Thanks you.
Help with Vanguard/ Seekers
- Thread starter Jsplinis
- Start date
Thanks you.
Not even The Genesis Wave?
^ Well, I had that in mind, yes. 
It's possible, though we're in no hurry to do so.
What Vulcan Academy Murders/IDIC Epidemic references? And for that matter, what Diane Duane references? I don't recall either.
On the other hand, I do have a vague memory of references to Vanguard showing up in at least one recent TOS novel.
I wasn't that big on Vanguard (I like Seekers better, so far), and so that may explain why I'm having trouble remembering any references therein to the works of Jean Lorrah and Diane Duane.
I wonder: could my lack of enthusiasm for Vanguard have some connection with my active dislike of Section 31?
On the other hand, I do have a vague memory of references to Vanguard showing up in at least one recent TOS novel.
I wasn't that big on Vanguard (I like Seekers better, so far), and so that may explain why I'm having trouble remembering any references therein to the works of Jean Lorrah and Diane Duane.
I wonder: could my lack of enthusiasm for Vanguard have some connection with my active dislike of Section 31?
There's a letter that Dr. M'Benga writes to Zeke Fisher in which he mentions the events of those novels leading to his posting aboard the Enterprise.
I'm not sure. I hate Section 31, but I like Vanguard. But then, I'm not you.
I don't think Section 31 is ever even mentioned in Vanguard.
Section 31 isn't even mentionned - although I can imagine them pulling the strings of some of the more morally questionable orders that come from Starfleet Command in the later Vanguard-parts...
^I resist the fan tendency to try to explain absolutely every unethical or questionable thing in Federation history as the doing of Section 31. It's small-universe syndrome, and makes them too vast and overarching a conspiracy. Realistically, the only way such a group could maintain its secrecy effectively over such a long span of time is by doing as little as possible. The more huge and pervasive the conspiracy is portrayed the be, the more absurd it becomes that it could avoid exposure.
...Of course, if it's just a scapegoat-front for the evils of the UFP government, then the more exposure it gets, the better.
But supposedly S31 is not morally questionable as much as it is monomaniacally loyal to the UFP ideals. It's just so loyal it sometimes feels the need to do extreme things so that others can go on pursuing the ideals. Supposedly, most of what it does ought to be good for the masses, then, even if a bit under the counter.
In the TOS context, I'd actually be disappointed if S31 hogged all the good "evil organization" bits, not because of the comic-book-world existence of the thing, but because the environment should be ripe for more than one evil organization of that sort. The government could sanction a couple; a couple could practice vigilantism on their own; there'd be a few actually sponsored by UFP arch-enemies for their own nefarious purposes; and so forth. And ST:VAN would be the place to let a few of those get their 15 pages of fame.
Timo Saloniemi
But supposedly S31 is not morally questionable as much as it is monomaniacally loyal to the UFP ideals. It's just so loyal it sometimes feels the need to do extreme things so that others can go on pursuing the ideals. Supposedly, most of what it does ought to be good for the masses, then, even if a bit under the counter.
In the TOS context, I'd actually be disappointed if S31 hogged all the good "evil organization" bits, not because of the comic-book-world existence of the thing, but because the environment should be ripe for more than one evil organization of that sort. The government could sanction a couple; a couple could practice vigilantism on their own; there'd be a few actually sponsored by UFP arch-enemies for their own nefarious purposes; and so forth. And ST:VAN would be the place to let a few of those get their 15 pages of fame.
Timo Saloniemi
Ah. That rings a bell.
Hmm: has anybody, anywhere in print (even a fanzine), ever made a reference to M'Benga in Death's Angel (as I recall, didn't that leave him on his way to a mental institution back on Vulcan?)
And at any rate, my lack of enthusiasm for Vanguard and my loathing of Section 31 may also have something to do with my complete and utter contempt for Paul Gillebaard's dreadful pile of spy-fi-disguised-as-sci-fi dreck, Moon Hoax. (The only reason I haven't publicly burned my copy is because of my utter loathing of the very concept of book-burning.)
It might also have something to do with the way I tend to regard the whole Dominion War arc of DS9, and the whole Xindi War arc of ENT, as utter wastes of what could have been really good seasons.
Because none of those have anything to do with Vanguard, I still don't understand what point you're trying to make here.
No real point, I suppose.
Except that I find that the Dominion War and Xindi War arcs, and the whole concept of Section 31, strike me as straying far afield of Roddenberry's vision. And without going into any detail, I'll say the Gillebaard novel (set around 2009, and thankfully having absolutely nothing to do with Star Trek) had a profoundly unsympathetic protagonist, and a profoundly unbelievable antagonist.
Except that I find that the Dominion War and Xindi War arcs, and the whole concept of Section 31, strike me as straying far afield of Roddenberry's vision. And without going into any detail, I'll say the Gillebaard novel (set around 2009, and thankfully having absolutely nothing to do with Star Trek) had a profoundly unsympathetic protagonist, and a profoundly unbelievable antagonist.
^I'd disagree about the Xindi arc, because it was a season-long example of the type of story that Trek did many times, in which an alien starts out appearing to be an intractable enemy but the protagonists apply their intelligence and morality to find common ground with the alien and avert war. That's a classic Trek formula and very consistent with Roddenberry's vision.
Indeed, you could sort of say the same about the Dominion War arc, because it was resolved by an act of benevolence by Odo rather than by weapons and violence. Although I do wish it had reached that conclusion about a year sooner.
Indeed, you could sort of say the same about the Dominion War arc, because it was resolved by an act of benevolence by Odo rather than by weapons and violence. Although I do wish it had reached that conclusion about a year sooner.
