Reading Marathon: The Typhon Pact... and Beyond!

[Christopher]

It's interesting you noted that because I've been watching TNG over again and I just watched "Skin of Evil" about a week ago. Once Worf became security chief he sort of took the view you noted. While you could tell he wanted to go down to Vagra II to take on Armus, he took his role to heart and noted the goal was to save the away team in the shuttle, not engage Armus in combat, and he can best do that from the ship.

Overall, I think making Worf the security chief played right into the mentality I complained about, and also solidified Worf's rather stereotyped role as the guy who always wanted to fight. I still say it would've been more interesting if, at the start of season 2, they'd made Geordi the security chief and Worf the chief engineer. For Worf, it would've pushed him away from the "Klingon warrior grr kill" stereotype and challenged him to develop in more unexpected ways. And for Geordi, well, imagine what a guy with VISOR superpowers could've done as an investigator. He could've been a real detective rather than just playing Dr. Watson on the holodeck. And it would've actually made use of the VISOR, instead of basically ignoring it except when bad guys used it to brainwash or torture him.

 

[Damian]

Overall, I think making Worf the security chief played right into the mentality I complained about, and also solidified Worf's rather stereotyped role as the guy who always wanted to fight. I still say it would've been more interesting if, at the start of season 2, they'd made Geordi the security chief and Worf the chief engineer. For Worf, it would've pushed him away from the "Klingon warrior grr kill" stereotype and challenged him to develop in more unexpected ways. And for Geordi, well, imagine what a guy with VISOR superpowers could've done as an investigator. He could've been a real detective rather than just playing Dr. Watson on the holodeck. And it would've actually made use of the VISOR, instead of basically ignoring it except when bad guys used it to brainwash or torture him.

I'm not sure. Several times in the first season Geordi was in engineering and doing some engineering stuff. I never paid much attention to it initially but since doing my rewatch it seemed very natural to make him the chief engineer (in a way I was amazed they didn't start off with one from the get-go, but that's another story).

In story it made sense for Worf because in general he seemed to back up Yar. So it made sense he was next in line. To do as you suggest I think they would have had to do that from day 1.

And you know, in a way it made some sense. At the beginning Worf struggled with his more aggressive personality. He was looking for a fight a lot of the times in season 1. But being made security chief actually made it necessary for him to restrain himself more, not less. He couldn't just give in to aggression. Because as you noted the security chiefs job isn't just fighting, though sometimes that was necessary. You're primary job is protection, not fighting, and it's especially important you don't indulge yourself in such a position.

And I guess you could say I'm not exactly impartial because I liked how Worf developed over the years between TNG and Deep Space Nine. Perhaps you're right it was a bit too easy to make him security chief. But I enjoyed the character as he ended up turning out and can't say I'd want to see it changed. There were a number of good Worf episodes throughout the years. And he turned out to be a pretty good investigator too.

You are right about Geordi's visor though. It seemed to fall by the wayside. In a way it seemed after they let the viewer 'see' what Geordi saw in "Heart of Glory" that the novelty suddenly faded. Maybe the worse thing they did was 'satisfy' our curiosity because it seemed like they didn't feel it that necessary to go back to it. A shame because while you noted it could have investigative uses, I could also see it handy in an engineer as well. I could see how it could help diagnose problems with the engines or the ship in general and find ways to fix it. Even in "Heart of Glory" we are able to see weaknesses in the hull that only Geordi can see. That could be very handy for an engineer. But they just never seemed to do much with the visor beyond that, outside a few exceptions here and there.

 

[Christopher]

I'm not sure. Several times in the first season Geordi was in engineering and doing some engineering stuff. I never paid much attention to it initially but since doing my rewatch it seemed very natural to make him the chief engineer (in a way I was amazed they didn't start off with one from the get-go, but that's another story).

I'm not talking about whether there's precedent. I'm talking about what would have served the characters and storytelling better. Making Worf security reduced him to a Klingon-warrior stereotype he wouldn't grow out of until DS9. It was too much in his comfort zone, and that's the last place you want a character to be if you want to develop them in interesting ways. And sticking Geordi down in engineering wasted the potential of his VISOR abilities to the point that they were virtually forgotten except when the VISOR was used to torture or compromise him. I just think that reversing their roles would have created more interesting opportunities for them as characters, as well as being a more interesting departure from our expectations of what a security chief or engineer should be. (Although we did eventually get a Klingon engineer in Torres.)

