• 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!

They DID NOT just destroy... [SPOILERS]

That is an incredibly shallow, thoughtless analysis of those cultures.
Love your personal attacks.

That was not a personal attack; at no point did I attack you. I attacked the content of your argument. Your argument is thoughtless and shallow and deserves to be called such.
I would say that about your inability to address my points in favor of personal attacks on my opinion. It deserves to be called as such...but I won't do that.



Being offended is not the point. Composing a shallow analysis of cultures that ignores the details of those cultures, their nuances, and their competing factions is the issue. Stereotyping isn't just bad because it offends real people -- it's bad because it leads to a faulty understanding of the subjects being stereotyped.

You do not understand the relevant fictional cultures being portrayed; you do not know what you are talking about.
You should quit watching Star Trek then - it's full of racial stereotypes. The Ferengi for example...



....oh...never mind. Good day to you.
 
I read up on these books. I said that right off the bat. Never said I read them. If you think I said one thing vs another, well, that's on you. I can still comment on WHY I don't want to read certain things. If you want to take it personally, again, that's on you.

I'm not reading the Star Wars novels these days for the same reasons; I keep up with the summaries, and they all sound really stupid. I hear you.

But if you're basing your opinion on the "fan-fiction"-ness of current TrekLit on books you've read that took place during the series, you're not giving the post-finale books a fair shot.

I actually can't imagine someone liking Vanguard but not liking the Destiny & Typhon Pact storylines. They're MUCH closer to Vanguard than they are to the standalone novels that were cranked out while the series were on the air.

If nothing else, give Destiny a try - it's by the same guy that conceptualized and wrote half of Vanguard, David Mack. I think you'll be surprised.
THANK YOU. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

And as far as your suggestion...I'll give it a shot. It's the one with Ezri, right?
 
I read up on these books. I said that right off the bat. Never said I read them. If you think I said one thing vs another, well, that's on you. I can still comment on WHY I don't want to read certain things. If you want to take it personally, again, that's on you.

I'm not reading the Star Wars novels these days for the same reasons; I keep up with the summaries, and they all sound really stupid. I hear you.

But if you're basing your opinion on the "fan-fiction"-ness of current TrekLit on books you've read that took place during the series, you're not giving the post-finale books a fair shot.

I actually can't imagine someone liking Vanguard but not liking the Destiny & Typhon Pact storylines. They're MUCH closer to Vanguard than they are to the standalone novels that were cranked out while the series were on the air.

If nothing else, give Destiny a try - it's by the same guy that conceptualized and wrote half of Vanguard, David Mack. I think you'll be surprised.
THANK YOU. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

And as far as your suggestion...I'll give it a shot. It's the one with Ezri, right?

Yeah. It's a trilogy, and the first book has Ezri on the cover. You might start off feeling like there's a lot of backstory you're missing, which some people find irritating, but the book starts in medias res on purpose; anything you need to know is explained, and a lot of the backstory is new for the trilogy anyway. It stands alone nicely.
 
Yeah. It's a trilogy, and the first book has Ezri on the cover. You might start off feeling like there's a lot of backstory you're missing, which some people find irritating, but the book starts in medias res on purpose; anything you need to know is explained, and a lot of the backstory is new for the trilogy anyway. It stands alone nicely.
That's what I wanted to hear. :rommie:

I have been curious about the overall story since Ezri is my favorite Dax and the Aventine is a nice looking ship. All right, I'm gonna see if it's at my local bookstore today and pick it up if it is, or order it.


:bolian:
 
Aside from "We hate Feddie Bears," what's the common ground with members of the Typhon Pact?

I explained that in the paragraph you didn't quote. It was the one right after the two you did quote. Can't imagine how you could've missed it. Especially since you would've had to specifically highlight it in order to delete it.


Why and HOW can they put aside aspects of their nature to form alliances?

How have human nations and cultures done so, many times throughout history? America's current allies include lots of nations that used to be its mortal enemies, from Britain and Spain to Germany and Japan. Alien races, at least the well-portrayed ones, are just as diverse as humans, and have more than one thing defining their "nature." They're not just walking stereotypes who can only think and act in a single programmed way.

Again, that's the whole idea behind the Typhon Pact books, the reason the concept was created in the first place -- to take civilizations that we only know a tiny bit about and flesh them out into complex, fully realized cultures.


There's also the contradictory aspect of the Star Trek Online story which has the Gorn conquered and annexed by the Klingon Empire, but I suppose that can be attributed to another continuity/story, etc.

