Philosophical Objections to Trek Lit

[Defcon]

I don't recall the exact title, but it dealt with a mother and child dealing with the death of her husband and his father with a tie into Star Trek as a television show.

That's Make-Believe from the TOS anniversary anthology Constellations.

 

[Rabid Trekkie]

I don't really understand the problem with the dedication. So he doesn't like the war, few do and for more than just obvious reasons. It's not like he's slamming the soldiers themselves, but instead the decision makers, and right or wrong the decision makers need to be slammed more often just to keep them in their place.

As for philosophical objections in Trek Lit, there's only one I can think of. Riker's dillema with the Prime Directive in Titan: Sword of Damocles. It seemed kind of weird reading that Riker was that worried about it because he seemed more liberal with the rules than Picard, it seemed to me that the decision was simple.

 

[Therin of Andor]

"... a bereaved mother possessed of the courage to stand against the unjust, illegal, immoral, and wholly unjustifiable war of aggression and occupation that took Casey’s life and has killed, crippled, and orphaned more than 100,000 others."

Well, that brought a tear to my eye when I first read it in the book, and again just now, and it would have done exactly the same if "Casey" had been an Arabic - or Vulcan, or Cardassian - name instead, and no matter which side of politics I'm on. It's strongly written yes, and it's not unbiased. Such is the art of writing.

But it's designed to make you think, not necessarily force you to choose a side.

 

[Therin of Andor]

It seemed kind of weird reading that Riker was that worried about it because he seemed more liberal with the rules than Picard, it seemed to me that the decision was simple.

It would be different being "more liberal" as a first officer than as a captain. What might have seemed simple to Commander Riker, adviser to the captain, might be very difficult, for Captain Riker.

 

[Steve Roby]

On the other hand, although I'm probably closer to Carey's political philosophy than Gibson, I usually can't stand much of her work. I grew up a military brat, served in the military, and many family members have had long service careers, so that at least partial rationale for my worldview.

Never served, but I'm a military brat (Mom had to quit the Air Force when she got married because that's how it was then; Dad retired in the early '90s as a Chief Warrant Officer in the Air Force) with a brother-in-law (Master Warrant Officer, Army) and a good friend (Captain, Army) in the military. Maybe it makes a difference being Canadian, but I don't see being pro-military and liberal as contradictory.

 

[wew]

I would agree. I don't necessarily think being pro-military and being liberal is contradictory. As an earlier poster noted President Carter actually had some defense increases (or maybe in another thread), but I know I received a 10% pay raise during his administration.

One thing though is the military trends towards conservatism, in fact that is one of the major criticism of military forces- we're ready to fight the last war, not the current one- or at least thats the stereotype. And of course the military is somewhat bound in traditions.

In a sense it seems Roddenberry was trying to have it both ways in some sense, a non-military military force. Historically mankind has been at war longer than it has been at peace; and I don't really think that will change in the future.

I once wrote brief paper noting that Utopias are great, as long as you don't have any people. The problem is that people have wants & needs, including up through Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, but people still strive for something.

 

[ATimson]

But it's designed to make you think, not necessarily force you to choose a side.

Generally, something trying to make you think doesn't use terms like "unjust" and "immoral" that are completely dependent on the beholder's eye; instead, it'll try to offer a point of view that can be backed up with hard facts, making a rational argument instead of looking for an emotional response.

I could be wrong, admittedly. But I don't think that making the reader think was what Michael was going for with that dedication.

 

[Trent Roman]

^ Dedications are not essays. Each term of criticism relates to points frequently and more fully developed in other venues. Frankly, I don't think the dedication had any other purpose than to do what it says it does: state the authors' opinion by praising one person and condemning one war.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Therin of Andor]

In a sense it seems Roddenberry was trying to have it both ways in some sense, a non-military military force. Historically mankind has been at war longer than it has been at peace; and I don't really think that will change in the future.

But if you don't set the bar high enough, will anyone bother to reach it?

 

[Therin of Andor]

I don't think that making the reader think was what Michael was going for with that dedication.

Huh? So what message did you take from it?

