to adapt to transphasics and kill them all.
Not him, nor any other federation party played any role in convincing the Caeliar to stop the borg - Hernandez was, by her own admission, a Caeliar; thematically, the half-divine being that reaches full divinity in the end, as opposed to the defeatist insects she took pity on.

Yeah he got real squeamish and EZRI DAX had to be the one with the balls of neutronium to stand up and take Hernandez tothe probe while Picard said "Wait wait, let's discuss our plan. We don't have one and yours is reckless!"

At least Riker was willing to give time travel a try.

 

[flemm]

Yeah he got real squeamish and EZRI DAX had to be the one with the balls of neutronium to stand up and take Hernandez tothe probe while Picard said "Wait wait, let's discuss our plan. We don't have one and yours is reckless!"

I found Picard's portrayal to be the most difficult part of Destiny to stomach, by a wide margin. It was *ahem* disappointing. As for writer's baby Ezri Dax, all I can do is roll my eyes and use the appropriate smiley for emphasis

Destiny was about Captain Hernandez, her crew, and the Caeliar. I enjoyed it from that point of view. The rest was a lot less compelling.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

The real enemy isn't a physical being, but a software code and the emergent collective behavior that arises from it. That's why the only ethical way -- not to mention the only truly effective way -- to fight the Borg is on a software level: change the program, sever the connections, free the minds.

Something else I'd like to add to this whole debate, if I may be so bold (and it's a very interesting debate, so I hope I'm not striking anyone as rude): While the Borg are much, much more literal than any other case (in that there is no free will at all and they are truly slaves in every sense), I personally think the basic concept applies elsewhere too.

If I can mini-rant again (and sorry if it grates, but I'm just trying to describe how I relate to these issues. This is just my personal take on things):

I remember one of the most important moments of my life- I was 12, and a fight started in the school playground between two children. As one, the 1,200 other children and adolescents present flocked over to it, leaving me alone. I just watched them all respond in exactly the same way, all moving together and showing the exact same reactions, all eager to shout their support and buy into the collective excitement. It was very sobering. You see, I was being bullied extensively at the time, and all I could think about was "what would be the case if it were widely accepted among adults that I or anyone else should be bullied- what if such behaviour was actively encouraged at all levels of society?" Well, those 1,200 would presumably move as one just as easily...only against me. That was a very important moment for me, and learning about historical events like lynchings, even the holocaust, didn't shock me at all after that. But, at the same time, I accepted that the real enemy in such cases was not the individual as such but the social programming that people accept, and a society that wants its members to buy into ideology rather than embrace individual choice. And so, I also realized that promoting a sense of personal responsibility for your choices was essential- and I mean real, constant promotion of self-responsibility, not the hypocritical half-assed kind where people pull out the concept for war crimes tribunals and such only to stow it away again afterwards. "Evil" was an action, and the idea and belief that motivated it, not a person (even if some select people became so consumed by the ideas and beliefs they had little else to offer but "evil". In which case, they were to be pitied, and sadly had to be dealt with on a personal level).

Now, let me acknowledge here that of course the people in reality are not Borg drones- they don't have the excuse of mindlessness. They should and must take full personal responsibility- each and every one, or so I believe. Our individual choices are our own responsibility, and we all have a choice. But at the same time, until human society learns that pressurizing its members into adopting collective ideologies is counterproductive to individual responsibility- well, then these people are hypocrites to then turn around and condemn people for not taking responsibility for their choices! You can't just pull out the "we must all accept personal responsibility" card at your convenience; either you promote full individual responsibility all the time or not at all (as I hope I've made clear, I'm on the "all the time" side).

Basically, the way I see it, while to encourage individual responsibility is essential, the primary target always has to be the ideological drives motivating everyone's behaviour; disable those, the threat dissipates. I would claim that the only truly effective way to fight any enemy is to consider ideology and outlook the real foe, rather than the beings themselves (who only embody that foe at present, and move to act on that ideology currently directing them- and who are often in very perilous situations). Viewing the individual beings you oppose as by default the enemy, inherently evil or inherently the opponent, seems to me counterproductive and dangerous, and only works to fuel spiralling hatred and violence and further acts of evil. It gets you nowhere.