Quite right. Star Trek Online is not compatible with the novel continuity and never attempted to be. It drew on a few ideas and characters from the novels, but placed them in a different context that contradicts many other aspects of the novels.


That sounds more like the Romulans who would be looking to shoot you in the back at the right time. Coincidently, it's they themselves who claim to have the saying "never turn you back on a Breen."

I think Sci is right -- as long as you reduce these civilizations to simplistic stereotypes, you'll never understand them. We novelists aren't trying to dumb them down to one-note cartoon baddies, but to flesh them out as fully realized, intriguingly complex civilizations. So if you're looking for behaviors that can be easily reduced to stereotypes and sound bites, you're just not on the same page as the people creating these stories.


That entire movie is contradictory to how Romulans have been portrayed in so many ways.

From the beginning in "Balance of Terror," we were shown that different factions and attitudes existed among the Romulans -- the Praetor and his spy Decius craved conquest and expansion at any cost, while the Commander and his old friend the Centurion were weary of war, had no desire to see lives lost in a pointless military campaign serving only the Praetor's personal ambitions, and would have willingly befriended humans if the context had been different. So they've always been portrayed as a people of contradictions.

It's routine for ST to give us stories about "enemy" races that humanize them and create sympathy for at least some of their members, and to give us hope that the more peace-loving and well-intentioned members of their society can eventually win out over the exploiters or imperialists who currently run their governments. Even the Borg, the textbook example of a monolithic race where every member thought alike, were given a resistance of sorts in "I, Borg" and "Unimatrix Zero."


Canon shows there are some exceptions, but overall, they are untrustworthy and prefer to go it alone.

Romulans don't all have the same personality any more than humans do. The Romulans who have historically been in charge of the empire, the ones running the government and setting the policy, have tended to be untrustworthy. But we've been shown, occasionally in canon with episodes like "Unification" and "Eye of the Needle" and frequently in prose with novels like the Rihannsu series and the Sherman/Shwartz Vulcan's ____ books, that there are plenty of people within the Romulan citizenry, military, and occasionally even government who are more decent and honorable. And in the books, one of the most honorable, admirable, sympathetic Romulan characters ever created is now the Praetor, the person in charge of the entire empire.


I just can't warm up to this concept at all, and I'm not even a big Tholian fan. Just doesn't fit their modus operandi at all IMO

Based on what? We hardly know anything about the Tholians canonically. They've been developed a little more in the books, but they're still one of the most underutilized races. As I said, that's why these species were put together in the Pact -- because they were unexplored and thus largely open books, with plenty of room to create hitherto-unseen complexity and nuance. Your problem is that you're looking for simplicity and stereotype and thus are completely missing the point.
 
Last edited:
Good luck with Destiny, Romulus Prime. :)

By the way, the term "Feddie Bears" makes me smile :lol:. Of course, as recent novels have demonstrated, the Pact nations might start to realize that they're wrong to be frightened of Feddie Bears, because Feddie Bears are more cuddly than fearsome. If you leave them alone and don't antagonize them or intrude into their habitat, they'll leave you alone. Far from a vicious, dangerous creature whose power is a constant threat, the Feddie Bear is a wrongly maligned beast with whom the Pact members can live in peace and mutual respect. The spectre of the Feddie Bear is a fearful symbol of strength and power in these cultures, but since they've started studying its habits in greater detail, they're in a position to start viewing this inspiring animal in different ways, traditional literature and its demonization be damned.
 
You should quit watching Star Trek then - it's full of racial stereotypes. The Ferengi for example...

An unfortunate consequence of the shorthand nature of television storytelling -- but even so, it has notable exceptions, characters who defy the stereotypes for their species, like Rom for the Ferengi, K'Ehleyr and Kolos (from Enterprise) for the Klingons, Telek R'Mor and the Unificationists for the Romulans, etc.

And the novels aren't as prone to stereotype as the shows, because they have room to explore alien civilizations in greater depth. If you only have 42 minutes in a strictly visual and verbal medium to tell a story, you have to simplify things, but if you have 300-plus pages of text to fill out, it's definitely in your best interest to add complexity and nuance to your subject. Which is why the novels' portrayal of the Romulans has generally been a lot richer and more interesting over the decades than the shows' portrayal of same.
 
Yeah. It's a trilogy, and the first book has Ezri on the cover. You might start off feeling like there's a lot of backstory you're missing, which some people find irritating, but the book starts in medias res on purpose; anything you need to know is explained, and a lot of the backstory is new for the trilogy anyway. It stands alone nicely.
That's what I wanted to hear. :rommie:

I have been curious about the overall story since Ezri is my favorite Dax and the Aventine is a nice looking ship. All right, I'm gonna see if it's at my local bookstore today and pick it up if it is, or order it.


