Philosophical Objections to Trek Lit

[The Laughing Vulcan]

Have their ever been any moments in Trek Lit that just rubbed you the wrong way? Not so much the individual character choices but the worldview created by the authors...

Actually before this topic commences, I'd like to establish a guideline... well more a fervent wish. If it's something to do with sex, whether it is promiscuity, or lifestyle choices, gender preferences... take it to TNZ. Someone will post something that someone else takes umbrage to, tempers raise, and crap spirals out of control, and suddenly there is a clang. Actually, it isn't so much that, as it is the fact that all those arguments are so predictable and dull! Ethics and morality extend to so much more than the groin, so there should be lots of aspects of Trek Lit that rile people.

Then again, I'm not a mod, so post what you want, see if I read it!

I guess the biggest bullseye in this topic would be some of the opinions voiced in books like Dreadnaught! Battlestations! and Ship Of The Line. When I first read them, all I wanted were stories, and I never bothered to read between the lines, but now when I read them the political viewpoint of the author overwhelms the stories. Taken to extremes, it would seem to advocate the extremist, survivalist viewpoints that usually end up with a shootout in the woods with the FBI... But that's the proverbial fish in the barrel.

I guess what would surprise people is my opinion of Articles of the Federation, although I probably mentioned it when I reviewed it. It's certainly an entertaining book, with some interesting characters and compelling situations, but Nan Bacco rubbed me the wrong way. She seemed to me to be the inner voice of a politician, speaking and doing what most politicians would wish to do, but who would be constrained by the dictates of diplomacy. She was more a union leader than a statesman... But that is less problematic than the political system that was portrayed. I just found it impossible to accept the idea of a UFP spread across thousands of light years, with hundreds of planets, separated by years of travel time, choosing a system of government similar to 21st Century Western democracies, systems that barely work at the best of times now. Where was the input from Vulcan forms of government, Tellarite adversarial systems, and all the other governmental histories of Federation signatories?

 

[donners22]

Perhaps not quite along the lines you were thinking, but I had an issue with the acknowledgement to an Enterprise book. The problem was not so much the political view expressed there itself, but its entirely inappropriate placement there. I actually refused to buy the book for that reason alone.

 

[Trent Roman]

It's a bit difficult to detach this notion of a 'philosophical' objection from more general concerns, but if we're talking about problems with the worldbuilding, I've always had an issue with the Trill and Dominion portions of the worldbuilding exercise that was Worlds of Deep Space Nine. In the first, I just couldn't accept that a peaceful Federation world could degeneratate into civil strife, terrorism and attempted genocide so fast, over a scandal which, while large, was also distant from a practical standpoint. With the latter, I've never been able to get over the sheer cognitive dissonance of the idea of an entire group of people posing as deities being fervent believers in turn (not helped by the fact that the Founders' own theology was invented and destroyed in a single story, without any prior evidence for its existence).

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Defcon]

With the latter, I've never been able to get over the sheer cognitive dissonance of the idea of an entire group of people posing as deities being fervent believers in turn (not helped by the fact that the Founders' own theology was invented and destroyed in a single story, without any prior evidence for its existence).

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

I wholeheartedly agree . The whole god of the Founders thing just didn't made much sense to me, too.

 

[Dancing Doctor]

I can't think of any time I've ever had any philosophical objections. Editorial, sure, but that's generally about it.

 

[garamet]

Always found Diane Carey's books a little more militaristic than the original premise of screen Trek implied. YMMV.

 

[Geoff]

Perhaps not quite along the lines you were thinking, but I had an issue with the acknowledgement to an Enterprise book. The problem was not so much the political view expressed there itself, but its entirely inappropriate placement there. I actually refused to buy the book for that reason alone.

You're suggesting that the "acknowledgements" is an inappropriate place for the author to voice his/her opinion about something. And yet, by definition, an "acknowledgement" is a personal opinion -- specifically, an expression of gratitude for a particular person's influence.

If that isn't the "appropriate" place in the book to express one's views, where then would it be?

 

[Dancing Doctor]

The acknowledgment wouldn't happen to be the one in the book with the title taken from a Lincoln saying, would it?

 

[William Leisner]

Perhaps not quite along the lines you were thinking, but I had an issue with the acknowledgement to an Enterprise book.

*runs screaming into the night*

 

[Turtletrekker]

Perhaps not quite along the lines you were thinking, but I had an issue with the acknowledgement to an Enterprise book. The problem was not so much the political view expressed there itself, but its entirely inappropriate placement there. I actually refused to buy the book for that reason alone.

I thinkI know which book you're talking about, I bought two copies because of the acknowledgements. It made a great gift! And how anyone with the slightest knowledge about Star Trek and what it's about could possibly object to an anti-war sentiment (especially a war as criminal, unjustifiable and ineptly run as the Iraq war) is beyond me.

 

[Christopher]

With the latter, I've never been able to get over the sheer cognitive dissonance of the idea of an entire group of people posing as deities being fervent believers in turn...

Makes sense to me. We tend to expect other people to think like us. So if a people are motivated by a strong religious belief, it stands to reason that they'd use religion as a means of motivating others. And just because you recognize that religions can be false doesn't mean you question your own religious faith. Indeed, all monotheistic religious faiths are predicated on the assumption that every other religion is false, or at least misinterpreted. So I really don't see any contradiction.

Always found Diane Carey's books a little more militaristic than the original premise of screen Trek implied. YMMV.

The same can be said of the Nicholas Meyer-directed movies.

 

[RookieBatman]

Perhaps not quite along the lines you were thinking, but I had an issue with the acknowledgement to an Enterprise book. The problem was not so much the political view expressed there itself, but its entirely inappropriate placement there. I actually refused to buy the book for that reason alone.

I thinkI know which book you're talking about, I bought two copies because of the acknowledgements. It made a great gift! And how anyone with the slightest knowledge about Star Trek and what it's about could possibly object to an anti-war sentiment (especially a war as criminal, unjustifiable and ineptly run as the Iraq war) is beyond me.

So, everyone who watches Star Trek should be anti-war? It's beyond you that anyone who appreciates the need to protect our country from terrorists and dictators would want to watch a TV show that sometimes disagrees with that stance? You need to get out more.
A lot of people have a lot of different beliefs; just because you think Star Trek has a heavily leftward bent doesn't mean that everyone who watches it (or understands what it's about) is a bleeding-heart liberal.
I'm getting just a little tired of this belief that every Trekkie should be expected to have exactly the same worldview/political affiliation. If you truly understand what Star Trek (and IDIC) is about, then maybe you can understand my frustration. I can't enjoy a TV show and it's community without being expected to walk in lock-step with the majority, just because some of the shows had a leftward viewpoint. Like Christopher pointed out in regards to the Nick Meyer movies, that wasn't exactly a united front across the board of the entire Star Trek mythos.
I guess maybe it's my fault for not partaking of just the media that matches my worldview. Unfortunately, it's kinda hard to find good sci-fi that doesn't have some influence from the more-enlightened-than-thou left.

Please excuse my tone, but it's very frustrating. Not everyone in the world is the same, you know? Why is that so surprising?

 

[William Leisner]

*running faster, screaming louder*

 

[Geoff]

I'm getting just a little tired of this belief that every Trekkie should be expected to have exactly the same worldview/political affiliation. If you truly understand what Star Trek (and IDIC) is about, then maybe you can understand my frustration. I can't enjoy a TV show and it's community without being expected to walk in lock-step with the majority, just because some of the shows had a leftward viewpoint. Like Christopher pointed out in regards to the Nick Meyer movies, that wasn't exactly a united front across the board of entire Star Trek mythos.

Uh, what? Who the heck said you didn't have the right to your own opinions? This whole conversation began because the pro-war folk said that the anti-war folk had no right to voice their opinions in a forum where it was entirely appropriate.

Granted, one poster explained that he didn't understand your position, but he never said you had no right to hold it.

Way to misrepresent the whole argument to your advantage, though.

 

[RookieBatman]

Way to misrepresent the whole argument to your advantage, though.

Thanks. I always do my best to twist things around so I'll look like the bad guy.

Uh, what? Who the heck said you didn't have the right to your own opinions? This whole conversation began because the pro-war folk said that the anti-war folk had no right to voice their opinions in a forum where it was entirely appropriate.

Granted, one poster explained that he didn't understand your position, but he never said you had no right to hold it.

He didn't say he couldn't understand my position, he said he couldn't possibly understand how any Star Trek fan could reasonably hold my position. That a shade different, don't you think?
And the acknowledgments are usually used to acknowledge people who specifically helped you write the book, not just somebody who you think is a heroic figure in general. If some author started talking about the five steps to salvation in the acknowledgments because Jesus Christ was a big influence on them, would you consider that "entirely appropriate?"

 

[Dayton Ward]

^ If that was their thing, sure.

 

[Geoff]

If some author started talking about the five steps to salvation in the acknowledgments because Jesus Christ was a big influence on them, would you consider that "entirely appropriate?"

Why on earth do you think I would have a problem with that?

Oh, that's right. Because all of us bleeding-heart libruls hate God, hate Jesus, hate America, and eat babies for breakfast.

 

[RookieBatman]

If some author started talking about the five steps to salvation in the acknowledgments because Jesus Christ was a big influence on them, would you consider that "entirely appropriate?"

Why on earth do you think I would have a problem with that?

Oh, that's right. Because all of us bleeding-heart libruls hate God, hate Jesus, hate America, and eat babies for breakfast.

No, because Acknowledgements are the place for acknowledgments, not for PSAs. I thought I made that clear, but way to misrepresent my whole argument to your advantage.

 

[Dayton Ward]

^ The acknowledgements are for whatever or whoever the author wishes to thank or recognize for their assistance, guidance, or inspiration while writing the book.

 

[RookieBatman]

^ If that was their thing, sure.

If authors can just talk about whatever in that section, then why isn't it called "A personal message from the author" or "Stan's Soapbox," instead of "Acknowledgements?"