Dumb and Bizarre Trek Novel Moments...

[Thestral]

Driven by a hunger to return to the purity of the Caeliar, not simply a will to conquer. Thus the solution wasn't to simply destroy the evil, but to heal it, removing the hunger and taking away the source of the evil, finding a solution other than killing every drone and the Collective.

I directly quoted Picard's words in Voy:Scorpion:
The complete quote sounded ~'Do not expect reason or compassion from the borg. They feel no pity, no remorse, only the will to conquer.'
And Picard had an intimate knowledge of the borg mind, Kestrel.

And the 'solution' had nothing to do with 'our heroes'. They were just there to whine and die.

Picard had intimate knowledge of the Borg, yes, but he was also deeply wounded and scarred by them; and he didn't know the entire truth of the Borg. Of course he puts it in terms that he'd understand and that he relates to what happened to him - basically, Picard is the best expert on the Borg (after Janeway) but his perception of them is naturally (and understandably) skewed. Christopher put it better than me, but the conquest that the Borg sought was not simply establishing dominance but subsuming identity and establishing a perverted version of the "unity" that whatever remained of Sedin's consciousness had clung to, impossibly enraged and hungry and lonely. Human ingenuity discovered this and it was a human (if partly Caeliar) who explained the situation to the Gestalt. This doesn't excuse the Borg of their horiffically evil actions, but it reveals a better solution.

How fortunate then that Picard wasn't our only hero here: although he broke, Captains Dax and Hernandez kept working to find solutions in the face of impossible, overwhelming odds, one of which destroyed 50% of the invasion and the other actually removed the Borg as a threat forever. The shadow did not, in the end, prevail although it looked like it was about to; even though the Federation didn't physically defeat the Borg, it was they who led the Caeliar to intervene and take responsibility for the Borg.

'it was they (the federation) who led the Caeliar'? Talk about unsubstantiated affirmations.
Hernandez, a Caeliar (by her own admission) - the half-divine being who attained full divinity in the end - informed the Caeliar that the borg were born because of them, and then the Caeliar, with no interference, decided to wave their wand and deal with the borg.
Where exactly is the federation leading anything?

Okay, so technically Hernandez wasn't a Federation citizen - but she was definitely a human, and a Captain of the Starfleet that helped pave the way for the Federation's formation. Let's also not forget Titan's part in this and the fact that their away team didn't repeat the mistakes Columbia's crew had hundreds of years earlier, which had an influence on Inyx. If Titan and co. hadn't convinced Hernandez to come with them, and later to work with the Gestalt after her and Dax's plan didn't work in its entirety, the Borg rampage would have consumed the Alpha and Beta Quadrants.

About the federation - Dax or the Da Vinci crew were the exceptions - and yes, they proved that the creative, the 'never give up' approach, would have worked.

But what about the rest of the federation?
Picard was the rule - broken, not even trying to find a solution, to prevail, because 'it won't work', reduced to trading soon-to-be useless weapon, waiting for the borg to snuff him. Most of starfleet behaved in this way, wanting only to commmit seppuku, the federation leadership had the same passive, defeatist behaviour.
The borg utterly broke Picard, his spirit, and the federation's - and all they had to do was show up.

Dax, da Vinci, Excalibur, Atlas, the Romulan Warbird whose name I can't recall that inspired a Federation planet to adopt a Romulan military haircut (and really, this should be highlighted... Federation ships sacrificing for Klingon colonies have become famous on Trek between Khitomer and Narendra III, but this was a Romulan warship dying for a Federation world), Martok, and a series of other vignettes throughout. Most of the rest of the Federation, while dying, wasn't going out hopelessly or helplessly - Picard and several admirals were the exception, not the rule. I think you're emphazing way too much Picard's personal defeat at the expense of Dax's "never say die" and Riker's more pessimistic but not hopeless outlook - and it was shocking, there's no doubt about it.

But the borg broke Picard long before they brought the big guns. Picard was a disappointment throughout the entire trilogy.