I say, do what it takes to remove the influence of that destructive ideology that threatens your peace; that will always be the most effective way to end a threat. Sadly, in many cases that might well involve killing people, including many who had little realistic choice in the matter (my Grandfather fought in World War II, and of course had to shoot dead many of his German brothers, not because he had any quarrel with them, but because he was responding to the spread of ideologies he felt must be opposed. Each of those deaths was terrible- but the blame lies neither with my Grandfather nor the men he killed, but with the ideologies that had grasped the German nation at the time. In the same way, it was necessary to blow Borg cubes filled with captive drones apart with torpedoes to stop them pounding planetary civilizations into dust). But the primary goal should be to subvert the idea- aim for the heart, not the hand. Killing drones or enemy soldiers might well be necessary, but that is not the point and I say should never be the point. Try to change the heart, don't just try to lop off as many hands as possible (you might have to do exactly that, certainly, but that shouldn't be the goal).

In "Destiny", I think Dax and co saw things in a similar way; Picard on the other hand was just obsessed with chopping off as many hands as he could- not a bad idea in theory and certainly not to be condemned as such (because those hands were engaged in tearing his civilization to bits, as a lot of people here have stressed! Those hands were engaged in "evil" and had to be stopped). But Dax had a better idea than simply cutting off hands like hydra heads when it was never going to actually work- the only way to win was to tackle the ideological roots driving those hands. Saving the enemy as well as yourself- in my mind, all just war works on the principle "we are fighting to save one another". My Grandfather was posted to Germany in the war's aftermath. He helped rebuild, helped the people there turn away from ideologies that had gripped their nation, and he made good friends there. He was working to save the Germans just as much as the British. And Dax and Hernandez and co saved the Federation by saving the Borg (and the Caeliar). Federation ideals saved them all.

Well...that's how I relate to the ideas we seem to be debating here.

Gods, I can babble on at times can't I? Again, I hope I haven't come across as rude.

 

[Christopher]

Granted, but throughout Destiny Starfleet is using every means at their disposal to stop them by force, knowing full well that the effort is probably futile and that the Borg will probably adapt.

True. But it's a stopgap at best. What I'm responding to is some posters' assumption that violence and anger are the correct and optimal response to the Borg. The idea that all Borg should be killed because they're evil enslaving bastards is incoherent because the ones you're killing are the slaves. It's just naive to respond to the Borg as if they were an enemy nation. They're not a nation. They're a computer virus run out of control. It's nonsensical to hate a Borg drone because a drone is just a tool of the software.

What if, say, the Nazis had brainwashed Jews into mindless soldiers and sent them into the battlefield to die while all the Nazis stayed home? Sure, it might be militarily necessary to kill some of those brainwashed soldiers for the greater good of the Jewish people and the world as a whole; but it would be not only irrational but obscene to say that all the Jews should be killed because the Nazis were evil enslaving bastards. It's just misunderstanding the whole situation. It's directing your rage at the wrong entity, at the victims rather than the perpetrators.

To enjoy these scenes, I think you just have to accept the premise that the Thalaron weapon is an especially hideous and destructive weapon, which is basically what I did, and anyway I am just a sucker for scenes where Starfleet characters refuse to take orders on moral grounds, so the question of whether or not the Thalaron weapon really deserves its status as deeply immoral, compared to say transphasic torpedos, did not receive much scrutiny from me personally.

Right. The technicalities shouldn't really matter in this case, because "thalaron" is just a nonsense word anyway and nothing about the thalaron weapon's depiction in the movie made the slightest bit of physical sense. A thalaron weapon is nothing more than a plot device, and so what matters is what impact it has on the plot and characters. Its properties are arbitrary, whatever they need to be to support the story.