In story it made sense for Worf because in general he seemed to back up Yar. So it made sense he was next in line.

Worf backed up everybody in season 1. That was literally his job. He was the bridge watch officer, the one who was on hand to fill in the others' stations when they were away. He was in the command chair when Picard was away, at the helm when Geordi was away, at ops when Data was away, at tactical when Tasha was away. It wasn't specific to the security post -- he would've taken over for any bridge officer that was killed in action. Yes, he was physically positioned behind Tasha a lot, but that's because he oversaw the aft consoles behind the tactical rail when he wasn't filling in at another post. (The original idea was that the ship mostly ran itself, so you didn't need every console regularly occupied. As the watch officer, Worf stood by at all five aft stations as needed.)

To do as you suggest I think they would have had to do that from day 1.

Why? They changed Geordi's job without explanation at the start of season 2. I don't agree that it was set up in advance -- that's just cherrypicking based on subsequent expectations. Geordi's clear arc in season 1 was about setting him up for a future on the command track, as was seen most clearly in "The Arsenal of Freedom." To viewers like me watching in 1988, it was a complete non sequitur when they suddenly threw out that entire character arc and retconned him into a chief engineer. It would've been no more random to retcon Worf into the engineer and Geordi into security.

Heck, that's exactly the reason I am suggesting making the change at the start of season 2 -- because that's when they already did make an arbitrary, abrupt change in Geordi's entire role on the series, as well as making Worf's temporary move to security permanent. I'm just saying it might've produced more interesting story and character possibilities if they'd flipped the script.

You are right about Geordi's visor though. It seemed to fall by the wayside. In a way it seemed after they let the viewer 'see' what Geordi saw in "Heart of Glory" that the novelty suddenly faded. Maybe the worse thing they did was 'satisfy' our curiosity because it seemed like they didn't feel it that necessary to go back to it.

Who cares about that? Showing pretty pictures isn't what writing is about. It doesn't matter what Geordi sees, it matters what you can do with it as a storytelling device. I mean, good grief, it is a literal superpower. This is a man who has tricorders for eyes, who can see the invisible, who can see through walls and obstructions, who can tell when people are lying (as "Up the Long Ladder" established), who probably has telescopic and microscopic vision like Superman. Although he's more like Cyclops because he sees his superpower as a curse, it causes him constant pain, he's helpless if he loses his eyewear, and he laments not being able to see the world like other people do. All of that is story, both on the surface level of what he can do to affect events and the deeper level of how it affects him psychologically and emotionally. There's a lot to unpack there, and most of it was rarely explored in the show's later seasons.

A shame because while you noted it could have investigative uses, I could also see it handy in an engineer as well.

Of course, but what I'm saying is that I would have rather seen the role of security chief portrayed less as "big angry guy with a gun" and more as an investigator and a peacemaker. Even aside from Geordi's literal freaking superpower, he was a friendly, sociable guy, which would've been a nicely different approach to what a security chief does. He would've been the good cop where Worf was the bad cop. I just think it could've gone somewhere interesting.

 

[Damian]

I just think it could've gone somewhere interesting.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying. And had they gone that route it's possible I would have loved TNG just as much.

I guess in my case I really enjoyed TNG. I liked other aspects of character development. Even Worf had a great deal of growth throughout TNG and continuing into DS9. And there were many aspects I liked about Geordi as well. Ditto for all the characters.

In my case when I look at any show (or movie) I look at it first as did I enjoy it? Was it a good show? And yes I did (I had some doubts in season 1 but to be honest even by the end of season 1 I was really starting to get into it). Did I like the characters? And I can say yes to that too. Were the stories themselves entertaining and good? For the most part, other than the occasional clunker (and every show has those) I thought so.

There are always things you can think back and maybe be curious, even intrigued, about things they could have done differently. But at the end of the day I was happy with how TNG turned out.

And part of it I guess you could say is we can't. We can't go back and undo it. I sometimes wonder what would have happened to Worf had Denise Crosby stayed on as Yar. But that's really as far as it ever got for me.