If that's true, then they also "broke" him three novels earlier, in Resistance, and very nearly did in First Contact. He's always had a blind spot for the Borg.

Indeed. And besides, so what if they did break him? Picard's not perfect, he has weaknesses too, and I think it was a good, if difficult, choice to show Picard finally breaking; he's been such a bastion of will and stoic carrying on that it becomes shocking but also sensible to see him reduced. Think of his breakdown at the end of "Family" and his rage in "First Contact;" now he's been dealing with a constant Borg presence and the Collective's voice in his head for, what, months?

 

[The Super Brando]

Picard's my favorite character. To me he's the hero of Star Trek. I haven't read Destiny yet, but to hear that he acted like this, in what is literally the biggest thing to ever happen to the Federation and the biggest Star Trek event of all time, is quite disappointing. I hope you guys are exaggerating.

 

[Trent Roman]

^ Right, Trent, that's it exactly. You're saying that the Federation failed, because of what is essentially a natural disaster that had nothing whatsoever to do with those ideals in the first place.

You're over-extending the analogy, I think. The Borg can be compared to a force of nature... but the Borg are also actors--or, I should rather say, the Borg is an actor. There is a will there. Janeway was even able to negotiate with the Borg in extremis--when was the last time you negotiated with an asteroid? They didn't happen to run into the Federation, they deliberately launched a mass campaign of genocide--and were partial successful, owing to the failure of the Federation's defenders and the values they must embody.

Just as it's an error to think of the Borg as a directionless hunk of rock, and the Federation as a passive recipient unable to affect its fate. The Federation had dealt checkmates to the Borg in the past before--Picard, Janeway, the people who should have been at the forefront of this battle had they not been busy regressing to childhood and drifting through Sol as disembodied atoms respectively, had faced this threat a number of times before and had always overcome, not through the clear insanity of trying to match the Borg power by power, but by exploiting the weaknesses of the Borg psyche and the advantages of individual ingenuity. They could have done so again; all that was lacking was the will to tell such a story, where the nature of the Federation allows it triumph, instead of the despondent destruction-fest we did get.

The Federation's interactions with the Borg speak to Federation values. Take "I, Borg", for instance--Picard refuses to use a person as a weapon, refuses to inflict genocide on even this, his sworn enemy. The idea, at the end of the episode, is that even the most terrible of foes is not fully inhuman, and Picard--as the avatar of Federation values--believes there are solutions other than eradication. The moral underpinning of the Trek universe, performed over and over again, is that the right decision is not just right from an ethical point of view, but from a practical one; it is possible to avoid a conflict that ends in a bloodbath. Destiny blows that out of the water; the conflict does end in a bloodbath, and the Federation and Picard are resoundly, thoroughly punished for believing a better way had been possible. Optimism was--and is--a grave error.

Destiny, in particular, places the blame for the invasion on those interventions of the Federation in Borg affairs (reasoning I find spurious, but that's what Destiny puts forward). Voyager refuses to do nothing when an opportunity to curtail Borg activities presents itself, acting undoubtedly out of their heartfelt desire to spare the great many who would fall under the Borg's shadow (including Earth, in something of an over-convenience). Destiny wants us to believe that this, along with a string of smaller, similarly-motivated defeats, is what triggers the invasion; basically, that the Federation, via its representatives, acting on its values, brought this apocalypse about on itself. It is resoundly, thoroughly punished for the desire to stand against tyranny and care for the well-being of others. (Not to mention the role uniformed representatives of Earth, albeit from an earlier, more primitive era, had in creating the Borg in the first place--the Borg invasion as a kind of sick irony, paradise destroyed by the revisitation of humanity's barbaric past.)

Just beware, writers and editors, that you don't deconstruct the Federation and Starfleet, otherwise Star Trek has no point anymore. It's about showing an optimistic future that works, a society that is in every way better than ours, and not about showing a paradise that turns into hell and stays that way.