:bolian:

I imagine you'd enjoy the Destiny novels. It's not -about- Ezri per se as much as she's a main character. The books center around Enterprise-E, Riker's Titan, Dax's Aventine, and the Columbia from Enterprise(don't worry, they work that in seamlessly in the form of flashbacks that pertain to the main plot). David Mack is one of my favorite Trek author's to be certain.

I share your concerns about the sustainability of the Typhon Pact from reading the book summaries. The main reason I picked up Zero Sum Game, the first one, was because Mack wrote it. I enjoyed the story in that one(you learn a lot about the Breen including WHY they wear those suits!), but the premise of the alliance I still find sketchy even though I've read through Rough Beasts of the Empire. I probably will keep reading, but I'm in no hurry, as I'm not finding the story arc that engaging.

I definitely agree with you that all the races in the Typhon Pact seem way to xenophobic to be cooperating on quasi-Federation levels. I can buy into the anti-Federation military alliance, but technology exchanges and the such is a bit much. I was heavily criticized on another thread when I dared to suggest the Typhon Pact would be at each other's throats in a second if the Federation wasn't around. :p

But I'll let you make your own choices about the TP books. You'll enjoy Destiny!
 
Aside from "We hate Feddie Bears," what's the common ground with members of the Typhon Pact?

I explained that in the paragraph you didn't quote. It was the one right after the two you did quote. Can't imagine how you could've missed it.
Let me be more specific: How can any of these races relate to each other? What do they have in common OTHER THAN "we hate Feds?"



Why and HOW can they put aside aspects of their nature to form alliances?
How have human nations and cultures done so, many times throughout history? America's current allies include lots of nations that used to be its mortal enemies, from Britain and Spain to Germany and Japan. Alien races, at least the well-portrayed ones, are just as diverse as humans, and have more than one thing defining their "nature." They're not just walking stereotypes who can only think and act in a single programmed way.
But being so drastically alien, they are governed by different psychologies. The founding Fed members are all vaguely similar in both appearance and general social psychology. This isn't the case with the Typhon aliens, and they are in fact MORE prone to seeking violence as a solution than most races depicted.


Again, that's the whole idea behind the Typhon Pact books, the reason the concept was created in the first place -- to take civilizations that we only know a tiny bit about and flesh them out into complex, fully realized cultures.
That idea sounds good in theory, but in contrast to what we've been shown on screen in the past, it just doesn't jive right with me. Best example I can think of is how Enterprise turned Orion women into the heads of state. The idea of them using pheramones to take control is actually a cool concept, but it just doesn't sit well with me when I think back on TOS and other aspects of what's been written or implied about them over the years.



I think Sci is right -- as long as you reduce these civilizations to simplistic stereotypes, you'll never understand them. We novelists aren't trying to dumb them down to one-note cartoon baddies, but to flesh them out as fully realized, intriguingly complex civilizations. So if you're looking for behaviors that can be easily reduced to stereotypes and sound bites, you're just not on the same page as the people creating these stories.
I actually DO like adversarial characters fleshed out, but there are certain aspects of species which show more than others in general due to their psychological make up, and what type of animal they are.

Gorn are something a "reptilian" or "dinosauroid" carnivore.

Breen are...something unknown, but relatively cold and callous.

Thoilians are a hive mind and their xenophobia reflects that.

Romulans are militaristic and don't trust situations or individuals they can't control.


Those may sound like stereotypes, but they are real generalizations which apply to the groups in question.



From the beginning in "Balance of Terror," we were shown that different factions and attitudes existed among the Romulans -- the Praetor and his spy Decius craved conquest and expansion at any cost, while the Commander and his old friend the Centurion were weary of war, had no desire to see lives lost in a pointless military campaign serving only the Praetor's personal ambitions, and would have willingly befriended humans if the context had been different. So they've always been portrayed as a people of contradictions.
That's true, but they still followed the same path which the "Commander" and Tal followed in The Enterprise Incident and were governed by the same psychology.


It's routine for ST to give us stories about "enemy" races that humanize them and create sympathy for at least some of their members, and to give us hope that the more peace-loving and well-intentioned members of their society can eventually win out over the exploiters or imperialists who currently run their governments.
That may be true, but there are some groups who, in general, DON'T want peace OR want to be permanently in charge in a malevolent way.