Basically, the way I see it, while to encourage individual responsibility is essential, the primary target always has to be the ideological drives motivating everyone's behaviour; disable those, the threat dissipates. I would claim that the only truly effective way to fight any enemy is to consider ideology and outlook the real foe, rather than the beings themselves (who only embody that foe at present, and move to act on that ideology currently directing them- and who are often in very perilous situations). Viewing the individual beings you oppose as by default the enemy, inherently evil or inherently the opponent, seems to me counterproductive and dangerous, and only works to fuel spiralling hatred and violence and further acts of evil. It gets you nowhere.

I say, do what it takes to remove the influence of that destructive ideology that threatens your peace; that will always be the most effective way to end a threat. Sadly, in many cases that might well involve killing people, including many who had little realistic choice in the matter (my Grandfather fought in World War II, and of course had to shoot dead many of his German brothers, not because he had any quarrel with them, but because he was responding to the spread of ideologies he felt must be opposed. Each of those deaths was terrible- but the blame lies neither with my Grandfather nor the men he killed, but with the ideologies that had grasped the German nation at the time. In the same way, it was necessary to blow Borg cubes filled with captive drones apart with torpedoes to stop them pounding planetary civilizations into dust). But the primary goal should be to subvert the idea- aim for the heart, not the hand. Killing drones or enemy soldiers might well be necessary, but that is not the point and I say should never be the point. Try to change the heart, don't just try to lop off as many hands as possible (you might have to do exactly that, certainly, but that shouldn't be the goal).

Exactly. Another fine analysis. And that's what Star Trek has always been about. It's never presented violence as the ultimate solution to a problem. It's shown problems being solved by confronting the ideas that create them. Kirk refusing to kill the Gorn and opening the door to diplomacy. Kirk convincing (or coercing) the leaders of Eminiar VII or Triskelion to reform the ideologies that held their people captive. Spock waging diplomacy to end decades of hostility with the Klingons. Odo ending the Dominion War through an act of compassion.

War never really solves anything. One war generally just triggers the events that lead to the next war, unless diplomats and politicians are able to act constructively to turn things around. Military force is at best a patch on the real problems, a response to the effects rather than the root causes, and you can't really make things better unless you target those causes. Star Trek understands that.

 

[flemm]

Again, I hope I haven't come across as rude.

Not in the slightest. Interesting post!

You make the point that Picard seemed unwilling to consider creative solutions to the Borg attack and was reduced to impotently lashing out at his attackers. I'd say that you are correct, but would add that this is precisely what is unsatisfying about his portrayal.

For me, a useful point of comparison is DS9's Sacrifice of Angels. Quite a few fans object to this as a "Deus ex machina." I disagree. Certainly there is a "Deus," but the gods do not arrive "ex machina": the Prophets are characters in the DS9 story throughout, beginning in episode 1. Their relationship with Sisko and with Bajor is one of the many plot threads that evolve throughout the show's seven seasons. I can't object to the Prophets' involvement at that particular moment in time because they are already involved. I would more likely object to their refusal to intervene. As Sisko says, they claim to be gods to the Bajorans, Bajor and the entire alpha quadrant are in danger, it is time for them to go ahead and "be gods."

I see their intervention as not only logical, but necessary. It cannot be called a "Deus ex machina" solution because the Deus has been an integral part of the story all along. Even so, the gods' involvement is limited: they don't end the war, they just even the odds. If the prophets had completely solved the Dominion problem on the Federation's behalf, that would have been less satisfying. As it stands, they simple create a more level playing field that gives the Federation a chance at victory in the long term by sealing the wormhole and cutting off reinforcements.

Beyond that, the DS9 crew is actively involved in bringing about the resolution to Sacrifice of Angels: the crew of the Defiant, as well as Kira's resistance cell. If the Defiant doesn't ride through the valley of death, Sisko never makes it to the wormhole. Ditto for Kira and Co. disabling the station's weapons. No one gives up or waits passively for the gods to solve their problems. Even in the wormhole, Sisko defies the entire enemy fleet. In the end, the gods need his help as much as he needs theirs.

