Dumb and Bizarre Trek Novel Moments...

[Sci]

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.

It's not semantics, it's deeply important distinction. Deconstructing an idea is all about taking an idea apart and reducing it to its constituent concepts in order to reveal how it functions -- and, often (though not always), putting it back together in the same story. Destructing something, on the other hand, is all about simply destroying it, demolishing it, rendering it invalid, contradicting it. Deconstruction can reveal that the larger concept, once its manner of functioning has been revealed, never actually functioned, but it need not necessarily do that.

 

[David cgc]

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?

Unless Relativity was from the future Admiral Janeway created when she went back in time. In that case, stopping her would be akin to one of us going back in time to undo the Black Death. Yes, it was a tragedy, but it was a very long time ago, and things are okay now, so why take the chance?

 

[Smiley]

Who's to say that a timeship did not try to prevent or undo future Admiral Janeway's actions? They could have been stopped by Q, bad luck, incompetence, or some other force in the cosmos. Like you say, the change could make things worse a la Engines of Destiny.The real world explanation is that it would transform the Trek universe in a big way and invalidate many stories post-"Renaissance Man."

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Basically it was the Caelier's values of self responsibility that caused them to intervene not the Federation's values of fair, just, humanitarian treatment of all. Even after the Caelier assimilated the Borg it was their feeling of self responsibility for what the Borg did to the drones/slaves that caused them to take them all in.

Perhaps. But it was Hernandez's Starfleet/Federation values of inquisitiveness and involvement that led to the discovery that enabled her to convince the Caeliar to act on their own values. Influencing someone with your values doesn't necessarily mean converting them to think the same way you do. It just means letting your values guide you into positive action that convinces others to make a difference, even if they do it for their own reasons.

Christopher, what do you see the Caeliar's values as being? I find myself in strong agreement with LS's point here; Destiny is very clear that it was the discovery of Sedin's corrupted consciousness at the core of the Borg that caused them to act contrary to their previous extreme isolationism and xenophobia. If Hernandez did anything to motivate them, it wasn't to convince them of humanity's inherent goodness, it was to offer them the proof that that the Caeliar were, in a very basic way, responsible for the deaths of trillions.

 

[JarodRussell]

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.

It's not semantics, it's deeply important distinction. Deconstructing an idea is all about taking an idea apart and reducing it to its constituent concepts in order to reveal how it functions -- and, often (though not always), putting it back together in the same story. Destructing something, on the other hand, is all about simply destroying it, demolishing it, rendering it invalid, contradicting it. Deconstruction can reveal that the larger concept, once its manner of functioning has been revealed, never actually functioned, but it need not necessarily do that.

Yes, I get it, destruction and deconstruction are different words with different meaning. Jesus Christ.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

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.

That's correct. "Endgame" indicates that the Borg are still a threat in the early 25th-century. A low-level threat, one that bat-armor and transphasic torpedoes can deal with, but still a threat.

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.

"Endgame"'s Admiral Janeway has a lot of blood on her hands, yes. She did in the episode; she destroyed a whole timeline just because she thought her crew should have gotten home sooner. People lived and died in that timeline, and now they don't exist, their lives are different in the new timeline. Looked at objectively, her actions in provoking the Borg in "Endgame" brought about the whole mess, from Resistance through Destiny. She makes one question seriously Leibniz's philosophy; does the post-"Endgame" universe really represent the best of all possible worlds?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Did Old Janeway destroy her timeline? Or did she just leave it in the same manner as Nero in STXI, creating a divergence point when she went back? Are Old Barclay, Miral, Balding Tom, "Joe" and the rest still out there somewhen in their fugly PJ's, wondering what happened when Janeway "vanished"?

 

[JD]

^Ahhh, you gotta love time travel.

 

[Myasishchev]

"Endgame"'s Admiral Janeway has a lot of blood on her hands, yes. She did in the episode; she destroyed a whole timeline just because she thought her crew should have gotten home sooner. People lived and died in that timeline, and now they don't exist, their lives are different in the new timeline. Looked at objectively, her actions in provoking the Borg in "Endgame" brought about the whole mess, from Resistance through Destiny. She makes one question seriously Leibniz's philosophy; does the post-"Endgame" universe really represent the best of all possible worlds?

Two points:

1. You know, leaving aside that the wiping out timelines thing is physically and logically impossible, I've never quite gotten the moral abhorrence regarding it either. Even assuming you're killing trillions by changing them into dissimilar forms, or preventing them from existing in the first place, through whatever act or omission led to the divergence, wouldn't consciously acting or omitting in other ways likewise "kill" all the uncountably many more who could have existed in timelines resulting from said different acts or omissions?