 

[ATimson]

^ Dedications are not essays. Each term of criticism relates to points frequently and more fully developed in other venues.

I agree that they aren't essays, which is the point I was trying to make. Obviously, not well enough.

 

[Geoff Thorne]

I don't really understand the problem with the dedication. So he doesn't like the war, few do and for more than just obvious reasons. It's not like he's slamming the soldiers themselves, but instead the decision makers, and right or wrong the decision makers need to be slammed more often just to keep them in their place.

As for philosophical objections in Trek Lit, there's only one I can think of. Riker's dillema with the Prime Directive in Titan: Sword of Damocles. It seemed kind of weird reading that Riker was that worried about it because he seemed more liberal with the rules than Picard, it seemed to me that the decision was simple.

That was intentional. The decision, as I see it, was far from simple.

At least one of the other TITAN authors disagrees with me that non-interference with cultures deemed unready for first contact is the most important principle in the Starfleet canon, considering that view to be paternalistic. Obviously, while I also believe in a more flexible application of the the directive, I do not believe it's inherently paternalistic in principle.

The discussion and the friction inside Riker was partially BECAUSE he's the captain now. It's easy to hold the more flexible opinion when it's not you who has to make the final choice. Simply making a phone call could, in this context, destroy an entire planetary culture. Weighed against that, the lives of one starship crew don't matter much. And they shouldn't.

Also, something people seem to forget, in their problem with his problem, he ultimately chooses to go ahead and contact the new species. I just made it an actual decision based on thinking rather than whim.

It's been expressed in this thread, and I agree, that the criteria for First Contact are too narrow as they don't take into account what a given species might WANT to do, rather than what you arbitrarily deem them capable of. The Orishans are an example of precisely that.

I wanted to show Riker actually thinking about it instead of just waving a hand and saying, "Yeah, they haven't met any aliens yet and they don't have anything like warp-centric space travel but, hey, they've got a VERSION of the tech and we're in trouble so lets save ourselves by contaminating their society."

Awesome.

No way.

I don't see Will as a frivillous person and I don't see the argument as out of character. Deanna and Vale function as Will used to function in his old role, providing the two counter arguments to Starfleet's rigid party line.

And Deanna, in particular, expresses a similar sentiment to that which some readers had with Will's response. She and Vale tell him why he should do what is in his nature to do. Clearly he wants to do it but feels constrained by the rules and his desire not to do great, perhaps irreparable harm to an innocent culture. I think that's a big freaking deal, myself. Mileage obviously varies.

I know some folks think Will getting the big chair means he gets to do whatever he wants but, as anybody who's got to be the boss knows, there are a lot more restrictions there to go along with the increased powers.

 

[captcalhoun]

DIANA?!

 

[KRAD]

In another thread, Geoff, you said you've been watching Trek for 30+ years.

In all that time, you probably shoulda noticed that Troi's first name is Deanna, not Diana.

Just sayin'.



(It's okay, Geoff. We love you anyhow. Really. Put down that hammer. Geoff?)

 

[Trent Roman]

^ For what it's worth, I thought it came through pretty clearly that Riker was being more deliberate now that the decision rested on him, and I do think it was positive to show that Riker cared--very much so--about the decisions he made; that, despite what may be assumed about his (and others') command style, he reached his conclusion through deliberation and soul-searching, rather than going on the impulse or 'gut-feeling'.

One point that did surprise me, which I was going to mention in the review I've been meaning to write for the last three weeks, is that Riker only seemed to be weighing the fate of one starship against the policy of the Federation... but what the Orishans were doing represented a major hazard to any interstellar travellers who would happen to be caught in its range (and I can't remember if they had determined, by now, that it was expanding). The phenomenon gave Titan, a newly minted Federation starship, a hell of a beating; it's not hard to imagine vessels from less technologically advanced species could be outright destroyed. And even if not, there's no saying that they would be able to contact the Orishans to try and free themselves (since the PD is pretty proprietary to the Federation), meaning they would be trapped. So while Riker could take the decision on behalf of him and his crew, since Starfleet officers have pledged to lay down their lives, if necessary, to preserve the ideals they serve, had he decided not to do so and leave an interstellar hazard, he'd essentially be making that decision to live or die on behalf of unknown others who would stumble into the same pit they did. That seems to me as much an abrogation of their rights as would be contacting a species that didn't quite correspond to first contact guidelines. And, knowing little of the Orishans at the time, I figured that in my position, I would really want to know if something I was doing was harming others! Staying silent meant allowing the Orishans to continue being party to unintentional murders.

But, ultimately, he made what I thought was the right decision. This is really just what Riker's internal debate made me reflect on, so I'd consider that a plus from both the reader and writer's perspective - it stimulated thought, if nothing else.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Geoff Thorne]

^ For what it's worth, I thought it came through pretty clearly that Riker was being more deliberate now that the decision rested on him, and I do think it was positive to show that Riker cared--very much so--about the decisions he made; that, despite what may be assumed about his (and others') command style, he reached his conclusion through deliberation and soul-searching, rather than going on the impulse or 'gut-feeling'.

One point that did surprise me, which I was going to mention in the review I've been meaning to write for the last three weeks, is that Riker only seemed to be weighing the fate of one starship against the policy of the Federation... but what the Orishans were doing represented a major hazard to any interstellar travellers who would happen to be caught in its range (and I can't remember if they had determined, by now, that it was expanding). The phenomenon gave Titan, a newly minted Federation starship, a hell of a beating; it's not hard to imagine vessels from less technologically advanced species could be outright destroyed. And even if not, there's no saying that they would be able to contact the Orishans to try and free themselves (since the PD is pretty proprietary to the Federation), meaning they would be trapped. So while Riker could take the decision on behalf of him and his crew, since Starfleet officers have pledged to lay down their lives, if necessary, to preserve the ideals they serve, had he decided not to do so and leave an interstellar hazard, he'd essentially be making that decision to live or die on behalf of unknown others who would stumble into the same pit they did. That seems to me as much an abrogation of their rights as would be contacting a species that didn't quite correspond to first contact guidelines. And, knowing little of the Orishans at the time, I figured that in my position, I would really want to know if something I was doing was harming others! Staying silent meant allowing the Orishans to continue being party to unintentional murders.

But, ultimately, he made what I thought was the right decision. This is really just what Riker's internal debate made me reflect on, so I'd consider that a plus from both the reader and writer's perspective - it stimulated thought, if nothing else.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

My feeling was, and perhaps not perfectly expressed, that at that point they would possibly escape and set up warning beacons around the region. THis would protect warp capable vessels but not interfere with the pristine culture.

 

[Geoff Thorne]

DIANA?!

Agh. Thanks. I'm up late and not as lucid as I should be. No excuse. fixed now.

And Damn you, KRAD. I am just a human being. Unlike you and the other KD-50s I don't have replaceable neutron cores and flexi systems to back me up.

I have been awake for nearly forty hours at this point.

Insomnia. Gotta love it.

 

[Nardpuncher]

I know that there are a few of us that have objections to reading the books by a certain author that posts on the Trek BBS and whose posts rub some people the wrong way.
I'm starved for Trek books here in Taiwan and one of this author's books showed up on the shelves and it just had to stay there.

 

[Turtletrekker]

^ I don't even know what author you refer to, and I still say, "your loss".

I have serious objection to Kevin Ryan's worldview (i.e. it rubs me the wrong way), but still anxiouly await his next book.

ETA: and if you are refering to Christopher, then I say "your loss" even more emphatically, as his books have all been among the very best.

 

[Nardpuncher]

^ I don't even know what author you refer to, and I still say, "your loss".

I have serious objection to Kevin Ryan's worldview (i.e. it rubs me the wrong way), but still anxiouly await his next book.

ETA: and if you are refering to Christopher, then I say "your loss" even more emphatically, as his books have all been among the very best.

I'm not going to say who it was, but I might use a Obi-Wan Kenobi line from Return of the Jedi on you.
I did read one of the author's books before and it was good enough, but not where I'd lose sleep over not reading any more of their work.