i'd rather we locked this thread and start over with the proviso we accept people hated Destiny III, but can we leave that one out...
Have any of the novels ever just made you mad? (
- Thread starter darkwing_duck1
- Start date
Why lock a thread? If you don't want to continue the discussion, just don't read or post. Why LOCK it?
I think we need this:
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcZ85YoeR6w&p=43ACD95AEDD178F8&playnext=1&index=40[/yt]
Oh, Look Around You, how I love you.
I shouldn't've played that with my cats in the room, though.
Why would deny the most obvious aspect of the trilogy? Ok, it's a massive Borg invasion, how the hell could it not be gritty? Going into Destiny and then being mad that it's gritty is like watching Saving Private Ryan, and then being mad that it's got battle scenes. It's pretty much a given that a trilogy about the Borg launching a massive invasion won't be all sunshine and lollipops. As for the character destruction, I really think that if you look at what the Borg have put Picard through for the past 16 (?) years, he's allowed to lose it in this situation. I'm not even going to get into the inconsistencies, and I really did think the ending was uplifting. Yeah, it did have alot of nastiness in the books, but I thought that the Federation surviving and all of the people who had been enslaved by the Borg being freed was a very positive way to end this. I know some people would have rather seen then simply wipe out the Borg, but when you consider the fact that they are baisically slaves, I think freeing them was a much better way to go about ending the threat. It's really kind of ironic that people complain about the death and destruction, but then are mad that the book actually ended in a way that prevented death and destruction.
Here's my problem with arguing with you.
Destiny is a work of fiction set in an already self-contradictory universe, as Christopher so eloquently explained. But even if it wasn't, any work of fiction is, just like any other work of art, a subjective phenomenon. There are some pieces of art that my girlfriend finds exhilarating which I find chaotic and irritating; there are some TV shows I find powerful that my girlfriend finds stupid. We're both mature enough to agree to disagree, and have conversations about why we disagree, and learn more about the art and each other.
You seem to think that, whenever it gets to the point where you and I (or you and JD) see the same thing but have different reactions, as long as you explain your reaction clearly, you've destroyed the other person's opinion, and he's now stupid or wrong for thinking otherwise. The world doesn't work that way.
Hard as it apparently is for you to believe, despite the fact that you have in your opinion "showed as unconvincing the posted counterarguments"... I actually still agree with him, and disagree with you! Because it's a WORK OF FICTION, and that's what's supposed to happen.
I understand why YOU THINK Picard is inconsistent, and I understand why YOU WERE upset about the grittiness, and why YOU FOUND certain story elements to be badly used. Believe it or not, I've read the same trilogy, twice now, thought about it in depth, and decided I THINK Picard was consistent, I WAS fulfilled by the realism in the destruction, and I FOUND those story elements to be well-used. I've "showed as unconvincing your posted counterarguments" to MY satisfaction. And no matter how many times you post otherwise, it ain't changing!
Clearly we're going to continue to disagree here, but I would appreciate it if your posts stopped apparently assuming that we're all retarded because we haven't bowed to the force of your superior logic. All of those things you said are "a fact", in your post, are actually dictionary definitions of "an opinion", and having different reactions to fiction is kind of the point.
For what it's worth, my initial reaction to Picard's portrayal in the trilogy was negative but, upon further reading and contemplation, I've decided that I think it works.
There are still quite a few aspects of Destiny that I'm not in love with, but I think it's definitely a case where interesting creative choices were made, some of which don't really sit well with me, but that add up to a pretty monumental piece of fiction that will doubtless be debated forever by those who have read it.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
I won't treat the grit, Picard, inconsistencies because they've been discussed to death.
About the ending, though - after the trilogy was filled with ~63 BILLIONS dying, I found it underwhelming - it was essentially a 5 minute long fireworks; and there were two 'entire' paragraphs about trillions liberated (which will never be heard from again). All this was far too little to compensate for the nuBSG pilot tone of the trilogy.
As for the behaviour of the characters after this, I found it callous and superficial - ~63 BILLION died, the federation is in ruins and you make 'jokes' about not being allowed to explore? You are actually in the mood to sallivate after an antiquity?
Yes, the trekverse is inconsistent at times - for example, the likes of 'Homeward', 'Tuvix', 'Blaze of glory' are blatantly contradictory to the rest of the trek lore with regards to the characters' personalities, painting Picard as little better than a mass murderer, Janeway as a dr Mengele wanna-be, Sisko as a callous vigilante who thinks he's judge, jury and executioner on a planetery scale.
Which is why I find these episodes all but unwatchable.
You may enjoy these episodes - it's a matter of taste.
I beleive you that this was your reaction to 'Destiny', Thrawn - but, for example, the characters not using the thalaron weapon is an objective inconsistency to them using other WMDs; that's what I proved above.
You subjectively decide this inconsistency is minor, with no importance, because "Because it's a WORK OF FICTION, and that's what's supposed to happen"; because "Destiny is a work of fiction set in an already self-contradictory universe"
I find such an inconsistency jarring, much like the other inconsistencies in star trek.
We seem to have different thresholds for 'inconsistencies'; but this doesn't change the fact that a logical analysis of 'Destiny' (or star trek) will reveal inconsistencies, some of which explainable through fan theories (more or less convoluted) some of which just too large to be convincingly explained.
This applies to grit vs trek humanism, to Picard's character destruction, etc.
"retarded"? Thrawn, I never once assumed this.
I actually don't enjoy any of those episodes, in particular.
