Dwellers in the Crucible question

[ryan123450]

No offense to garamet, but having read the back cover of Dwellers in the Crucible, isn't the idea that Federation member worlds would need to exchange hostages at gunpoint into order to prevent civil war pretty absurd?

Granted this may have made sense decades ago, but given the way later Trek fleshed out the politics of the Federation would this fit into modern continuity?

 

[Christopher]

Does it matter whether it fits into modern continuity? The hostage-exchange idea is an offbeat one, sure, but what matters is, does it result in a worthwhile story? Back when Dwellers came out, continuity among Trek novels was rare; in fact, I'd say it was pretty much the first book that made any reference to other Trek novels, incorporating John M. Ford's Klingon culture and Diane Duane's Rihannsu/Romulan culture. For the most part, each book was its author's own distinct interpretation of the Trek universe, and there are lots of different, often surprising variants explored in them. Vonda McIntyre had group marriages and intergalactic starships. Diane Duane had a richly diverse Starfleet and more advanced Federation technology than we've ever seen in canon. Greg Bear (Corona) made Spock 80-something years old. Laurence Yep (Shadow Lord) gave us a Federation whose version of the Prime Directive was more like the British Empire's Civilising Mission, imposing modernization on medieval cultures with glib unconcern for the resultant upheavals. Barbara Hambly (Ishmael) merged the Trek universe with several other sci-fi and Western franchises. It was more about individual creativity than consistency.

 

[Mysterion]

^^^^^
Good points. I kind of miss that sort of variety in interpretation in Star Trek novels, myself.

I remember really enjoying Dwellers when it first came out. Think I need to dig it out and re-read it.

 

[Ward Fowler]

^^^^^
Good points. I kind of miss that sort of variety in interpretation in Star Trek novels, myself.

I remember really enjoying Dwellers when it first came out. Think I need to dig it out and re-read it.

I agree on both counts.

 

[garamet]

No offense to garamet, but having read the back cover of Dwellers in the Crucible, isn't the idea that Federation member worlds would need to exchange hostages at gunpoint into order to prevent civil war pretty absurd?

Granted this may have made sense decades ago, but given the way later Trek fleshed out the politics of the Federation would this fit into modern continuity?

Not at gunpoint, but by mutual agreement. I based this on the traditions of many Earth cultures that assured a mutual absence of conflict by agreeing to raise the child of a former "enemy" in one's own household.

 

[T'Ressa Dax]

Well, I liked it just as it was. And in fact had a story inspired by that practice, though I never got around to actually writing it out. Wasn't Trek.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Not at gunpoint, but by mutual agreement. I based this on the traditions of many Earth cultures that assured a mutual absence of conflict by agreeing to raise the child of a former "enemy" in one's own household.

Not to mention that swapping for peace was precisely what was happening in "Elaan of Troyius", two planets who hoped to join the Federation one day.

And then came ST V, where Earth, Klingon and Romulan ambassadors were sent off to "Paradise" on Nimbus III. None of them seemed terribly happy to be stuck there.

 

[HIj'Qa]

I would hate to see the politics of the Federation fleshed out in detail, limiting political aspects of any story to hold to the official line. While politics have been flashed out more in subsequent TV episodes and writings, there hopefully will always be room for a great story with another take, like Dwellers in the Crucible.

And, come to think of it, perhaps the whole situation with the Typhon Pact could be diffused with the exchange of some Warrantors of Peace!

 

[Sci]

I would hate to see the politics of the Federation fleshed out in detail

You're about four years too late.

, limiting political aspects of any story to hold to the official line.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the official line." Politics is, to quote Bismarck, the art of the possible. Fleshing out Federation politics meant fleshing out the process, not the results.

 

[garamet]

It should be pointed out that by the time Dwellers takes place, the tradition is pretty much pro forma, since there's been no hostility between the respective worlds for generations. It's really just an excuse for exchange students to live on Vulcan and learn a bit about Vulcan culture.

 

[bluedana]

Back when Dwellers came out, continuity among Trek novels was rare; in fact, I'd say it was pretty much the first book that made any reference to other Trek novels, incorporating John M. Ford's Klingon culture and Diane Duane's Rihannsu/Romulan culture. For the most part, each book was its author's own distinct interpretation of the Trek universe, and there are lots of different, often surprising variants explored in them.

True. I still have my original copy of Dwellers, bought on 9/1/1985, with underlines and all, one of seven books (including with Final Reflection, Ishmael, and Entropy Effect) that I kept. When authors stopped being able to really interpret the Trek universe, I stopped buying them, but those ones were keepers.

 

[Christopher]

^I think there's still a lot of room for interpreting the Trek universe. True, those interpretations have to incorporate what's now known from the much larger canon, but there's still plenty of room to create new ideas, interpolate creative explanations and connective tissue, and so forth. Like the way Orion's Hounds allowed me to unify what was known about spacegoing life forms in ST into an overall theory of the galactic ecosystem. Or how Ex Machina let me take a canonical culture that was very vaguely defined and build it up into a whole diverse society with an extensive history.

 

[garamet]

^Exactly. I've had a lot of fun filling in some unknowns about Romulans, for example.