There's a number of 'what if' style threads even here on TrekBBS. So I imagine you're probably not alone. I'm just not the type to think about 'what if' scenarios a lot, especially later on. Most of the time I'm more curious about where we go from here. It's one of the reasons I prefer the shows to move forward in time, instead of backward (though I guess there are exceptions because I did come to love Enterprise as well, and perhaps Discovery someday as well--I can't say I love Discovery yet but I've enjoyed aspects of it--except for production design, but that's old news ).

 

[Christopher]

I'm not saying I didn't like TNG. I'm saying I think some things could've been improved on. Some years back, the idea struck me, "What if Geordi and Worf had been moved into the opposite jobs at the start of season 2?" and the answers that occurred to me were interesting.

I'm just not the type to think about 'what if' scenarios a lot, especially later on.

Well, "think about 'what if' scenarios" is basically my job description.

 

[Damian]

I'm not saying I didn't like TNG. I'm saying I think some things could've been improved on.

Yeah, I understand that. And I'm sure many people posting 'what if' threads here probably liked or even loved the shows they are commenting about as well. Sometimes during a shows run I may think about some of those things, I just usually don't years later.

I admit at first I was surprised in season 2 that Geordi was suddenly chief engineer. I never gave much thought about Worf being security chief until you brought it up. But yeah, at first it seemed jarring for Geordi (and that's when I started thinking it was odd there wasn't a main character chief engineer from the start--it is kind of an important job, and season 1 had multiple chiefs it seemed). Now, looking back at season 1, you see times where Geordi does take on some engineer duties, even showing up in engineering from time to time like "The Last Outpost", so it can make some sense in story in retrospect.

Well, "think about 'what if' scenarios" is basically my job description.

Ha-ha. True. You wouldn't be very good at your job if you didn't

Probably another reason writing fiction is not my forte.

 

[Christopher]

I never gave much thought about Worf being security chief until you brought it up.

That's kind of my point. It was the predictable move. That's rarely the most interesting one.

(and that's when I started thinking it was odd there wasn't a main character chief engineer from the start--it is kind of an important job, and season 1 had multiple chiefs it seemed).

Again, the original thinking was that technology had advanced so much that the ship was basically an autonomous organism, not so much an inert machine that needed people to operate its every function. So it was presumed that the chief engineer wouldn't be as important a role anymore. Also they just wanted to distinguish TNG from TOS, to focus on characters with different roles and responsibilities, which is why there wasn't a science officer character per se or a communications officer, and why the regulars included an ops manager, counselor, and security chief. The emphasis was less on the mechanics of the vehicle and more on the jobs related to personnel and outside interactions.

As they went on, though, they realized that they kept getting stories that needed an engineer character to talk about ship functions and technical stuff. So the story value of a chief engineer outweighed the original concept of a ship that could run itself.

You know, if they'd really wanted to commit to that idea of the starship as an autonomous organism, to dramatize it effectively, then they should've taken it all the way and done what Roddenberry was reportedly planning to do with his unmade Starship pitch (that eventually got folded into Andromeda) -- that is, make the ship's computer a sentient character in its own right. Have the Enterprise be its own "chief engineer" and give its own reports on its status and problems. Although maybe that wouldn't be enough, since you'd still need to dramatize things like ship repairs by having people performing tasks in the engine room. So there'd still be value in having a regular engineer character to carry that action.

 

[Damian]

As they went on, though, they realized that they kept getting stories that needed an engineer character to talk about ship functions and technical stuff. So the story value of a chief engineer outweighed the original concept of a ship that could run itself

Though a number of times in season 1 they referred to characters that were either the 'chief engineer' or 'assistant chief engineer' so there was some role for a chief engineer. Though rarely did a character in that role make a 2nd appearance. But yeah, whatever the intentions it became gradually more necessary to try to have a main character in the role.

Have the Enterprise be its own "chief engineer" and give its own reports on its status and problems. Although maybe that wouldn't be enough, since you'd still need to dramatize things like ship repairs by having people performing tasks in the engine room. So there'd still be value in having a regular engineer character to carry that action.

Part of the charm of Star Trek is the character interactions as well, and the growth of humanity in general. The technology was just part of that, and it was used more as a tool than the goal. For other sci-fi I can see AI being the primary story, but it just seemed with Star Trek a major part of the story of the 'human condition', sometimes reflected in aliens as well.