But how about The Doomsday Machine, The Best Of Both Worlds, and The Wrath Of Khan? As you point out, destroying a planet is well within the means of any conventionally-equipped enemy, using several canonical examples. So why were these things scary, or worth telling stories about? In each case, the enormous dramatic reveal involves destruction of a planet. At the beginning of BOBW, it's even less - it's a city that's gone! Destroying a city is trivial for even one Federation ship. So why should we care that the Borg can do the same?
And what I'm saying is, if it's an inconsistency now, it's an inconsistency that plagues several of the very best Trek stories of all time. And if it doesn't bother me there, why let it bother me here?
I doubt it. You find it jarring, just like all the other inconsistencies you personally dislike. But you forgive the ones you feel like forgiving just like everyone else. It's still subjective, dude.
I don't know if you've had a chance to pick up the hilarious and outstanding (but quite old) Nitpickers' Guides to TOS, TNG, and DS9. Those books pointed out, with glee, all of the myriad problems in every single episode of the show. Each episode featured several pages! Generations, if I recall correctly, had 12!
You ignore all the ones you want to ignore, in the stories that mean something to you. You might not even realize you're doing it, but it's true.
And yet STILL, in THIS case, you're just plain wrong if you say I'm selectively forgiving particular inconsistencies. It's my opinion that there is *literally no contradiction* between this trilogy and either Trek's humanism or Picard's prior characterization. I'm not forgiving anything, I genuinely think it tracks perfectly. And again: that's an OPINION. I understand why you don't share it, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a perfectly valid opinion to hold.
Humanism doesn't mean humans are perfect. It means we're flawed but are capable of striving to improve. And it means that just because we have setbacks and failures, it doesn't negate the fact that we're capable of bettering ourselves. It means that even if individual humans fail, other humans can redeem them. Here, we had one human, Picard, pushed to the point of failure, but another human, Geordi, brought him back from the brink and kept him on the path toward betterment, and other humans including Riker and Hernandez helped bring about a triumph for humanity and its fellow sophonts over the ultimate anti-humanistic force.
So I'm with Thrawn. Destiny is very much a humanistic work.
So I'm with Thrawn. Destiny is very much a humanistic work.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
Thrawn
Yes, I do forgive inconsistencies in star trek.
Much like I overlooked inconsistencies in 'Destiny'. Examples?:
The Azure nebula battle: the allies ships on the periphery of the nebula had more than enough time to go to warp and escape the borg crushing them; they didn't.
Te borg cubes hit allied ships - hitting something else at a substantial percentage of the speed of light is just stupid, regardless of how tough you are.
Etc.
Why did I overlook them - and may others in different trek productions?
Because they're minor, they have little influence on the story.
The thalaron weapon, on the other hand, was a major opportunity for our heroes; they not using it by citing obtuze reasons is NOT a minor inconsistency.
Starfleet not using (not even considering to use them because 'it won't work') a rather long list of strategic options/exotic weapons at their disposal, preferring to commit seppuku is a large departure from trek's humanism.
'Wrath of Khan' is another example of lazy writing decreasing the quality of the production. A starfleet ship's crew not knowing to count, Chekov losing a supposedly deadly parasite just because, Kirk proving he's a crappy captain who can't recornize an obvious trap, Khan being stupider than Forrest Gump in not knowing space has 3 dimensions, etc, etc.
'Best of both worlds' and 'The doomsday machine' - the borg/the doomsday machine are so feared because they're on a clearly genocidal mission and our heroes can't stop them like they could stop klingons/others from doing the same thing.
Yes, I do forgive inconsistencies in star trek.
Much like I overlooked inconsistencies in 'Destiny'. Examples?:
The Azure nebula battle: the allies ships on the periphery of the nebula had more than enough time to go to warp and escape the borg crushing them; they didn't.
Te borg cubes hit allied ships - hitting something else at a substantial percentage of the speed of light is just stupid, regardless of how tough you are.
Etc.
Why did I overlook them - and may others in different trek productions?
Because they're minor, they have little influence on the story.
The thalaron weapon, on the other hand, was a major opportunity for our heroes; they not using it by citing obtuze reasons is NOT a minor inconsistency.
Starfleet not using (not even considering to use them because 'it won't work') a rather long list of strategic options/exotic weapons at their disposal, preferring to commit seppuku is a large departure from trek's humanism.
'Wrath of Khan' is another example of lazy writing decreasing the quality of the production. A starfleet ship's crew not knowing to count, Chekov losing a supposedly deadly parasite just because, Kirk proving he's a crappy captain who can't recornize an obvious trap, Khan being stupider than Forrest Gump in not knowing space has 3 dimensions, etc, etc.
'Best of both worlds' and 'The doomsday machine' - the borg/the doomsday machine are so feared because they're on a clearly genocidal mission and our heroes can't stop them like they could stop klingons/others from doing the same thing.
Last edited:
I can't really remember the book now. But I remember sympthasising with him. I knew what it felt like to be deprived of my senses. Especially common sense to continue reading.
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
^^ 
That's funny (about the common sense)
That's funny (about the common sense)
The recent novels are kind of pissing me off, yes, for one reason:
No Eav'oq jokes.
No Eav'oq jokes.
No Eav'oq jokes.
How eav'oqative.
^ Stop that! That's my schtick! 
That was funny, though, and even sh'oqing.
That was funny, though, and even sh'oqing.
Well, I have no clue whatsoever what the heck you are talking about. "Eav'oq"? What in I'nora's name...?
Not to forget about the long lost ancestors of the Eav'oqs: the Voo'qeas.
Similar threads