It's ultimately a moral wash, and should never be a factor in decisionmaking (again, leaving aside the in-universe evidence that it isn't true and the logical impossibility of changes-through-time-travel within a single universe paradigm). The good or bad results of interference should be accounted for as well as possible, of course, but that's trivial.

This is why "Children of Time" is a worse episode than "Let He Who is Without Sin."

2. Situations analogous to Admiral Janeway's actions are why lawyers invented the concept of proximate causation, which is distinct from physically-necessary or "but-for" causation.

It's been ages since I've seen Endgame (it is bad for a whole host of other reasons), so I reviewed the appropriate MA page. It's really arguable whether an assertion "that Captain Janeway and Marty McJaneway's attacks on the Borg led to the events of Destiny" could ever satisfy a proximate cause analysis.

To my mind, it would be like holding Chuichi Nagumo personally liable and morally responsible for the nuking of Nagasaki because he carried out the attack on Pearl Harbor--too many intervening but-for causative events occurred in between the two events in question to reliably establish a proximate cause, particularly events attributable to the free will of actors in the United States, unpredictable by any reasonable means by Nagumo. You could as easily blame Picard for smarting off to Q, which is a but-for cause but more obviously not a proximate one.

There's also the embedded assumption there that an attack against a hostis humani generis like the Borg is morally okay as long as they can't retaliate effectively, which is interestingly utilitarian.

 

[Sci]

Basically it was the Caelier's values of self responsibility that caused them to intervene not the Federation's values of fair, just, humanitarian treatment of all. Even after the Caelier assimilated the Borg it was their feeling of self responsibility for what the Borg did to the drones/slaves that caused them to take them all in.

Perhaps. But it was Hernandez's Starfleet/Federation values of inquisitiveness and involvement that led to the discovery that enabled her to convince the Caeliar to act on their own values. Influencing someone with your values doesn't necessarily mean converting them to think the same way you do. It just means letting your values guide you into positive action that convinces others to make a difference, even if they do it for their own reasons.

Christopher, what do you see the Caeliar's values as being? I find myself in strong agreement with LS's point here; Destiny is very clear that it was the discovery of Sedin's corrupted consciousness at the core of the Borg that caused them to act contrary to their previous extreme isolationism and xenophobia.

The problem with this is twofold:

1. The novel was very clear that it was Hernandez who persuaded them that they needed to liberate the Borg and to incorporate the liberated drones into their gestalt, in order to avoid stagnation and extinction.

2. Sedin's consciousness was not discovered until after the gestalt had begun the process of dismantling the Collective.

 

[Thestral]

2. Sedin's consciousness was not discovered until after the gestalt had begun the process of dismantling the Collective.

Sedin herself wasn't discovered till then, true, but the Borg-as-perversions-of-Caeliar was an important part of the impetus.

 

[RonG]

I think the sheer amount of discussion regarding Destiny, on a "Dumb and Bizarre Trek Novel Moments" thread, shows yet again the importance of this story in modern Trek.

Regarding Picard - I think that his actions (the reasons for which IMO I had already posted a few pages ago) show the readers a more-rounded, 3-D character, with strengths AND weaknesses.

It seems to me that most Trek captains face (or show the readers / viewers) some darker side of themselves, which can be taken to "tarnish" their "heroic" image. consider:

- Kirk at the start of STVI talking to spock about the Klingons - later scenes and dialogue show that Kirk is still (as expected) hurting from the death of his son, some 10 years prior IIRC.

- Sisko in "In the Pale Moonlight" - sacrificing his ideals, consipiring to commit fraud and (indirectly?) murder, and manipulated by Garak. The sequel, Hollow Men, clearly shows how scarring the exeprience was for Sisko, but. like in the episode, he would do it again if needed...

- Janeway in Before Dishonor and Resistance - Full of hubris and thinking she knows the collective like no other, Janeway finally falls victim to the very danger she had spent her last few years battling, and bringing the events of "Endgame"... full circle

- Archer throughout the Xindi arc (ENT S3 and The Last Full Measure) - His homeworld threatened and millions are killed, Archer succombs to his darker instincts and becomes violent, even resorting to outright torture.


Having Picard break down (which IMO is not as *definative* as other posters imply) does not IMO detract from his character and his standing as a Starfleet officer, but rather add to his character as a *person*.

