STO: The Needs of the Many by M. A. Martin Review Thread (Spoilers!)
- Thread starter nx1701g
- Start date
Garm Bel Iblis
Commodore
Re: Star Trek: Online: The Needs of the Many - Discussion (Spoilers)
I dont mind the interview style, it reminds me of World War Z. That first interview with the MACO really irks me, seriously, why didn't the author just watch Band of Brothers interviews with the old paratroopers. They didn't sound like that.
I dont mind the interview style, it reminds me of World War Z. That first interview with the MACO really irks me, seriously, why didn't the author just watch Band of Brothers interviews with the old paratroopers. They didn't sound like that.
Re: Star Trek: Online: The Needs of the Many - Discussion (Spoilers)
For some reason (and maybe OT a bit), this reminded me of M&M's ENT novel The Last Full Measure, which dealt quite heavily with the MACO's.
I seem to recall a bit of an uproar about that novel..
anything rings a bell?
For some reason (and maybe OT a bit), this reminded me of M&M's ENT novel The Last Full Measure, which dealt quite heavily with the MACO's.
I seem to recall a bit of an uproar about that novel..
anything rings a bell?
Garm Bel Iblis
Commodore
Re: Star Trek: Online: The Needs of the Many - Discussion (Spoilers)
That's what happens when Code Pink writes the war stories.
I'm also gettin' real tired of "oh please don't call your enemy by slang names, its inapropriate."
I believe this book has produced an emotional response. I think I hate it.
For some reason (and maybe OT a bit), this reminded me of M&M's ENT novel The Last Full Measure, which dealt quite heavily with the MACO's.
I seem to recall a bit of an uproar about that novel..
anything rings a bell?
That's what happens when Code Pink writes the war stories.
I'm also gettin' real tired of "oh please don't call your enemy by slang names, its inapropriate."
I believe this book has produced an emotional response. I think I hate it.
Last edited:
Re: Star Trek: Online: The Needs of the Many - Discussion (Spoilers)
Hah...nice Generations reference!
And I definitely know I won't be picking this one up--because as I said, I know what the military is REALLY like, and if someone can't be bothered to give them intelligence and a soul, then it simply will not ring true.
Hah...nice Generations reference!
And I definitely know I won't be picking this one up--because as I said, I know what the military is REALLY like, and if someone can't be bothered to give them intelligence and a soul, then it simply will not ring true.
Re: Star Trek: Online: The Needs of the Many - Discussion (Spoilers)
I didn't like that one either. Seriously, I really hate it when the peacemongers get the military persona all wrong. First of all, I was never trained to kill babies, kill children, and kill innocents. I was trained to protect my country, yes it involved learning on how to kill someone who is trying to kill me, my squadmates, my countrymen, and my family.
Me and none of my fellow soldiers ever talked like that first interview. Frankly, that interview was an insult and the author really needs to re-think on who real soldiers and sailors really are.
For some reason (and maybe OT a bit), this reminded me of M&M's ENT novel The Last Full Measure, which dealt quite heavily with the MACO's.
I seem to recall a bit of an uproar about that novel..
anything rings a bell?
I didn't like that one either. Seriously, I really hate it when the peacemongers get the military persona all wrong. First of all, I was never trained to kill babies, kill children, and kill innocents. I was trained to protect my country, yes it involved learning on how to kill someone who is trying to kill me, my squadmates, my countrymen, and my family.
Me and none of my fellow soldiers ever talked like that first interview. Frankly, that interview was an insult and the author really needs to re-think on who real soldiers and sailors really are.
Garm Bel Iblis
Commodore
Re: Star Trek: Online: The Needs of the Many - Discussion (Spoilers)
Ok, i hate to make this a list of criticisms,but Jake just met with Vic Fontaine and Vic refereed to himself as a lightbulb.
JAKE SEES THIS AS RACIST!!!! ARRRRGHHH.
Then Vic starts singing we shall over come!!!
This is such an insult to compare the racism towards blacks in America to HOLOGRAMS. I'm a tolerant guy but this is getting stupid.
Ok, i hate to make this a list of criticisms,but Jake just met with Vic Fontaine and Vic refereed to himself as a lightbulb.
JAKE SEES THIS AS RACIST!!!! ARRRRGHHH.
Then Vic starts singing we shall over come!!!
This is such an insult to compare the racism towards blacks in America to HOLOGRAMS. I'm a tolerant guy but this is getting stupid.