Not to say AI doesn't have a role. Certainly Data and the Doctor in Voyager are two examples where AI is a major player. But even in those cases it still at least reflected humanity in some way. And of course there's "Control" in Discovery (and similarly Uraei in the novels)-though those are seen as more malevolent AI. And AI, I suppose like anything, can be for good or bad (the show Person of Interest demonstrated both sides, the 'good' Machine, the 'bad' Samaritan-though that's how they were created to be).

Star Trek just seems to be better suited to the characters and how they reflected humanity, not so much the sentient value of technology with a few exceptions.

 

[Christopher]

Star Trek just seems to be better suited to the characters and how they reflected humanity, not so much the sentient value of technology with a few exceptions.

That seems a specious distinction. As you say, they had Data and the EMH. There's no reason a sentient AI can't be an interesting character. It doesn't even need a human body -- look at HAL in 2001, Holly in Red Dwarf, KITT in Knight Rider, or Lucy in Killjoys. Or in my own fiction, Zephyr in Only Superhuman or Arachne in my upcoming duology named in her honor.

Although they could've done what Andromeda did and given the ship's computer a holographic humanoid avatar. There's a story in IDW's Waypoint anthology comic set in a hypothetical/alternate future where Geordi's the captain of an advanced Enterprise where Data uploaded his mind into the ship and generates dozens of holographic Datas to operate the stations.

Really, though, I often find myself connecting more strongly to AI characters that aren't humanoid, that are just disembodied voices like KITT or distinctly mechanical units like Short Circuit's Johnny Five or Vagrant Queen's Winnibot. It's why I like writing sapient AIs in my own fiction. Somehow their very lack of humanity makes them more endearing, like the way we feel about pet cats and dogs, or about Muppets.

 

[Damian]

As you say, they had Data and the EMH. There's no reason a sentient AI can't be an interesting character. It doesn't even need a human body

I suppose so. Star Trek just never seemed to go down that path for whatever reason at least on screen. Maybe in the future some show will do that.

Some novels have touched on that. New Frontier did that a bit with Morgan Primus taking over the Excalibur's computer (though I suppose that was sort of reverse of what you are talking about, in that case a human taking over an AI). And of course there was Uraei (though that was a malevolent example--but then AI's, like people, could go either way).

Though I thought TNG and Voyager did a good job with Data and the Doctor respectively. Both characters experienced a lot of growth during their show's runs, particularly the Doctor I would say. As you noted, they were humanoids, but Star Trek did at least delve into AI to some extent.

Really, though, I often find myself connecting more strongly to AI characters that aren't humanoid, that are just disembodied voices like KITT or distinctly mechanical units like Short Circuit's Johnny Five or Vagrant Queen's Winnibot. It's why I like writing sapient AIs in my own fiction. Somehow their very lack of humanity makes them more endearing, like the way we feel about pet cats and dogs, or about Muppets.

Probably why I see it a bit differently. I'm a bit more hesitant about AI. Not against it, but a bit more suspicious. Not so much of nightmare scenarios like The Terminator (though I derisively refer to our work computers as Skynet ), just that I worry about letting technology do too much. So that probably colors my appreciation of it in sci-fi a bit. Star Trek usually handled AI benevolently though.

Perhaps that's another reason I like Star Trek so much. Humanity in Star Trek's future found a good balance of technology without giving up what it means to 'be human.' Humans in Star Trek still thrive to explore, learn and better themselves and technology is used to help humans do that. And technology helped free humanity to do those things. It's sort of the best of both worlds. I hope our real future is as promising.

 

[Stevil2001]

I know I am not the boss of this thread but I did make it to discuss the Destiny-era novels as I read them and we seem pretty far afield from that at this point.

 

[Damian]

I know I am not the boss of this thread but I did make it to discuss the Destiny-era novels as I read them and we seem pretty far afield from that at this point.

Sorry, I suppose that's my fault. We were talking about Choudhury and I started talking about Worf becoming security chief, then the conversation turned to Geordi, then AI.

I did mention Uraei though, sort of qualifies as "....and beyond" (I know, a stretch but it's all I got)

 

[Christopher]

Probably why I see it a bit differently. I'm a bit more hesitant about AI. Not against it, but a bit more suspicious. Not so much of nightmare scenarios like The Terminator (though I derisively refer to our work computers as Skynet ), just that I worry about letting technology do too much. So that probably colors my appreciation of it in sci-fi a bit. Star Trek usually handled AI benevolently though.