Too late for that, I'm afraid. The better future is dead.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Christopher]

Picard's my favorite character. To me he's the hero of Star Trek. I haven't read Destiny yet, but to hear that he acted like this, in what is literally the biggest thing to ever happen to the Federation and the biggest Star Trek event of all time, is quite disappointing. I hope you guys are exaggerating.

Well, taken out of context, it's hard to judge. I guess the question is, can a character only be handled well and respectfully by treating him as an infallible hero who always triumphs, or by treating him as a realistic human being and adding complexity to the character by exploring him in his darkest hour?

Consider "In the Pale Moonlight." That episode was hardly Ben Sisko's finest hour. He was manipulated and duped by Garak at every turn, trapped into compromising his ethics more and more, and ultimately achieved his goal only at a terrible personal cost that he had to struggle to live with. Yet most would agree that it was one of the finest Sisko-centric episodes of the whole series. Just because a character doesn't win or doesn't stay in control of the situation, that doesn't mean the story doesn't serve him well.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Just beware, writers and editors, that you don't deconstruct the Federation and Starfleet, otherwise Star Trek has no point anymore. It's about showing an optimistic future that works, a society that is in every way better than ours, and not about showing a paradise that turns into hell and stays that way.

Too late for that, I'm afraid. The better future is dead.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

I wouldn't go so far.
From my perspective, the trekverse can be developed into a number of interesting directions - sociologically and politically speaking. Optimism and exploration spirit can still be present, however, the federation should not so uniformly embrace this mindset anymore.

Of course, if the next books will continue on this same dark and bloody path, the trekverse will effectively become the battlestar galactica verse.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I've never shaken the feeling that Destiny and it's aftereffects was someone's reaction to the success of BSG. I also suspect that Trek sales were down for such a big (and frankly unnecessary, yet highly enjoyable) shake-up to occur.

I was quite concerned after reading Destiny that Star Trek was doomed to become a miserable, self-pittying BSG ripoff (a show I hate for so many reasons and is pretty much the true mirror universe compared to Trek), yet I was pleased to see that wasn't the case after reading Losing the Peace and A Singular Destiny. I guess with the building blocks in place it could still go that misguided way in the future. I hope not

 

[JD]

I'm really starting to think that Trent and ProtoAvatar most have read a different trilogy than the rest of us, because I really don't see where you could get this stuff.

 

[Trent Roman]

Too late for that, I'm afraid. The better future is dead.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

I wouldn't go so far.

Alright then. Amended to: large swathes of the better future are dead.

I've never shaken the feeling that Destiny and it's aftereffects was someone's reaction to the success of BSG.

That's always been my impression of the TNG-R. Asshole characters for the sake of having asshole characters, grotesque character death for sake of saying "Ooh, we kill our (unpopular) main characters, aren't we badass and relevant", and, of course, genodical slaughter. Not that Trek is alone in this regard, mind you; it seems that the early critical success of BSG led multiple franchises down a similar path, to quite varying degrees of success (SG:U, Ultimatum, etc.) But Trek is easily the least compatible with BSG's ethos. And, ironically, by the time most of this was happening, BSG itself had become mired in something approaching self-parody of its own vaunted grittiness and moral ambiguity.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Turtletrekker]

I'm really starting to think that Trent and ProtoAvatar most have read a different trilogy than the rest of us, because I really don't see where you could get this stuff.

I agree.

 

[TerraUnam]

What? The Borg, with whom negotiation is futile, decide to assault the Federation and its allies en masse. All that is left is a bitter battle or surrender. Starfleet chooses to fight, and in a unique course of events a third way is found to free the Drones and stop the fighting. And that's not optimistic?

So we are reminded for once that the universe is a very dangerous place. That's not bad drama, it ups the ante. We still get the Federation, just one that can't afford to have chocolate sundaes coming out of every replicator anymore.

Besides, the Federation was founded in the context of the Earth-Romulan War, and instead of degenerating in to endless squabbling or unlimited Earth-let military tyranny, the Federation comes about. The ENT-R books will deal with this in due course.