Garm Bel Iblis
Commodore
Re: Star Trek: Online: The Needs of the Many - Discussion (Spoilers)
How about when the MACo pulls out a knife and gets all creepy? I seriously think there are people like Mister martin who think all soldiers are a bunch of thugs ready to wipe out the Na'Vi for their unobtanium.
For some reason (and maybe OT a bit), this reminded me of M&M's ENT novel The Last Full Measure, which dealt quite heavily with the MACO's.
I seem to recall a bit of an uproar about that novel..
anything rings a bell?
I didn't like that one either. Seriously, I really hate it when the peacemongers get the military persona all wrong. First of all, I was never trained to kill babies, kill children, and kill innocents. I was trained to protect my country, yes it involved learning on how to kill someone who is trying to kill me, my squadmates, my countrymen, and my family.
Me and none of my fellow soldiers ever talked like that first interview. Frankly, that interview was an insult and the author really needs to re-think on who real soldiers and sailors really are.
How about when the MACo pulls out a knife and gets all creepy? I seriously think there are people like Mister martin who think all soldiers are a bunch of thugs ready to wipe out the Na'Vi for their unobtanium.
Re: Star Trek: Online: The Needs of the Many - Discussion (Spoilers)
Or they think we are all Four Leaf clones from Tropic Thunder.
Or they think we are all Four Leaf clones from Tropic Thunder.
Garm Bel Iblis
Commodore
Re: Star Trek: Online: The Needs of the Many - Discussion (Spoilers)
It burns me, I think I am done with Martin and Mangles. They are so disparaging towards soldiers but hold up Casey Sheehan just becaue they agree with his mother.
I jsut realized what I am reading: "The Peoples History of the UnitedFederation of Planets."
Goes into ereader and deletes "needs of the money". Bring on "Unspoken Truth" !
It burns me, I think I am done with Martin and Mangles. They are so disparaging towards soldiers but hold up Casey Sheehan just becaue they agree with his mother.
I jsut realized what I am reading: "The Peoples History of the UnitedFederation of Planets."
Goes into ereader and deletes "needs of the money". Bring on "Unspoken Truth" !
Re: Star Trek: Online: The Needs of the Many - Discussion (Spoilers)
On the plus-side, I really like the format of this one. Really puts one into the story.
On the down-side, some of the continuity being presented for the STO-verse just doesn't work for me, especially the extent of the "small-universe" syndrome that seems to be going on. I also agree with the criticisms in this thread on the one-dimensional way military folk seem to be presented here. And don't even get me started on the whole "Department of Peace" nonsense. If that's how Starfleet is being run, they deserve to get their asses kicked.
On the plus-side, I really like the format of this one. Really puts one into the story.
On the down-side, some of the continuity being presented for the STO-verse just doesn't work for me, especially the extent of the "small-universe" syndrome that seems to be going on. I also agree with the criticisms in this thread on the one-dimensional way military folk seem to be presented here. And don't even get me started on the whole "Department of Peace" nonsense. If that's how Starfleet is being run, they deserve to get their asses kicked.
Re: Star Trek: Online: The Needs of the Many - Discussion (Spoilers)
So...how does this compare to The Romulan War? Didn't that have a reporter flying about getting "up close and personal" with the war as one of the sub-plots, albiet presented in a more traditional format?
So...how does this compare to The Romulan War? Didn't that have a reporter flying about getting "up close and personal" with the war as one of the sub-plots, albiet presented in a more traditional format?
Garm Bel Iblis
Commodore
Re: Star Trek: Online: The Needs of the Many - Discussion (Spoilers)
The entire book isnothing but transcripts. Its basically like reading Keith Olbermann's show notes.
The entire book isnothing but transcripts. Its basically like reading Keith Olbermann's show notes.
Re: Star Trek: Online: The Needs of the Many - Discussion (Spoilers)
Ooooh, goodie.
(Oooooh, it's hard no to post a link to when Jon Stewart tore Olbermann a new one...)
Ooooh, goodie.
(Oooooh, it's hard no to post a link to when Jon Stewart tore Olbermann a new one...)
Re: Star Trek: Online: The Needs of the Many - Discussion (Spoilers)
(BTW, yes, I know it's Mangels. I just thought it was a funny typo)
Mangles?