 

[flemm]

This is why "Children of Time" is a worse episode than "Let He Who is Without Sin."

Somewhat off-topic, but what is your criticism of Children of Time, precisely?

From memory this episode deals with some of the questions you outlined in your earlier post, i.e. who's to say which version of the universe is better?

 

[TerraUnam]

Another "problem" with Destiny is that Columbia faces a tragic-filled plot and mack just doesn't let up. Their warp drive and comm systems are fried 'beyond repair' in Gods of Night, and Mack doesn't reach for the Reset Lever to fix it. We've seen Scottty, Geordi and countless others confined in a Jeffries Tube in order to get these systems online by the end of the episode and save the day. Mack doesn't do that. We expect him to.

Trek technology is only as fixable as the plot allows it to be.

If you look at it one way it's subverting a trope, looked at another way it's counter-Trek writing and annoying.

 

[T'Ressa Dax]

Well I like the fact that Mack didn't take the easy way out for a change. That would be predictable, and really, it's hard to believe that everything can be fixed easily all the time. The easy way reduces the drama of the moment because you know the characters aren't going to be in trouble long.

 

[RonG]

Another "problem" with Destiny is that Columbia faces a tragic-filled plot and mack just doesn't let up. Their warp drive and comm systems are fried 'beyond repair' in Gods of Night, and Mack doesn't reach for the Reset Lever to fix it. We've seen Scottty, Geordi and countless others confined in a Jeffries Tube in order to get these systems online by the end of the episode and save the day. Mack doesn't do that. We expect him to.

Trek technology is only as fixable as the plot allows it to be.

If you look at it one way it's subverting a trope, looked at another way it's counter-Trek writing and annoying.

I don't get it.. you're upset and think is *dumb* and *bizzare* that a predictable plot device wasn't used??

Are you saying that you prefer Trek storytelling to be predictable as opposed to dramatic and realistic??

I guess you really can't please everyone...

 

[Dancing Doctor]

No, they had to be persuaded to liberate the drones and then accept them into the gestalt. They had to be persuaded to adopt the Federation value of multiculturalism (a value the Federation inherited from Humans) by a Federate. (And, yes, as Hernandez was alive when the Federation was founded, she would have immediately gained Federation citizenship even if no one in the Federation knew she was alive.)

I never got the impression that they adopted the "Federation value of multiculturalism". The Caeliar accepted the former drones, but that seemed more of a "We're kinda responsible for them being this way" sort of action. And then they left. All the drones would have to adopt to their society, just as the Columbia survivors did (or, ultimately for most of them, didn't).

Maybe it's just me, but the Caeliar did what the various Starfleet ships did: come along, get involved in whatever event-of-the-week-or-episode there is, "clean up", and move along. This time, however, they had to come back and be persuaded to help clean up again.

I enjoyed the Destiny trilogy, but there were times when things seemed off, and many of my concerns had already been brought up by prior contributors.

 

[TerraUnam]

^^

No, I'm defending Mack's choice, but it can be seen two different ways, and it does run against the grain of most of Trek.

Just trying to explain why Destiny strikes some people the wrong way.

 

[flemm]

^^

No, I'm defending Mack's choice, but it can be seen two different ways, and it does run against the grain of most of Trek.

Just trying to explain why Destiny strikes some people the wrong way.

I don't think the lack of a tech solution at the beginning of the narrative is significant problem. Certainly tech solutions commonly intervene to help resolve Trek stories, but things break down just as often when the plot requires it. Generally, the breakdown will be at the beginning (as it is in Destiny) and the tech solution will be employed at the end, so I don't think too many readers would find it odd that the plot is not reset right away. (Anyway the solution to the borg crisis is eventually a tech solution, it's just that it's Caeliar tech, not Federation tech.)

Moreover, most of the favorable reactions to Destiny in this thread contend that the trilogy in fact affirms traditional Trek values and that it doesn't really go against the grain at all considered as a complete narrative.

The negative reactions tend to emphasize the helplessness of the Federation and the large-scale destruction as un-Trekian elements and those people would probably have prefered a more active solution on the part of the mortal characters, possibly involving Federation tech, but I don't think they are bothered by the fact that the right solution is not found immediately. If it were, there would be no story.

 

[JarodRussell]

^^

No, I'm defending Mack's choice, but it can be seen two different ways, and it does run against the grain of most of Trek.

Just trying to explain why Destiny strikes some people the wrong way.

Destiny seems to do A LOT things differently, maybe too much for some.