But these are fictional characters, so the real-life considerations don't matter, just whether the characters are appealing.

I know I am not the boss of this thread but I did make it to discuss the Destiny-era novels as I read them and we seem pretty far afield from that at this point.

And the thread will get back to that the next time you post a novel review. Natural enough for a thread about a series to drift off-topic between installments.

 

[Damian]

But these are fictional characters, so the real-life considerations don't matter, just whether the characters are appealing.

Yeah, I was just trying to say that maybe that colors how I see it in fiction. I tend to favor AI that is more humanoid, like androids and the hologram doctor who appear humanoid, than non-humanoid AI.

 

[Stevil2001]

The Next Generation: Cold Equations, Book III: The Body Electric by David Mack
Published: January 2013
Time Span: September 2384

I have to say, I don't really get what the point of this trilogy was. I mean, the Event is "the return of Data." But what is this story about? There's inklings of a theme breaking through. This is a story of parents: Soong and Data, Data and Lal, Beverly and Wesley, Flint and Rhea, even T'Ryssa and her dad. But I never felt like these aspects came together in any coherent way, and in books II and III, the parenting theme doesn't resonate with the plot at all. Why tell a technological thriller? (When I finished book II I felt like it was a "political sidestep away from the core idea of the trilogy" and hoped book III would save it, but nope.) Why tell a story about a massive machine entity destroying the galaxy? As I type this out, I can actually see the resonances-- the Body Electric wants to leave its mark on the universe, and that's kind of what raising a child is-- but if that's what was meant, you don't feel the resonances as you read.

That's possibly because you don't feel much of anything reading this book. The threat of black hole collision is too abstract, even if the characters occasionally look at the viewscreen aghast at the destruction of civilizations. There's a bit where the Enterprise crew all listen to transmissions of screams from a planet as it's added to the Abbadon black hole by the Machine, and I couldn't help but compare it unfavorably with the excerpts from transmissions of the Venette syndics in Brinkmanship, which made you sad over a bunch of people who weren't even characters in the book! I think a real sense of wonder could be conjured up... but this book doesn't do it.

I don't think Data has been handled well in this trilogy. Suddenly he's hell-bent on bringing Lal back to life, and he wants to settle down on Earth and raise her alongside Rhea. Where did this all come from? I know this new Data is different, but there's a core of Data-ness that's lacking-- where's Data's curiosity and wonder? Why would he want to settle down? I don't doubt that an author could get Data to this point, and I think that would be an interesting story, but Data starts the novel having made all his significant emotional decisions (except one, which I'll get to), and when we're in his point of view, it's all pretty blah. He's never deciding things, just doing things, mostly focusing on his captivity.

This book's depiction of AI feels very retrograde. Compare it to the lively, interesting, unusual AI character of Ann Leckie's Ancillary Justice that would come out just a few months later-- a distributed intelligence that operates simultaneously. Here, I mostly kept conjuring up a mental image of cheesy robots from a mediocre Doctor Who story. The secret Fellowship of artificial beings don't really impress.

No one really impresses, to be honest. One key plot advancement completely depends on an astounding bit of naïveté from Picard. Wesley has gone to get Data to help speak to the Machine (don't forget, the Machine is imminently going to cause the destruction of the entire galaxy). Data has been kidnapped by an evil member of the Fellowship; when Wesley brings the Fellowship and Data to the Enterprise, Wesley is unconscious (shot by the evil android), and the evil android won't let Data leave. So, they ask the evil android to go intervene with the Machine for them. Literally the only thing they know about this guy is that he shot Wesley and kidnapped Data. Does this seem like a guy to trust with saving the galaxy from an evil AI? After he leaves, when Data points out (they can communicate with him) that this is a bad plan, Picard's rebuttal is that "even if we had objected to Gatt making contact with the Machine, we would have no right to prevent him from doing so."

Picard, as we know, is famously principled, but I don't think even Picard is so stupid in his principles as to say (this is a paraphrase), "well, we can't stop this guy from potentially instigating a galactic apocalypse if it infringes on his free speech rights." (Guess what: the evil android decides that galactic genocide is a great plan, and does his best to help bring it about. Whoops!)