There are a lot of similarities with Destiny, but a few important distinctions as well. In Sacrifice of Angels, the scope of the gods' influence is limited to their own domain (the wormhole). They don't end the threat, they just cut it down to size. Nobody in the DS9 cast is portrayed as broken and helpless.

What I am saying is: relying on the intervention of a higher power to resolve a story is risky business. I like Sacrifice of Angels, but a lot of people don't. I understand why. Destiny to my mind is even more dubious because the involvement of characters such as the Enterprise crew and especially Picard is less well orchestrated.

The Caeliar need to be an integral part of the story's conclusion because, like the Prophets, they are a part of the story from the beginning, but I think that it would have been possible for more of the "mere mortals" to be actively involved as well, without weakening the story at all. Portraying Picard as a broken and defeated man was especially unnecessary. Since when is this character incapable of seeking out creative solutions to a problem? Since when is he paralyzed by fear in a crisis?

Given the reliance on the Caeliar to resolve the situation, I think a better choice would probably have been to emphasize the mere mortals' active involvement, rather than emasculating Picard and having Geordi and Worf mark time with a dubious moral dilemma. It's possible that a lot of the criticism of the whole Thalaron weapon exchange is rooted in frustration with the impotence of these characters who are normally intrepid heroes. While I enjoyed Destiny overall, I confess to feeling increasingly annoyed with Picard's portrayal in particular as the story unfolded. Too risky?!?!?! What could possibly be too risky given that the entire human race is about to be annihilated?!?!? Picard's portrayal is a bigger issue than the Thalaron weapon imo (though they are related).

 

[Deranged Nasat]

^ I certainly understand where you're coming from (particularly after this post), and what the basis for your criticism is, even if I don't agree. Thanks for clarifying- and of course I can hardly expect everyone to share my love for this trilogy!

 

[Christopher]

Portraying Picard as a broken and defeated man was especially unnecessary. Since when is this character incapable of seeking out creative solutions to a problem? Since when is he paralyzed by fear in a crisis?

But that's the whole point. The kind of trauma Picard suffered at the Borg's hands can change a person, damage him, endanger the qualities that make him who he is. We've seen in "I, Borg" and First Contact that the Borg are Picard's Achilles heel, that when he confronts them, his pain and fear get the better of his ideals and good judgment. It's like the way the Doctor reacts to the Daleks in the modern Doctor Who; with everyone else, the Doctor strives to find peaceful solutions and gives every enemy a chance to surrender (though it never seems to work), but when the Daleks are involved, he's totally ruthless and wants only to destroy. When he's facing the Daleks, he's less himself. He changes into someone more hostile, less rational, more reckless. And as seen in the recent "Victory of the Daleks," that can be a fatal weakness.

By the same token, Picard is less himself when he faces the Borg. They broke him, they essentially raped him, they forced him to kill fellow officers at Wolf 359. They made him helpless. You can't just shake that off. We saw how much of a changed man he became when he faced the Borg later on, how they threw him off his game and made him weaker.

In the year prior to Destiny, Picard faced down the Borg three times. Every time, he beat them by the skin of his teeth, but then they came back again, giving him barely a respite. He became afraid that he'd never be free of them. And then, when he finally thought he'd achieved that freedom and decided to take a chance on starting a family, the Borg invaded en masse, a seemingly unstoppable force. And it broke him. It was just too much.

You can talk all you want about who Picard is, what he would or wouldn't do, and you'd be right in any normal circumstance. But we know that he changes, weakens, when he's faced with the Borg, because of the damage they did to his psyche. And the rash of Borg attacks in 2380-81 was just too much for him. It overwhelmed him, filled him with despair, and he lost his way. Yes, his behavior was out of character for Picard, but that was the point. He wasn't himself.