I think Trent just doesn't like tragedy as a dramatic form. Fair enough, they aren't common anymore. But when they're done well, they're really good. Macbeth anyone?

 

[Therin of Andor]

Just beware, writers and editors, that you don't deconstruct the Federation and Starfleet, otherwise Star Trek has no point anymore.

And that's why all proposals and manuscripts are vetted and approved (or not approved) by CBS Licensing.

I've never shaken the feeling that Destiny and it's aftereffects was someone's reaction to the success of BSG.

I seem to recall that, long before the new BSG turned up, people were demanding that Pocket Books "grow some balls" and be "brave" enough to make some changes that aren't fixed with a "reset button".

 

[Trent Roman]

I think Trent just doesn't like tragedy as a dramatic form. Fair enough, they aren't common anymore. But when they're done well, they're really good. Macbeth anyone?

You mean in the Aristotelean sense? I'm not sure I'd call it my favourite genre, but I have nothing against well-crafted instances like some of the better Shakespearean tragedies.

The problem, as I've been saying in one way or another, is that the core of Trek isn't dramatic tragedy. Trek is dramatic comedy. Yes, there are instances of the tragic within the franchise--"City of the Edge of Forever", "Lower Decks", etc--but generally stories within this universe end well for the heroes. I feel that taking the biggest, setting-defining event in the history of the Federation since its founding and making it tragic instead of comic is a radical departure in tone, and not one I appreciated.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[JarodRussell]

Just beware, writers and editors, that you don't deconstruct the Federation and Starfleet, otherwise Star Trek has no point anymore.

And that's why all proposals and manuscripts are vetted and approved (or not approved) by CBS Licensing.

And that prevents what I'm afraid of how?



Having watched Endgame again, I have a question about Destiny. In Endgame, there's a scene where Admiral Janeway gives a lecture about the Borg. The way they talk about them, they still exist and surely didn't massacre 63 billion people. But Admiral Janeway decided to give in to selfish thoughts and travel back in time to bring Voyager home way too early. And now we have Destiny that results in 63 billion dead people. Wouldn't you say that the time police, for instance the Relativity, would prevent Admiral Janeway from fucking up the timeline in this magnitude?

 

[William Leisner]

Having watched Endgame again, I have a question about Destiny. In Endgame, there's a scene where Admiral Janeway gives a lecture about the Borg. The way they talk about them, they still exist and surely didn't massacre 63 billion people. But Admiral Janeway decided to give in to selfish thoughts and travel back in time to bring Voyager home way too early. And now we have Destiny that results in 63 billion dead people. Wouldn't you say that the time police, for instance the Relativity, would prevent Admiral Janeway from fucking up the timeline in this magnitude?

In some timelines, they did.

 

[DevilEyes]

What the hell does that even mean, "lost the battle for his own soul"? His soul still resides safely within his person, he still believes in the Federation, and he is still an effective Captain. He just had a tragic flaw, like many heroes; he could not deal with this particular thing effectively.

Remember Gul Madred and his question: How many lights are there?
If the borg would ask the same question, Picard wouldn't say '4'.
That's what it means.

Funny you should say so, since Picard admited at the end of that episode that, just before the guards came, he was ready to not just say there were 5 lights, but he almost believed in it.

 

[Christopher]

Just beware, writers and editors, that you don't deconstruct the Federation and Starfleet, otherwise Star Trek has no point anymore.

You mean like Deep Space Nine spent most of its run doing? Deconstruction doesn't mean destruction. That's why it has those three additional letters in there.

 

[Sci]

I think Trent just doesn't like tragedy as a dramatic form. Fair enough, they aren't common anymore. But when they're done well, they're really good. Macbeth anyone?

You mean in the Aristotelean sense? I'm not sure I'd call it my favourite genre, but I have nothing against well-crafted instances like some of the better Shakespearean tragedies.