Personally, I find Roddenberry's vision to be rather suspect and unflattering at times, and while I would never want Star Trek to discard its roots or stray from the fundamentals of what makes the franchise so inspiring, I think Trek is much improved by having those involved in its creation pull in directions that Roddenberry would resist. Never to defeat Roddenberry, of course, but to exist in symbiosis with him, to generate enough friction and conflict that interesting stories can arise from it. Trek is about exploration, yes, outer and inner? Roddenberry should be the homeworld, but we need to escape that world's gravity well and go exploring, even if we never lose sight of its status as our emotional core. So long as we have home in the back of our minds and cruise back there periodically to recharge and refuel, we can't let ourselves be tied to it. Faith of the heart, and all that.
To point out the obvious, large-scale wars can drag out for some years, and the Dominion conflict was set up as a large-scale problem - the war arc wasn't war for the sake of war, it was an extension of the political story arcs that had been unfolding successfully for some time. I prefer having the Dominion War take place over the entirety of the final two seasons rather than being swiftly resolved as though it were a minor distraction or a cheap detour. War has a massive impact on people and cultures in so many ways, particularly when it comes to define an era, and having it as a backdrop throughout the two seasons, even when it wasn't being focused on, was fantastic in my opinion. Plus, it's not like the Federation wanted a war or suddenly became warlike. It was shown to be in a position where it decided it had to fight one if it didn't want the Dominion to annex the Alpha and Beta quadrants. And that was the catalyst for a lot of examination of the Federation, Klingons, Cardassians, and others, where they had found themselves and where they might be headed. That sort of reflection and probing examination seems more in keeping with the idea of a provocative science fiction franchise than adherence to a creative dogma. There was a lot of great story-telling stemming from the Dominion War arc; it wasn't a flashy focus on battles or explosions, which is the only thing I'd really take exception to. There didn't need to be a war, but there didn't need to not be a war either.
Wars should be used sparingly in Trek, but if there's justifiable reason for them, make the most of it the way you would any story.
To point out the obvious, large-scale wars can drag out for some years, and the Dominion conflict was set up as a large-scale problem - the war arc wasn't war for the sake of war, it was an extension of the political story arcs that had been unfolding successfully for some time. I prefer having the Dominion War take place over the entirety of the final two seasons rather than being swiftly resolved as though it were a minor distraction or a cheap detour. War has a massive impact on people and cultures in so many ways, particularly when it comes to define an era, and having it as a backdrop throughout the two seasons, even when it wasn't being focused on, was fantastic in my opinion. Plus, it's not like the Federation wanted a war or suddenly became warlike. It was shown to be in a position where it decided it had to fight one if it didn't want the Dominion to annex the Alpha and Beta quadrants. And that was the catalyst for a lot of examination of the Federation, Klingons, Cardassians, and others, where they had found themselves and where they might be headed. That sort of reflection and probing examination seems more in keeping with the idea of a provocative science fiction franchise than adherence to a creative dogma. There was a lot of great story-telling stemming from the Dominion War arc; it wasn't a flashy focus on battles or explosions, which is the only thing I'd really take exception to. There didn't need to be a war, but there didn't need to not be a war either.
Wars should be used sparingly in Trek, but if there's justifiable reason for them, make the most of it the way you would any story.
^Maybe, but the problem is, the most interesting and important part of the story of a war isn't the fighting, but the aftermath. The decisions that are made in the wake of the war are arguably more important to shaping the future than any actual battle or strategy. For instance, it was the bad decisions made by the victors in WWI that pretty much guaranteed WWII and precipitated the modern Mideast conflicts, while it was the Marshall Plan in the wake of WWII that helped Europe and Japan rebuild and become stable, peaceful societies.
So by ending the war at the end of the series, DS9 left the story woefully unfinished. The end of the fighting was not even remotely the end of the war's impact, and it was a mistake to ignore that. Although it certainly gave the novels plenty of material.
(Once, long ago, I thought that I would want to do a massive trilogy about an interstellar war as part of my original SF universe. Then I realized that the story of the aftermath of the war was as critical as the war itself, so I planned to do two books about the war and the third about the aftermath. Then I decided I just didn't want to write the war part at all and gave up on the whole thing.)
So by ending the war at the end of the series, DS9 left the story woefully unfinished. The end of the fighting was not even remotely the end of the war's impact, and it was a mistake to ignore that. Although it certainly gave the novels plenty of material.
(Once, long ago, I thought that I would want to do a massive trilogy about an interstellar war as part of my original SF universe. Then I realized that the story of the aftermath of the war was as critical as the war itself, so I planned to do two books about the war and the third about the aftermath. Then I decided I just didn't want to write the war part at all and gave up on the whole thing.)
Mr. Bennett:
Point well taken about both arcs ultimately ending with a peace born of new understanding. I think my own issues with them were that they were both (as you pointed out for the Dominion War arc) dragged out for far too long, and interfered with the whole business of exploring strange new worlds, seeking out new life and new civilizations, and boldly going where no Federation citizen has gone before.
Hmm. Somebody refresh my memory: has the DTI taken on the Sphere Builders yet?
Point well taken about both arcs ultimately ending with a peace born of new understanding. I think my own issues with them were that they were both (as you pointed out for the Dominion War arc) dragged out for far too long, and interfered with the whole business of exploring strange new worlds, seeking out new life and new civilizations, and boldly going where no Federation citizen has gone before.
Hmm. Somebody refresh my memory: has the DTI taken on the Sphere Builders yet?
Similar threads
- Locked