In my review of book II, I commented, "So far this trilogy is two for two on bumping off significant women characters," and then joked, "Who will buy it in book III?" Um, well, it wasn't a joke, I guess. Rhea McAdams was introduced way back in 2002's Immortal Coil as the new security chief of the Enterprise-E (one of many it had in First Contact/Insurrection-era novels); she and Data fell in love, but she was eventually revealed as a robot built by the immortal Flint (of "Requiem for Methuselah" fame), and she left. I think. There were around eleven years between Immortal Coil and The Body Electric, and now it's been eighteen. As I said above, part of Data's aspiration here is to settle down with Rhea once he revives Lal... I'll be honest, it's hard to care about this. I remember liking Rhea in Immortal Coil, but that was a long time ago; Rhea in this book is a complete nonentity, spending most of the novel off-screen, and getting just one real scene of her own, mostly focused on action.

At the climax of the novel, Data is put in a situation where he has to choose between letting Flint (who knows the secret to resurrecting Lal) and Rhea die. I think this is meant to be heartbreaking. But I didn't feel anything at all. One, as I said, I don't really get where Data's sudden Lal obsession came from, and two, who cares about Rhea? Nothing in The Body Electric convinces you that Data loves Rhea, or even really likes her. It's in the book, but like so much else, you don't feel it. I think it would have to be a very different book for this to work, a book actually built around Data's relationships with Rhea and Lal-- instead it's a book mostly about action sequences and stopping a super-black hole in which those relationships happen to put in cursory appearances.

The death of Rhea did do one thing for me, though. I have been wondering throughout this whole trilogy... why is it called "Cold Equations"? "The Cold Equations" is a famous hard sf story, written by Tom Godwin, but in its essential design created by editor John Campbell: a young woman has to die in order to demonstrate the cruelty of the universe. That is the role women play in the stories of men, and that is the role women play in this trilogy, time and again.

Continuity Notes:

• The Machine was sent by the same AIs that upgraded V'Ger. The book doesn't really capture the grandeur of The Motion Picture in any way, shape, or form, though.
  
• Tamala Harstad continues to exist. (She finally got her Memory Beta page this very month. It only took nine years for someone to care enough.)

Other Notes:

• There's a bit where when they're all out of ideas, La Forge begins to suggest, mostly as a joke, traveling back in time. Picard shoots him down. But then I was like: how can the imminent apocalypse of galactic civilization not be a justification for a little time travel? Could you really make things worse? There are probably lots of situations in Star Trek where a little light time travel (something done quite casually in some episodes) would fix all the problems, but the reasons for not doing this seem pretty obvious from a narrative standpoint. But this is a situation where it does seem warranted, so then I kept wondering why it was so self-evidently a bad idea, because I wasn't convinced. Only I wouldn't have thought of it if the novel hadn't brought it up!
• Um, Wesley's in this book. I don't really have anything to say about this; like most aspects of the novel it seems like something interesting could have been done with it, but it wasn't.
• I just can't get interested in the new Enterprise crew. Dina Elfiki has basically one scene in the book; she gives dating advice to T'Ryssa Chen. In this scene, we learn that women don't like her because of how hot she is, and men suffer erectile dysfunction because of how smart she is. Wow, um, so 24th-century gender roles are like a bad sitcom?

 

[Thrawn]

I liked the book more than you did - I thought the big ideas felt very TNG, and I liked Data's characterization better that you did too (different priorities / emotions, same goal-oriented approach). But: I am glad that I'm not the only one uncomfortable with a TNG trilogy explicitly based on a famously sexist story that follows that story's impetus of killing off women to demonstrate the uncaring nature of reality. I'm not sure the extent to which this was on purpose, but it felt very uncomfortable and regressive to me. I did not feel good about how women were characterized or treated in this trilogy.

Spoiler: Collateral Damage

While we're at it, in Collateral Damage I wasn't too impressed by Louvois being a stereotypical hysterical woman and Smrhova being a stereotypical punchline of a misogynist joke (hates Okona the whole book; sleeps with him at the end) either.

 

[Stevil2001]

I liked the book more than you did - I thought the big ideas felt very TNG, and I liked Data's characterization better that you did too (different priorities / emotions, same goal-oriented approach).

That makes sense to me as described-- I think of how Data acts at the end of "The Most Toys" as a possible touchstone-- but I feel like the books don't do the work needed with Data to get me to buy into it. I feel like there are weirdly few Data POV scenes in this trilogy, and the ones that exist are often more focused on the action plot instead of the character plot.