Even the Borg, the textbook example of a monolithic race where every member thought alike, were given a resistance of sorts in "I, Borg" and "Unimatrix Zero."
Oh God...that 2 parter was horrendous. Someone should have watched Dark City or The Matrix before writing it with regards to making an interesting anti-Borg "resistance" composed of thoughts.

Canon shows there are some exceptions, but overall, they are untrustworthy and prefer to go it alone.
Romulans don't all have the same personality any more than humans do. The Romulans who have historically been in charge of the empire, the ones running the government and setting the policy, have tended to be untrustworthy. But we've been shown, occasionally in canon with episodes like "Unification" and "Eye of the Needle" and frequently in prose with novels like the Rihannsu series and the Sherman/Shwartz Vulcan's ____ books, that there are plenty of people within the Romulan citizenry, military, and occasionally even government who are more decent and honorable. And in the books, one of the most honorable, admirable, sympathetic Romulan characters ever created is now the Praetor, the person in charge of the entire empire.
I tried to read their books before. I'm sorry, but IMO, they read like fan-fics. I'm reminded of Spock saying "Shalom" to a scientist after he tells Spock "Live long and prosper." If it had been reversed, I think it would have been great, but as it stands, I really couldn't help but laugh at the scene. And their Spock-Saavik story was just cooky. Yeah, I'm not a fan of theirs at all.

I totally understand that their are differences within the Romulan race - The Commander in BoT, Jerok, the one in "The Chase," Senator Kreetak...well...the one we saw later ;) , N'Vek and of course the "Logic cult" that Spock was leading on Romulus, but as far as large groups go, most people (forced or by free will) tend to follow a certain path with regards to being part of an overall group. We saw that in Unification when Picard asked the soup lady about Pardek, Pardek's betrayal of his long-time friend, the Romulans who the Enterprise crew saved in The Next Phase, Tomolak in The Enemy, Sub-Cammander Selak a.k.a. the artist formerly known as Ambassador T'Pel, Commander Sirol of the Terix, etc.

The problem with stereotypes is that they blind you to the possibility of change.
Or prepare you for what may happen...again....and again....and again.

"Romulans. So predictably treacherous." -Weyoun

A stereotype can be a neutral observation based on aspects which continuously occur. Romulans aren't trusted because they demonstrate they are generally not trustworthy. Equally, they generally don't trust others. That's a true statement based on events of the past which have occurred with that group. To dismiss it as prejudice and ignore it is ridiculous! Even Picard kept this in mind with Romulans who had good intentions (re: Jerok.) Intentions and policy dictate what the next most likely scenario will be, thus Picard pre-judges Jerok, and rightfully so. Good thing he didn't trust the situation, otherwise, Tomolak would have had the hull of the Enterprise to display at the capital to inspire the Romulan military for "generations to come."



I just can't warm up to this concept at all, and I'm not even a big Tholian fan. Just doesn't fit their modus operandi at all IMO
Based on what? We hardly know anything about the Tholians canonically. They've been developed a little more in the books, but they're still one of the most underutilized races. As I said, that's why these species were put together in the Pact -- because they were unexplored and thus largely open books, with plenty of room to create hitherto-unseen complexity and nuance. Your problem is that you're looking for simplicity and stereotype and thus are completely missing the point.
Actually THIS time I'm also going by the Vanguard depiction of them as being hive-minded. And pretty much anything which is hive-minded is adverse to that which is not part of their group. They are xenophobic - that much is well known. They are a hive-mind. Both those = no alliance ever with anyone, IMO.
 
I definitely agree with you that all the races in the Typhon Pact seem way to xenophobic to be cooperating on quasi-Federation levels.

The Federation didn't become that way overnight, any more than any other alliance. Moving from self-interest to interdependence is a process of maturation. We've seen countless stories of selfish or antisocial individuals learning to become part of a loving relationship, or self-absorbed grandstanders learning how to cooperate as members of a team (most of The Avengers in the recent movie come to mind). The difference is that we're seeing the Federation at a mature stage, long after they figured out how to make it work, while the Pact members are still brand new at it and feeling their way.


I can buy into the anti-Federation military alliance

Which isn't what it is. The goal is to achieve a state of affairs where their fate is not defined by the Federation -- to form a bloc that's able to be independent and secure without needing to be protected by the Federation (as they did in the Borg invasion) or being pushed around politically by the Federation (as they also were in the Borg invasion). It's in part a mutual defense pact, but not solely against the Federation -- rather, against anything that might threaten their sovereignty and security.