(BTW, yes, I know it's Mangels. I just thought it was a funny typo)
Re: Star Trek: Online: The Needs of the Many - Discussion (Spoilers)
For all that people are bitching about Martin somehow portraying soldiers stereotypically and unflatteringly in Star Trek Online: The Needs of the Many, I'd point out that he portrays numerous sympathetic, and deeply thoughtful, MACO characters in his ENT novels, including Last Full Measure (a book whose theme is all about honoring the sacrifices of the military) and The Romulan War: Beneath the Raptor's Wing.
My only problem is that I don't think the MACOs would still be around as an organization in the 24th Century, except maybe as local United Earth defense forces.
For all that people are bitching about Martin somehow portraying soldiers stereotypically and unflatteringly in Star Trek Online: The Needs of the Many, I'd point out that he portrays numerous sympathetic, and deeply thoughtful, MACO characters in his ENT novels, including Last Full Measure (a book whose theme is all about honoring the sacrifices of the military) and The Romulan War: Beneath the Raptor's Wing.
My only problem is that I don't think the MACOs would still be around as an organization in the 24th Century, except maybe as local United Earth defense forces.
Re: Star Trek: Online: The Needs of the Many - Discussion (Spoilers)
Only some one who was not in the military can make that remark. I do agree about the MACOs, or at least with a different name from one of the members planets like Andoria's main ground forces.
Only some one who was not in the military can make that remark. I do agree about the MACOs, or at least with a different name from one of the members planets like Andoria's main ground forces.
Re: Star Trek: Online: The Needs of the Many - Discussion (Spoilers)
Forgive my intrusion, but having read this chapter I'm confused.
Was not the whole point to show how this man has been damaged by the experiences of a lengthy and bloody war? That the traumas and sacrifices and experiences have scarred him? That he can never be the same after what he has experienced? That seems far more realistic to me than a prideful "defending your country! Off to war! Come back and everything's fine!" attitude. If a soldier who has been through such a traumatic series of events wasn't a bit...offputting, "creepy" as you put it, isn't something wrong? He's creepy because he's damaged, because the sacrifices and traumas weigh so heavily on him, no? Those who go to war can rarely truly come back unscathed, as you of course must know if you were active military yourself.
What I'm saying is, I don't see any anti-soldier sentiment here- unless you think presenting soldiers as damaged and traumatized is anti-soldier? No, surely not. An attitude of prideful invincibility in regards to soldiers is surely much more offensive, because it's untrue, as any number of veterans of wars both "just" and "unjust" would tell us? There is no doubt an anti-militiarism sentiment to this writing, a distaste for war and awareness of the terrible dangers of a culture consumed by war and sacrifice to the detriment of anything else (such as sadly happens when you're fighting for survival as the Federation supposedly was in the Undine war). But anti-militarism is not anti-military. An attitude that takes hold over a culture at war is something entirely different from the individuals involved in fighting or directing it. Indeed, front-line soldiers will be the primary victims of it, because the brunt of it falls on them.
Sorry to repeat, but I don't see any overt dislike of soldiers, merely of militiaristic attitudes, such as take hold in soldiers and non-soldiers alike in a culture obsessed with war (and a culture fighting for its very survival like the UFP is here will obviously be obsessed with war- it can't afford not to be). Yet look at the openly disparaging comments in this thread- "peacemonger", "peacenik", "code pink", and the like. As if supporting the cause of peace is a bad thing! Pacifists are NOT anti-soldier, they're opposed to militiaristic attitudes- such as the idea that people going off to war just waltz back okay, proud and strong having fought "for their country!", as opposed to all-too often traumatized and damaged, sometimes for the rest of their lives. In fact, the reason many people are pacifists in the first place is because they understand the sacrifices and traumas soldiers face very well indeed, and don't want those truths hidden behind nationalistic, prideful masks about the glory of service? The gritty reality of war is always in their minds.
I suppose what I'm saying is- what's the real issue here? That soldiers are being presented as the "bad guys"? Because so far I don't see it (though I admit I haven't read the whole book yet). I don't see anyone saying that soldiers- the individual men and women- are thugs out to "kill children" or "take the Na'vi's unobtanium", just that they are sapient beings who, if placed in traumatic situations, as they often are of course, might well end up in a bad way- and isn't it telling that Jake is "creeped out"- that this veteran is now someone those back home are wary and scared of? He can never truly come back to the home he sacrificed so much to protect, which is the terrible tragedy of the situation. Surely this is a highly sensitive portrayal of the soldier- a being who chose to face traumas and make sacrifices who is now unable to be fully accepted by those not so touched. Jake can't truly understand, and is repulsed.