 

[Thrawn]

I hear you. It's a fair criticism. I enjoyed filling in the blanks in my imagination a bit, but there's a fine line between leaving things up to the reader and omitting crucial details.

 

[Stevil2001]

Department of Temporal Investigations: Time Lock by Christopher L. Bennett
Published: September 2016
Time Span: July 2384 - March 2385

On the strength of The Collectors, I was really looking forward to reading Time Lock, but while Collectors was energetic and inventive, Time Lock is-- like the DTI novels-- plodding and over-expository. Things get off to a rough start with a confusing sequence where people tell each other and/or think about a time portal recovered from the Gum Nebula, the political configuration of the Vomnin, the events of Orion's Hounds, how the Vault works, and the identities of a bunch of different DTI characters. People think to themselves, "better not be pedantic and say x," and think about x instead, which I will say is not really an interesting to smuggle in exposition that actually doesn't add anything.

I like the idea of this book, but it never really takes off. That the DTI could be subject to a heist where each side uses temporal devices against the other sounds fun, but it ended up in practice being dull. Too often the DTI characters do something clever but obscure, and then it is explained to us what was done, meaning a lot of the action is retrospective and detached, which prevents us from feeling invested in it. The villain is a bit on the cartoony side, and I will admit to not strongly caring about any of the original DTI characters.

The idea of the time lock is clever: within the Vault, time keeps slowing down, so at first the Vault is a minute behind, then it's 20 minutes behind, then forty, then an hour; by the novella's end, only a couple days have passed inside the Vault, but eight months have gone by outside! This is clever, yes, but it does mean that any sense of urgency completely evaporates when the action switches to outside the Vault. Oh no, will the DTI figure it out? Well, yes, because they have months to investigate it at their leisure, actually. And these scenes are often bogged down by exposition, too, such as a long explanation of stepwells.

The problem is that the longer the book goes on, the more time the outside characters have to solve the problems inside the Vault. The end of the book tries to raise the stakes by having something go horribly wrong, but it feels arbitrary in its deployment of technobabble: suddenly it's "blah blah subspace" and the tension is just draining away. And then the resolution comes from the outside characters having months to research something that will save the inside characters.

It did have its moments, but based on The Collectors, I expected quick-fire time shenanigans as the two groups tried to outwit each other. Instead I felt like each side had like two ideas, that were dolled out very slowly. The end promises a sequel, which doesn't leave me very excited. (But different time shenanigans with the nexus are coming first!)

Continuity Notes:

• At one point there's a recap of Orion's Hounds that is (on my Kindle settings, at least) a whole page long. I have read that book and this still confused me, but I think it could have been cut with no problem.
• There is a reference to the appearances of the rouge Aegis agents in DC's 1990s comics (previously reviewed by me). I know the novels have been using the term "Aegis" from those comics since Assignment: Eternity, but is this the first time any actual events from those comics have been referenced?

Other Notes:

• One thing I found really weird is when two DTI agents go to check out the home planet of the antagonist: "We investigated her people, the Tomika. There was no sign any of them would have the knowledge or the desire to participate in something like this. And none of them seemed to have the unusual strength and perception she's shown." They checked out an entire sapient species and none of them were interested in stealing time technology? It's a pretty improbable statement, I felt.
• There's an okay gag where someone is "aged to death" and instead of living until seventy, he died right away because, duh, he doesn't have any food or water. As soon as I read it, I thought of the Babylon 5 episode "Babylon Squared" because this trope has bothered me every since I saw that episode-- and upon reading the author's annotations, Bennett was thinking of that ep himself. But I think the moment is clunky (someone says that it always works in the holodramas, but I got it before then), and it's undermined by the fact that the victim doesn't actually die.
  
• I am delighted to report a complete lack of workplace sexual harassment in this DTI installment.

 

[Damian]

Department of Temporal Investigations: Time Lock by Christopher L. Bennett
Published: September 2016
Time Span: July 2384 - March 2385

On the strength of The Collectors, I was really looking forward to reading Time Lock, but while Collectors was energetic and inventive, Time Lock is-- like the DTI novels-- plodding and over-expository. Things get off to a rough start with a confusing sequence where people tell each other and/or think about a time portal recovered from the Gum Nebula, the political configuration of the Vomnin, the events of Orion's Hounds, how the Vault works, and the identities of a bunch of different DTI characters. People think to themselves, "better not be pedantic and say x," and think about x instead, which I will say is not really an interesting to smuggle in exposition that actually doesn't add anything.

