• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Philosophical Objections to Trek Lit

Doink. And I've read Station Rage, too. Come to think of it, I don't remember what I thought of that one... so I guess it must have been merely forgotten, rather than something I disliked.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
 
^ Not to mention Station Rage and the novelizations of "The Search", "Way of the Warrior", and "What You Leave Behind". ;)
I wasn't counting the novelizations (since those weren't original works) but I had forgotten about Station Rage. My bad.
 
I never read Station Rage myself, but I've liked most of the Carey I've read. Even the ones everyone hates. My favorites of hers are Final Frontier, the New Earth/Challenger tales, and the Piper books-- all ones where the politics are subdued or work because of the scenarion.

Carey's novelizations were usually a mixed bag, thanks in part to an obvious disdain for the source material. I think it's in Equinox where Janeway says something, then thinks to herself, "How could I ever say something so stupid?"
 
Actually, she has: Call to Arms... and ...Sacrifice of Angels, the novelizations of the series' big opening sixth season arc (plus season five finale), published along with two TNG books under the rubric of "The Dominion War". I found the novelizations bizarre and distasteful, for skipping over a number of key scenes and adding a lot of new content that cast events in a very different light (such as Ross being an inept martinet being deceived into following Sisko's plan for the war). If that was a reflection of her politics at work in the fiction, then I don't think it worked any better than in TNG fiction...

I don't think it was a reflection of her politics. I think it was done purely for storytelling reasons, to turn six (and a quarter) separate-but-linked episodes into a more cohesive narrative with a strong, consistent character arc for Sisko tying it all together. Whether one agrees with her politics or not, there's no reason to assume that every single storytelling decision she makes has a polemical intent.

And while that choice was interesting in its way, it did kind of undermine the B plot of "Behind the Lines," the point of which was that Sisko had to adjust to standing back and letting others handle things and was frustrated at such a passive role. Carey's reinterpretation of the story with Sisko enacting a master plan took away that whole character bit.

Anyway, Carey's libertarianism is something of a tradition among SF authors; other noted libertarian SF authors include Robert Heinlein and Poul Anderson. And I feel about Carey's writing the same way I do about Anderson's -- I don't agree with the politics, but the words sure are purty.
 
Anyway, Carey's libertarianism is something of a tradition among SF authors; other noted libertarian SF authors include Robert Heinlein and Poul Anderson. And I feel about Carey's writing the same way I do about Anderson's -- I don't agree with the politics, but the words sure are purty.

Exactly the way I see it. HG Wells' works were heavily informed by his philosophy and politics, some of which I don't agree with at all. But it has never stopped me from enjoying the stories he tells.
 
I can't think of any ideas or philisophical concepts that I haven't liked in any of the Trek books I've read. But then again haven't read anywhere near as many of the books as alot of you guys so that probably helps. Although from what you guys have said here it sounds like I might not neccissarily like some of Diane Carey's ideas.
 
Anyway, Carey's libertarianism is something of a tradition among SF authors; other noted libertarian SF authors include Robert Heinlein and Poul Anderson. And I feel about Carey's writing the same way I do about Anderson's -- I don't agree with the politics, but the words sure are purty.

Exactly the way I see it. HG Wells' works were heavily informed by his philosophy and politics, some of which I don't agree with at all. But it has never stopped me from enjoying the stories he tells.

I agree. My general answer to this thread (which I'm sure you'll all be able to understand better now that you know my political stance) is that I have a lot of philosophical objections to Trek Lit, but I'm not gonna stop reading them because I enjoy the stories, and if I only ingested media that agreed with my worldview, I wouldn't have much to read or watch. That's just how life is in a diverse world. :)
 
Well, ok. I was trying to be nice. Diane's books are warped, right-wing biased Republican propaganda.

Actually, Carey's philosophy isn't so much Republican as it is militant Libertarian with some neo-con thrown in for good measure.