No-one who has faced war head-on for any length of time can ever truly return, I'd humbly submit. I think that's the point, and I don't see it as offensive to soldiers at all- unless the offense is suggesting that military service is all pride and medals and patriotism, and not also rolling around in the dirt bleeding? Sure, many people find great pride in military service. My family also has a history of willing service- my paternal grandfather, for one, was never anything but proud of his long years in service, including going to war (including the Second World War). But sometimes I suspect some people forget that the pride can only ever be one side of the equation. My grandfather, for what it's worth, didn't fare too badly, but not all soldiers are as lucky.
Forgive my intrusion, but having read this chapter I'm confused.
Was not the whole point to show how this man has been damaged by the experiences of a lengthy and bloody war? That the traumas and sacrifices and experiences have scarred him? That he can never be the same after what he has experienced? That seems far more realistic to me than a prideful "defending your country! Off to war! Come back and everything's fine!" attitude. If a soldier who has been through such a traumatic series of events wasn't a bit...offputting, "creepy" as you put it, isn't something wrong? He's creepy because he's damaged, because the sacrifices and traumas weigh so heavily on him, no? Those who go to war can rarely truly come back unscathed, as you of course must know if you were active military yourself.
What I'm saying is, I don't see any anti-soldier sentiment here- unless you think presenting soldiers as damaged and traumatized is anti-soldier? No, surely not. An attitude of prideful invincibility in regards to soldiers is surely much more offensive, because it's untrue, as any number of veterans of wars both "just" and "unjust" would tell us? There is no doubt an anti-militiarism sentiment to this writing, a distaste for war and awareness of the terrible dangers of a culture consumed by war and sacrifice to the detriment of anything else (such as sadly happens when you're fighting for survival as the Federation supposedly was in the Undine war). But anti-militarism is not anti-military. An attitude that takes hold over a culture at war is something entirely different from the individuals involved in fighting or directing it. Indeed, front-line soldiers will be the primary victims of it, because the brunt of it falls on them. Sorry to repeat, but I don't see any overt dislike of soldiers, merely of militiaristic attitudes, such as take hold in soldiers and non-soldiers alike in a culture obsessed with war (and a culture fighting for its very survival like the UFP is here will obviously be obsessed with war- it can't afford not to be). Yet look at the openly disparaging comments in this thread- "peacemonger", "peacenik", "code pink", and the like. As if supporting the cause of peace is a bad thing! Pacifists are NOT anti-soldier, they're opposed to militiaristic attitudes- such as the idea that people going off to war just waltz back okay, proud and strong having fought "for their country!", as opposed to all-too often traumatized and damaged, sometimes for the rest of their lives. In fact, the reason many people are pacifists in the first place is because they understand the sacrifices and traumas soldiers face very well indeed, and don't want those truths hidden behind nationalistic, prideful masks about the glory of service? The gritty reality of war is always in their minds.
I suppose what I'm saying is- what's the real issue here? That soldiers are being presented as the "bad guys"? Because so far I don't see it (though I admit I haven't read the whole book yet). I don't see anyone saying that soldiers- the individual men and women- are thugs out to "kill children" or "take the Na'vi's unobtanium", just that they are sapient beings who, if placed in traumatic situations, as they often are of course, might well end up in a bad way- and isn't it telling that Jake is "creeped out"- that this veteran is now someone those back home are wary and scared of? He can never truly come back to the home he sacrificed so much to protect, which is the terrible tragedy of the situation. Surely this is a highly sensitive portrayal of the soldier- a being who chose to face traumas and make sacrifices who is now unable to be fully accepted by those not so touched. Jake can't truly understand, and is repulsed.
No-one who has faced war head-on for any length of time can ever truly return, I'd humbly submit. I think that's the point, and I don't see it as offensive to soldiers at all- unless the offense is suggesting that military service is all pride and medals and patriotism, and not also rolling around in the dirt bleeding? Sure, many people find great pride in military service. My family also has a history of willing service- my paternal grandfather, for one, was never anything but proud of his long years in service, including going to war (including the Second World War). But sometimes I suspect some people forget that the pride can only ever be one side of the equation. My grandfather, for what it's worth, didn't fare too badly, but not all soldiers are as lucky.
Last edited: