M
marlboro
Guest
1) The Left Hand of Destiny books shared elements of the Legend of King Arthur. Dax even pops up out of a body of water and hands Martok a bat'leth at one point. Was Martok's creation of the Order of the Bat'leth in A Good Day to Die an extension of the Arthurian theme i.e. a round table of chivalrous knights?
2) Speaking for myself, I usually only find the Klingons sympathetic when they have an even more disagreeable foe. Klingons battling the Borg is one thing, but seeing them subjugate the Halkans is another. You get around this problem in your Gorkon books ( if it is a problem for anyone but me) by having the two planets defeated by the Klingons be inhabited by a warrior race willing to accept their fate, and a generally unsympathetic race who seemed to be destroying themselves via pollution.
I'm wondering what your thoughts are on trying to balance a liberal audience's empathy with a likeable crew, with their antipathy to a violent culture whose empire is built on conquered planets. Lean too far one way, and you make the characters hard to root for, go too far the other way and you risk diluting what made the Klingons interesting to begin with.
3) There is something that I didn't understand about The Art of the Impossible. The Cardassians find a planet that contains an ancient Klingon ship. The Klingons (for multiple reasons) want that ship. Conflict ensues. The Federation steps in and initiates a mini treaty of Organia.
Here's what I dont get: why is there any conflict here? The Cardassians only want to exploit part of the planet and have no interest in the ship. The Klingons only want the ship and have no interest in the planet. Now individual members of both races have been shown to be afflicted with "hard headed alien" disease but the upper echelons of both governments are usually extremely pragmatic when it comes to realpolitik. I don't get why there wasn't an easy compromise here, or why the Federation officials didn't at least throw the idea out there.
I have a feeling I may have missed something obvious here.
4) Are there any onscreen Klingons that you would like to write about but haven't had the opportunity?
2) Speaking for myself, I usually only find the Klingons sympathetic when they have an even more disagreeable foe. Klingons battling the Borg is one thing, but seeing them subjugate the Halkans is another. You get around this problem in your Gorkon books ( if it is a problem for anyone but me) by having the two planets defeated by the Klingons be inhabited by a warrior race willing to accept their fate, and a generally unsympathetic race who seemed to be destroying themselves via pollution.
I'm wondering what your thoughts are on trying to balance a liberal audience's empathy with a likeable crew, with their antipathy to a violent culture whose empire is built on conquered planets. Lean too far one way, and you make the characters hard to root for, go too far the other way and you risk diluting what made the Klingons interesting to begin with.
3) There is something that I didn't understand about The Art of the Impossible. The Cardassians find a planet that contains an ancient Klingon ship. The Klingons (for multiple reasons) want that ship. Conflict ensues. The Federation steps in and initiates a mini treaty of Organia.
Here's what I dont get: why is there any conflict here? The Cardassians only want to exploit part of the planet and have no interest in the ship. The Klingons only want the ship and have no interest in the planet. Now individual members of both races have been shown to be afflicted with "hard headed alien" disease but the upper echelons of both governments are usually extremely pragmatic when it comes to realpolitik. I don't get why there wasn't an easy compromise here, or why the Federation officials didn't at least throw the idea out there.
I have a feeling I may have missed something obvious here.
4) Are there any onscreen Klingons that you would like to write about but haven't had the opportunity?