I was heavily criticized on another thread when I dared to suggest the Typhon Pact would be at each other's throats in a second if the Federation wasn't around. :p

Some of them surely would be. As I already said, I doubt the Tholians would be part of the Pact if the Federation were out of the picture. And the Kinshaya (at least the old regime) would have no interest in it if they didn't feel threatened by the Klingons. But as I said, what prompted the formation of the Pact was not the Federation's existence, but the Borg Invasion. They formed the Pact to defend against whatever massive threats the galaxy might throw at them, and the Federation is only the most immediate threat they perceive. They know, in the wake of the invasion, that there are far worse threats out there than the Federation. As tempting as it is for us egocentric humans to assume we're the center of the universe -- and as much as Star Trek often seems to verify that egomania -- sometimes it's not all about us.

Anyway, the books have gone out of their way to establish that each member has its own distinct agenda and reason for being in the Pact -- sometimes multiple clashing agendas within a single member, as we saw with the conflict between Kamemor's government and the treasonous Tal Shiar in the recent duology, or between the government and rebel factions of the Kinshaya in my The Struggle Within. So it just doesn't make sense to assume that any single thing would be uniformly true of every member of the Pact. You could validly argue that a given thing is true of some of its members, but certainly not all of them. I mean, if you recognize that they're prone to be isolationist and have their own agendas, then why would you assume they'd all think alike or make the same choices? Isn't that self-contradictory?
 
That's what I wanted to hear. :rommie:

I have been curious about the overall story since Ezri is my favorite Dax and the Aventine is a nice looking ship. All right, I'm gonna see if it's at my local bookstore today and pick it up if it is, or order it.


:bolian:

I imagine you'd enjoy the Destiny novels. It's not -about- Ezri per se as much as she's a main character. The books center around Enterprise-E, Riker's Titan, Dax's Aventine, and the Columbia from Enterprise(don't worry, they work that in seamlessly in the form of flashbacks that pertain to the main plot). David Mack is one of my favorite Trek author's to be certain.

I share your concerns about the sustainability of the Typhon Pact from reading the book summaries. The main reason I picked up Zero Sum Game, the first one, was because Mack wrote it. I enjoyed the story in that one(you learn a lot about the Breen including WHY they wear those suits!), but the premise of the alliance I still find sketchy even though I've read through Rough Beasts of the Empire. I probably will keep reading, but I'm in no hurry, as I'm not finding the story arc that engaging.

I definitely agree with you that all the races in the Typhon Pact seem way to xenophobic to be cooperating on quasi-Federation levels. I can buy into the anti-Federation military alliance, but technology exchanges and the such is a bit much. I was heavily criticized on another thread when I dared to suggest the Typhon Pact would be at each other's throats in a second if the Federation wasn't around. :p

But I'll let you make your own choices about the TP books. You'll enjoy Destiny!
Thanks, friend. These stories are taking place after the destruction of the Romulan homeworld(s) right? If that's the case, then I see the situation with them being much more selfish now, with them turning inward, fortifying the empire as best they can and secluding themselves again. Why they would grant more losses of resources and people to an extremely volatile alliance is beyond me.

:vulcan:
 
Let me be more specific: How can any of these races relate to each other? What do they have in common OTHER THAN "we hate Feds?"

There's no way to give you an answer that can satisfy you as long as you insist on reducing entire civilizations to simplified sound bites.

For instance, as I said, the Pact is not about hating the Federation, not for all its members. The Gorn certainly have no reason to hate the Federation, since Picard and Data saved the current Gorn government from being overthrown. The Kinshaya have no history of interaction with the Federation at all, and focus their hatred on the Klingons. The Pact is about mutual defense against any potential threat; after seeing their quadrant come to the brink of annihilation at the hands of the Borg, they recognize that they can no longer go it alone. That's just being reasonable and pragmatic, and it's something any intelligent nation that isn't just a cartoon stereotype should be able to understand. Stereotypes can't change, but real individuals and civilizations, or plausibly drawn fictional ones, can change when there's a sufficient incentive to do so.


But being so drastically alien, they are governed by different psychologies. The founding Fed members are all vaguely similar in both appearance and general social psychology. This isn't the case with the Typhon aliens, and they are in fact MORE prone to seeking violence as a solution than most races depicted.

Since when does the way different species look have anything to do with whether they can get along? Anyone who's watched more than a few hours of Star Trek should understand that's a belief that holds no water in this franchise.


That idea sounds good in theory, but in contrast to what we've been shown on screen in the past, it just doesn't jive right with me.