The problem, as I've been saying in one way or another, is that the core of Trek isn't dramatic tragedy. Trek is dramatic comedy. Yes, there are instances of the tragic within the franchise--"City of the Edge of Forever", "Lower Decks", etc--but generally stories within this universe end well for the heroes. I feel that taking the biggest, setting-defining event in the history of the Federation since its founding and making it tragic instead of comic is a radical departure in tone, and not one I appreciated.

Why? Star Trek was not and has never been about a true utopia. It has been about a better future, not a future in which horrible things never happen. Star Trek has been full of wars and death from the very beginning, and the fact that Destiny was essentially the story of Federation society having a brush with its own mortality does not change that.

What Star Trek is about, though, is the idea that even when truly awful, horrible things happen, we will survive and improve and move on. Let's not forget that before United Earth, there was World War III. Before there was the Federation, there was the Earth-Romulan War. And now, before the apparently even more peaceful and prosperous Federation seen in the 25th Century segments of ENT: The Good That Men Do, there's the Borg Invasion.

And yet, the Federation survived. Its values inspired the Caeliar to abandon their xenophobia and embrace multiculturalism, liberating the Borg's slaves from the greatest tyrant in the history of the galaxy, the Borg Collective. The Collective itself is gone. And while there are 63 billion dead, there are also trillions of survivors -- all of whom, if Losing the Peace is any indication, are getting far, far, far better treatment in their refugee camps and getting far, far, far more help in resettling than refugees from wars in real life usually receive today. (I sure as hell would rather be stuck in one of those refugee camps on Pacifica than a refugee camp in the Sudan today!)

And not only is the Federation rebuilding, but, its values of peaceful cooperation have spread even to its rivals -- and, it's managed to convince several neighboring states to join it in an expanded Khitomer Accords alliance.

And through it all, the Federation never stopped fighting and never betrayed its values.

All in all, I'd say that's a much, much more hopeful and optimistic vision of how a society can cope with its own near-genocide than what you and others are claiming.

And for the last time:

Jean-Luc Picard is not the living incarnation of the United Federation of Planets. His failures do not embody all of his society's. He's just one guy.

 

[TerraUnam]

The refugee camps in Losing the Peace weren't horrible because they existed, they were horrible because they were in the Federation and it can and should do better for its citizens; William Leisner explicitly wrote this idea into the book. Starfleet went into mass mutiny over the refugee crisis, they were going to take care of people and damn the admirals.

That's pretty hopeful to me.

 

[Christopher]

The problem, as I've been saying in one way or another, is that the core of Trek isn't dramatic tragedy. Trek is dramatic comedy. Yes, there are instances of the tragic within the franchise--"City of the Edge of Forever", "Lower Decks", etc--but generally stories within this universe end well for the heroes. I feel that taking the biggest, setting-defining event in the history of the Federation since its founding and making it tragic instead of comic is a radical departure in tone, and not one I appreciated.

The counterargument to your premise is right there in your own words. Yes, there are instances of tragedy in ST. Destiny is another one of them.

And really, approaching it from a dramatic standpoint, is it really a tragedy "in the Aristotelian sense?" Pretty much all the main characters are still alive at the end and have achieved their goals. Some of them are mourning lost family and friends, but they're still alive and move on with their lives afterward. Just as Kirk moved on after losing Edith Keeler and his own brother and sister-in-law in two consecutive episodes. Just as Picard moved on after losing both his surviving blood relatives in Generations.

And what were the biggest events in terms of Federation history that we saw depicted in canonical, onscreen Trek? Surely they include Wolf 359, the Dominion War, and the Xindi attack -- and in the new universe, the destruction of Vulcan (following causally if not chronologically from the destruction of Romulus in the Prime universe). So how is it a "radical departure" when Destiny does the same sort of thing that canonical ST has done multiple times before?

 

[JarodRussell]

Just beware, writers and editors, that you don't deconstruct the Federation and Starfleet, otherwise Star Trek has no point anymore.

You mean like Deep Space Nine spent most of its run doing? Deconstruction doesn't mean destruction. That's why it has those three additional letters in there.

Please, don't go about semantics with someone who doesn't speak English as his first language.