I may be misremembering, but when she ran for her state legislature, I seem to recall some of her campaign stuff read like hard right Christian conservative stuff, not libertarian. It's possible she was trying to seem more in line with the Republicans to get a shot at the nomination. (Hmm... looks like she's following the lead of Dafydd ab Hugh and Kevin Ryan and going into conservative bloviation: http://www.racefreezone.com/.)

And just to get back to the issue of dedications and whatnot: when I saw Diane Carey at a con many years ago, she said she'd had to alter the dedication to her father in Ghost Ship. She'd written United States Marine Corps after his name; someone allegedly insisted it be abbreviated to USMC to avoid glorifying the military. She blamed Roddenberry, rather than anyone at Pocket; I suspect it may be another case of an overzealous Richard Arnold acting in GR's name, but who knows. If it's true, regardless what I think of her politics, that was a stupid thing to do and she was right to be pissed off.
 
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.

Puppies! We eat puppies for breakfast! We save the babies for Lunch! Geez, and you call yourself a librul!:lol:

I just want to briefly reprise this just to say, you know, I've had some pretty scathing generalizations made about me, too. It's an unfortunate reality that stereotyping happens very frequently along both sides of the political spectrum.
I believe that I made clear in my other posts why I think one might object to my example for reasons other than hating God, and I feel also, that in claiming I over-generalized you, you were in fact over-generalizing me (because I do not feel that way about liberals). I understand, however, the way that tones and implications can be miscommunicated in prose, so if I inadvertantly implied those things, then I apologize.
 
What is Kevin Ryan's blog? I tried to find it in google but there are a few Kevin Ryan's out there.

I don't think he has a blog, but he wrote an Islam-bashing book not too long ago that some of the conservative blogs fell head over heels for.
 
I've bumped up against philosophical attitudes I don't agree with in Star Trek books, like in everything I read. What I really appreciate though, is how these issues get explored in Star Trek books.

At times, reading the DS9 relaunch was quite upsetting to me, because it was forcing me to ask questions about my faith I didn't really want to answer, and I found myself identifying closely with characters I really didn't want to. (Like Yevir Linjaren.) These philosophical objections to the books (which I loved to pieces on every other level) really opened my eyes to inconsistencies and flaws in what I personally believed. They caused me to go out and do more research and try to gain a greater understanding of the sources of my faith. It's been a long path with many different influences on the way, but I can definitely look at Avatar especially (though also other DS9-R books) as very important to me *because* of those philosophical objections I had.

Thanks to Twist of Faith now being out in Omnibus form, I want to buy it and reread those stories. It's been a while since I read them, and I have very different religious views then I did when I first read them. I'd like to see how the books affect me now with my new perspectives.
 
I'm amazed when a ST lit character says something controversial and the readers automatically assume that this is always a clue to the author's hidden agenda for writing said novel.
 
I'm amazed when a ST lit character says something controversial and the readers automatically assume that this is always a clue to the author's hidden agenda for writing said novel.

Hear, hear. My favorite character to write in Ex Machina, Priestess Rishala, expressed a number of beliefs that I disagree with strongly. But it was intriguing to explore a character who disagreed with me yet did so in an intelligently reasoned, admirable way.
 
I just wanted to post a quick note about Olympus Descending, since several comments have been posted about it. When I started to cast about for a Dominion tale that would explore that world--in order to fulfill the very thrust of the Worlds of Star Trek--Deep Space Nine series--I did exactly that: I explored what had been seen, said, and implied about the Dominion during the course of the television series itself. One of the things editor Marco Palmieri and I discussed at that time was the idea that I should attempt to answer the question of just why the Founders sent out one hundred essentially infant Changelings alone into what they deemed a universe of hostile "solids." As I reviewed all the source material about the Founders, I encountered numerous inconsistencies, and even some contradictions. I also had to wrestle with the notion, put forth more than once during the run of the show, that Changelings did not communicate via words when linking, and often did not even really communicate in any fundamental way when linked--which I can tell you was something quite difficult to deal with, given that I communicate in words, as do my readers!

Anyway, the explanations and understanding of why the Founders sent out a hundred "infant" Changelings into what they considered a dangerous, unfriendly environment made virtually no logical sense. I had to ask myself, why the Founders would really do that, and why would they hide that reason? I further wondered, why does anybody send anybody anywhere? The process took some time, but ultimately what I came up with was that the Founders were not sending out so many of their "babies" as scouts--to my thinking, a thoroughly preposterous idea--but as beacons, as unformed and therefore at-risk markers who would necessarily draw somebody who cared about them to them. But who would that be?

Considering the manner in which the Founders had set themselves up as deities in the minds of the peoples they controlled, it seemed only natural to me that they must themselves understand, in a very internalized way, religious belief. The Founders never claimed to have created the universe, and they believed that they had themselves evolved from "solids" into what they believed was their superior form. For some religious people, such an evolution would imply the hand of a divine entity.

When I'd reasoned all this through, it made a great deal of sense to me, and it still does. I knew, though, that some readers would find fault with it, or at the very least, find it implausible since nothing of the sort had been explicitly depicted in the show. Still, it all hangs together, and for me, it adds depth and believability to the Founders, and also provides more believable reasons for why they took some of the actions they did. If I failed to convince some readers of that, then I failed in my mission. I knew it would be difficult, but that was not sufficient reason to back away from the challenge (and really, it was more reason to make the attempt, as far as I'm concerned).

But all of this did not simply come and go in a single story; rather, these concepts were introduced in Olympus Descending, and they await additional exploration in future DSN works. I'm looking forward to discovering where these ideas take us. I proffered quite a few details in my Worlds of Star Trek--Deep Space Nine entry, and there's a considerable number of directions in which the Founders can now be taken, some of which I think have not yet even been imagined by readers. We'll see.

Okay, so maybe not such a quick note...
 
(Hmm... looks like she's following the lead of Dafydd ab Hugh and Kevin Ryan and going into conservative bloviation: http://www.racefreezone.com/.)

What is Kevin Ryan's blog? I tried to find it in google but there are a few Kevin Ryan's out there.

I had to re-read some of those blogs - it was like she was writing for children, such was the level of the political analysis.... :wtf:

Check out this "nuanced" read on the Iraq war :

http://www.racefreezone.com/diane/criminalsgun.html
 
(Hmm... looks like she's following the lead of Dafydd ab Hugh and Kevin Ryan and going into conservative bloviation: http://www.racefreezone.com/.)

What is Kevin Ryan's blog? I tried to find it in google but there are a few Kevin Ryan's out there.

I had to re-read some of those blogs - it was like she was writing for children, such was the level of the political analysis.... :wtf:

Check out this "nuanced" read on the Iraq war :

http://www.racefreezone.com/diane/criminalsgun.html

Ummmm, yeah ok. That was.... interesting.:wtf:
 
Seriously, I've read a few books that were badly written but the only Trek books that I disagreed with the philosophy in were the Carey books-I find it hard to believe(despite the attempted coup in Paradise Lost) that the leaders of Starfleet are that militaristic in nature. I grant you that some are more soldier than statesman but still, I think building dreadnoughts(and convincing enough subordinates that it's a good thing so you can get it built) is a little far-fetched in The Great Bird's Galaxy. Not sure if I double posted - if so, sorry.


Dreadnought always came across to me as being anti-militarism. She took FJ's dreadnought idea, made the people who designed and built it the villains, gave it the most aggressive name on FJ's list (Star Empire) instead of using FJ's name for the lead ship (Federation), etc. The theme of the book was that the dreadnought, and the militarism it implied, was a bad thing. At the end of the book someone even flat out says it's "contrary to the ideals of the Federation".

Unlike GR, who signed off on the tech manual in the 70s, approved all designs including the dreadnought, and didn't object to the phrase "Star Fleet Armed Forces". A decade later, TNG presented Starfleet as an even more demilitarized organization, but Dreadnought was written before that.



Marian
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top