But that's just it -- aside from the Romulans, and briefly the Breen, these races have rarely, if ever, been shown onscreen. The Kinshaya don't even exist in canonical Trek. The Tzenkethi were never seen, and in fact were only ever mentioned in one episode and a single scene of another. The Tholians have been featured in only four episodes and mentioned briefly in a few others, and the Gorn have only been seen onscreen in two episodes -- three if you count the brief glimpse of a Gorn councillor in Elysia in TAS: "The Time Trap" -- and mentioned in passing in two more.

The whole reason that author Keith DeCandido and editor Marco Palmieri chose these races in the first place was because of their obscurity and the lack of detailed knowledge we had of them -- because they were barely known and Keith and Marco thought it would be cool to develop them more fully. So I don't understand where you're getting this notion that onscreen Star Trek has provided clear, unambiguous portraits of who these species are and what their psychology is like.


I actually DO like adversarial characters fleshed out, but there are certain aspects of species which show more than others in general due to their psychological make up, and what type of animal they are.

Gorn are something a "reptilian" or "dinosauroid" carnivore.

In appearance, but come on, they're aliens in a fictional universe. Obviously they've been capable of cooperating with each other enough to found an advanced technological civilization, so clearly a slavishly literal comparison with animals they just happen to look like on the surface is not legitimate.


Breen are...something unknown, but relatively cold and callous.

Plenty of human regimes have been cold and callous, but that isn't a racial trait. And seriously, if you'd read Zero Sum Game, you'd discover how completely, transcendently, comically wrong you are to make any blanket generalizations about the Breen as a species.


Romulans are militaristic and don't trust situations or individuals they can't control.

How the hell is that a trait of what kind of "animal" they are??? They're exactly the same species as Vulcans! Obviously their militarism is a cultural trait.


That may be true, but there are some groups who, in general, DON'T want peace OR want to be permanently in charge in a malevolent way.

Obviously, yes, but the point is that there are only some who are like that, and therefore there are others who are not. The Typhon Pact novels go out of their way to demonstrate that there are many different conflicting factions within the Pact, some of whom are just what you imagine, but others of whom are completely unlike that.


I tried to read their books before. I'm sorry, but IMO, they read like fan-fics. I'm reminded of Spock saying "Shalom" to a scientist after he tells Spock "Live long and prosper." If it had been reversed, I think it would have been great, but as it stands, I really couldn't help but laugh at the scene.

*sigh* The fact that you look at two people showing respect for each other's diversity and see it as something to mock is part and parcel of why you're unable to understand what we're trying to tell you -- or what Star Trek is fundamentally about in the first place.

(And perhaps you weren't aware that Leonard Nimoy is Jewish?)


...but as far as large groups go, most people (forced or by free will) tend to follow a certain path with regards to being part of an overall group. We saw that in Unification when Picard asked the soup lady about Pardek, Pardek's betrayal of his long-time friend, the Romulans who the Enterprise crew saved in The Next Phase, Tomolak in The Enemy, Sub-Cammander Selak a.k.a. the artist formerly known as Ambassador T'Pel, Commander Sirol of the Terix, etc.

Most people in the United States used to follow the path that kept African-Americans and women from voting or participating equally in society. Now, most people in the United States fully accept their inclusion and reject those who still push for the old attitudes. Most people in the United States used to follow the path that rejected any acknowledgment of homosexuality, let alone any granting of rights; yet now an increasing percentage of people in the United States support marriage, military service, and other forms of inclusion for LGBT people. Societies can change; in fact, they routinely do. If anything, it's a fairly normal pattern for a new generation to rebel against the attitudes and excesses of the previous one.


"Romulans. So predictably treacherous." -Weyoun

A stereotype can be a neutral observation based on aspects which continuously occur. Romulans aren't trusted because they demonstrate they are generally not trustworthy. Equally, they generally don't trust others. That's a true statement based on events of the past which have occurred with that group. To dismiss it as prejudice and ignore it is ridiculous!

No, it's foolish and wrong because it assumes the entire species is a monolithic group. Weyoun was speaking about the behavior of the government and dominant culture of the Romulan Star Empire. It is foolish to equate that with the uniform behavior of the entire population. Every society has multiple different factions and blocs within it. In a given generation or era, one such faction will dominate and impose its values on the character of the nation, while opposing factions are marginalized or repressed. But eventually, the dominant faction will weaken and an opposing faction will gain in strength, and the national character will change.


Even Picard kept this in mind with Romulans who had good intentions (re: Jerok.)

With members of the Romulan military -- members of the ruling faction and subculture. When dealing with the Romulan Star Empire as a political entity and those who were employed in the support of its current policies. A state is not its people. Especially not an oppressive, dictatorial state.

A lot of the posters on this board are German. Would you therefore expect them to be Nazis? I doubt it. Presumably you have enough good sense to recognize that the Nazi Party was only one faction of the German people, one whose dominance of the nation at a certain time in history did not mean that its leaders' values and attitudes were uniformly shared by every member of the German "race" or that they would remain a permanent part of the German character for all time to come. So surely it should be just as easy to accept that the character of the Romulan government and military at a certain point in history can't be assumed to be a universal, perpetual attribute of Romulans as a species, and that it's just as possible for the oppressive, treacherous Romulan regime to be replaced by a more peaceful, enlightened one as it was for the Nazis to be replaced by the modern, democratic German government.


Actually THIS time I'm also going by the Vanguard depiction of them as being hive-minded. And pretty much anything which is hive-minded is adverse to that which is not part of their group. They are xenophobic - that much is well known. They are a hive-mind. Both those = no alliance ever with anyone, IMO.

Which was entirely true until the Borg Invasion. Once you've read Destiny, maybe you'll understand what a complete game-changer that was.


Thanks, friend. These stories are taking place after the destruction of the Romulan homeworld(s) right?

No. That happens in 2387. Destiny takes place in February 2381, the Typhon Pact is formed in May 2381, and the Typhon Pact novels to date have gotten up to the fall of 2383 (except for the epilogue of Raise the Dawn, which jumps forward a year from that point).
 
Part of the entire point of Star Trek is the importance of learning to see past stereotypes, to understand that stereotyping is just a way of dividing people from each other through lies. The essence of Star Trek is found in the handshake of characters who once held enmity because of their differences, not in the gunshot of those still held in hostility's thrall.
 
No. That happens in 2387. Destiny takes place in February 2381, the Typhon Pact is formed in May 2381, and the Typhon Pact novels to date have gotten up to the fall of 2383 (except for the epilogue of Raise the Dawn, which jumps forward a year from that point).

Yeah, it's almost as if the novelists are afraid to touch that one... and I can't say I blame em. :p

It'll be awhile yet anyways, the DS9 relaunch novels still have a year's worth of catching up to do for example.
 
Part of the entire point of Star Trek is the importance of learning to see past stereotypes, to understand that stereotyping is just a way of dividing people from each other through lies. The essence of Star Trek is found in the handshake of characters who once held enmity because of their differences, not in the gunshot of those still held in hostility's thrall.

I like this, I want to believe this, but Trek has no singular point, no 'entire point'. Diversity is a point in some Trek, but to assume that Trek has a singular, an 'entire' point, is fallacy and bad understanding. Espeically given that it is not the product of one mind (and no one mind's output has an entire point, but dozens of points existing often in contradiction of one another) that Trek is the product of hundreds of creative minds - writers, producers, directors, actors, designers et al - across decades.

There is plenty of reliance upon stereotyping in Trek, and plenty of re-emphases of old (or current) hegemonic values that discourage diversity, lock it in subsidiary roles or plain old ignore it. We - in thinking that there is a truth-claim to "Star Trek" proclaiming as its entire point diversity - just see past all its mixed messages, failings and so on, take this inherited belief in Trek's useless modernist claim of (infinite) diversity as a creed we must believe in, and to support this think only of those other elements, stories and so on in Trek which are more supportive of diversity, and recreate (for ourselves) the myth of Trek's singular abidance to diversity.

People get different and sometimes very different opinions from Trek, as they do from any text, because there are many meanings and ideas in that oeuvre. In some senses there are cannot be a more authentic meaning, as all we have is intepretation of it, surely?
 
No. That happens in 2387. Destiny takes place in February 2381, the Typhon Pact is formed in May 2381, and the Typhon Pact novels to date have gotten up to the fall of 2383 (except for the epilogue of Raise the Dawn, which jumps forward a year from that point).

Yeah, it's almost as if the novelists are afraid to touch that one... and I can't say I blame em. :p

On the contrary -- if anything, the novels over the past couple of years have been leapfrogging toward 2387 at an astonishing pace. It took the DS9 post-finale novels eight years of real time to cover a one-year span of story time; SCE/Corps of Engineers was published for seven years and only covered a bit over a year and a half of story time. And yet for the past 2-3 years, the Typhon Pact-era novels have been racing forward in comparison, jumping over huge swaths of time. TNG went from Losing the Peace in May 2381 to Paths of Disharmony in October '82 and then Indistinguishable from Magic covering January to April '83. Titan went from Synthesis in August '81 to Seize the Fire a full year later. And the three Typhon Pact books by David R. George III, all by themselves, have spanned a period of more than two and a half years, from the end of Destiny in February '81 to the end of September '83 -- plus an epilogue a full year after that. The books these days seem in much more of a rush to push forward than they were in past years -- Voyager being the only exception, since it's still back in the summer of '81.



Part of the entire point of Star Trek is the importance of learning to see past stereotypes, to understand that stereotyping is just a way of dividing people from each other through lies. The essence of Star Trek is found in the handshake of characters who once held enmity because of their differences, not in the gunshot of those still held in hostility's thrall.

I like this, I want to believe this, but Trek has no singular point, no 'entire point'. Diversity is a point in some Trek, but to assume that Trek has a singular, an 'entire' point, is fallacy and bad understanding. Espeically given that it is not the product of one mind (and no one mind's output has an entire point, but dozens of points existing often in contradiction of one another) that Trek is the product of hundreds of creative minds - writers, producers, directors, actors, designers et al - across decades.

But I think all those minds do try to be true to the core values and ideas of Trek.

And I know for a fact, because I've heard it from the creators themselves, that the point of the Typhon Pact was to explore and develop obscure alien races and flesh out their culture and psychology. I know from being personal friends with several of the authors of Typhon Pact fiction, and from being one of them myself, that as a group we pretty much share Trek's core values of diversity and cooperation. And I know from simply having read the tales in the Typhon Pact series -- and having written one of them -- that the Trek tradition of portraying alien cultures with nuance and complexity and promoting the values of inclusion and understanding is indeed very much present in these books, and there is no intention of portraying the Pact as a bunch of one-dimensional evil aliens who all act the same. Not only because that would be contrary to the values of Star Trek and ourselves... but because it would be boring. It's more interesting to write about alien cultures that are diverse and nuanced and multifaceted.
 
Good luck with Destiny, Romulus Prime. :)

By the way, the term "Feddie Bears" makes me smile :lol:.
Haha, thanks. I coined term that while playing Klingon side PvP in Star Trek Online. Elites would use "Fedo-bear" in reference to something else more..."insidious." I thought "Feddie" sounded more Trek and little more "cute" - exactly what many Fed players were when they would QQ and claim "haxx!" after losing matches.


:rommie:
 
Part of the entire point of Star Trek is the importance of learning to see past stereotypes, to understand that stereotyping is just a way of dividing people from each other through lies. The essence of Star Trek is found in the handshake of characters who once held enmity because of their differences, not in the gunshot of those still held in hostility's thrall.
And that's the great part about it, but at the same time, it certainly does nurture the concept that groups of people tend to behave or think a certain way in general. The Ferengi are greedy. Vulcans are analytical, so much so the stereotype even finds its way into the story of the Mintakans. Klingons are agressive, loud and boisterous. Etc.
 
And that's the great part about it, but at the same time, it certainly does nurture the concept that groups of people tend to behave or think a certain way in general. The Ferengi are greedy. Vulcans are analytical, so much so the stereotype even finds its way into the story of the Mintakans. Klingons are agressive, loud and boisterous. Etc.

But it also demonstrates that those general behaviors can change over time. The Ferengi underwent extensive social reforms and ended centuries of oppression and exclusion of their females (and we were told in "Prophet Motive" that their culture had not always been dominated by greed). The Vulcans went from a culturally imperialist military government in the 22nd century to a borderline pacifist society later on. The Klingons went from the Federation's mortal enemies to their close allies -- and we know from ENT: "Judgment" that the warrior class did not always rule their society, but that their dominance was a fairly recent development as of the 2150s (at least within the lifetime of a Klingon character who was probably a centenarian). The Cardassians were once a peaceful, spiritual society, then got taken over by a military junta in a time of hardship; then that junta was overthrown by a bloodless populist uprising and Cardassia was on the path to peace before it fell victim to the Klingons and Dominion (i.e. to the Dominion, since the Klingon-Cardassian war was engineered by them to soften the Cardassians up), and in the post-Dominion era they have also become staunch Federation allies. The Andorians went from a violent people who picked fights with everyone around them to staunch members of a peaceful alliance of worlds. And so on.

So even with those broad, stereotyped patterns, Star Trek still has a recurring theme that societies are capable of change and growth, that seemingly intractable enmities can turn into friendship, and that what seems to be the universal status quo of a civilization can just be a phase it's passing through in the grand sweep of history. So there's no reason that same narrative of change and tearing down walls can't occur with civilizations like the Romulans or Gorn or Tzenkethi as well.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top