I like the idea of this book, but it never really takes off. That the DTI could be subject to a heist where each side uses temporal devices against the other sounds fun, but it ended up in practice being dull. Too often the DTI characters do something clever but obscure, and then it is explained to us what was done, meaning a lot of the action is retrospective and detached, which prevents us from feeling invested in it. The villain is a bit on the cartoony side, and I will admit to not strongly caring about any of the original DTI characters.

The idea of the time lock is clever: within the Vault, time keeps slowing down, so at first the Vault is a minute behind, then it's 20 minutes behind, then forty, then an hour; by the novella's end, only a couple days have passed inside the Vault, but eight months have gone by outside! This is clever, yes, but it does mean that any sense of urgency completely evaporates when the action switches to outside the Vault. Oh no, will the DTI figure it out? Well, yes, because they have months to investigate it at their leisure, actually. And these scenes are often bogged down by exposition, too, such as a long explanation of stepwells.

The problem is that the longer the book goes on, the more time the outside characters have to solve the problems inside the Vault. The end of the book tries to raise the stakes by having something go horribly wrong, but it feels arbitrary in its deployment of technobabble: suddenly it's "blah blah subspace" and the tension is just draining away. And then the resolution comes from the outside characters having months to research something that will save the inside characters.

It did have its moments, but based on The Collectors, I expected quick-fire time shenanigans as the two groups tried to outwit each other. Instead I felt like each side had like two ideas, that were dolled out very slowly. The end promises a sequel, which doesn't leave me very excited. (But different time shenanigans with the nexus are coming first!)

Continuity Notes:

• At one point there's a recap of Orion's Hounds that is (on my Kindle settings, at least) a whole page long. I have read that book and this still confused me, but I think it could have been cut with no problem.
• There is a reference to the appearances of the rouge Aegis agents in DC's 1990s comics (previously reviewed by me). I know the novels have been using the term "Aegis" from those comics since Assignment: Eternity, but is this the first time any actual events from those comics have been referenced?

Other Notes:

• One thing I found really weird is when two DTI agents go to check out the home planet of the antagonist: "We investigated her people, the Tomika. There was no sign any of them would have the knowledge or the desire to participate in something like this. And none of them seemed to have the unusual strength and perception she's shown." They checked out an entire sapient species and none of them were interested in stealing time technology? It's a pretty improbable statement, I felt.
• There's an okay gag where someone is "aged to death" and instead of living until seventy, he died right away because, duh, he doesn't have any food or water. As soon as I read it, I thought of the Babylon 5 episode "Babylon Squared" because this trope has bothered me every since I saw that episode-- and upon reading the author's annotations, Bennett was thinking of that ep himself. But I think the moment is clunky (someone says that it always works in the holodramas, but I got it before then), and it's undermined by the fact that the victim doesn't actually die.
  
• I am delighted to report a complete lack of workplace sexual harassment in this DTI installment.

Sorry to hear you didn't care for this story as much. I liked the DTI stories overall (in fact, the DTI series is the only place I could see maybe some reconciling between the current relaunch novels and Picard---though it would have to be more interesting than just the parallel timelines idea--I mean, that much is obvious, but DTI could be a vehicle to bring the two together at some point). Anyway, off track a bit.

But part of it is just differing tastes. I like expository stories so I don't mind taking time to go into exposition. Granted, expository stories can get bogged down, but I didn't really feel that way in this case.

Part of it I think is the DTI novels by their nature require exposition. Because you are dealing with things that have happened and will happen you have to explain what's going on to the reader to make sense. Otherwise the reader will be left scratching their head wondering what the point was or what's going on.

To be clear, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with your take on it. I just came at it from a different viewpoint.

I do agree the time lock was an interesting concept, but that part did 'slow down' for me (pardon the pun). It seemed to take some of the gas out of the room, though because time outside was proceeding 'normally' it did add some danger. They couldn't wait forever. And at times it was a bit difficult going back and forth in the story to slow time and normal time. All the DTI novels required the reader to pay close attention to what was going on or you could get lost--which is where the exposition probably comes in and why it's sort of a requirement for DTI, whereas other novels can afford to sacrifice some exposition. In this case it's pretty much needed to keep you on track.