Oh, I didn't realize that. That's pretty cool, thanks for the info.
Spoilers TNG: A Singular Destiny by Keith R.A. DeCandido review thread
- Thread starter Brendan Moody
- Start date
They may be jerks, but I hear they make good gameshows.
Thanks muchly!
They were never described in TFR. And their resemblance to gryphons (or griffins), which are among my favorite mythical creatures, is not at all coincidental.
Probably.
Two Farscape comic book miniseries, Strange Detractors and D'Argo's Lament, for both of which I still need to script the fourth and final issue.
My copy was waiting for me when I got home this evening... am devouring it right now.
Oh, KRAD? That casualty list leading into Chapter 8? You evil bastard...
I want spoilers...but I don't want spoilers...but I really do...
I really don't think that the two people mentioned in this casualty list are dead. I think it is just a set up to be resolved in a later book.
By the way, in regards to the Venture being refitted, would this be a good representation of what the refitted Venture looks like? Credit goes to Bridge Commander modder JamesTiberiusKirk and DJ Curtis. (JTK for the refit and DJ Curtis for the source model).
Last edited by a moderator:
i enjoyed this, but i agree, they never should've announced the TP's existance before this came out.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
[/i]ETA:Since on reread my posts sounded a tad hostile I just want to make clear that they weren't intended that way. It's more a matter of me being a bit surprised by your sudden impulse to correct other people on minor things.
It's a function of Proto's pretensions of having a better understanding of history and politics than his rhetorical opponents, including myself. If you're going to claim intellectual superiority, you should at least have the decency of using proper spelling and grammar in whatever language you're debating in.
No. I argued that there is no inherent or fundamental difference. That doesn't mean that there can't be a difference, but that the difference is not inherent. As I noted above, how moral or amoral the Trekverse functions can be a matter of which story is being told. As a fictional construct, the "moral structure" of the Trekverse is a flexible, mutable thing, whereas, if one can be said to exist for the real world, it is likely fixed.
As I've noted time and again, you have a habit of taking a statement of someone else's and then pushing it to make it say something that it doesn't actually say. It's getting damn irritating. Stop putting words in my mouth.
If that is the point you made, then I would suggest that you used poor language to make it. I will readily concede that a real, historical example has more relevance to the real world than an example from any fictional construct -- but your language seemed to be saying that a fictional example has no relevance whatsoever to the real world and that they could all be dismissed. I firmly reject that conclusion -- fiction, like any form of expression or argumentation, can be a powerful and deeply meaningful way of describing and expressing the world, as books like Night or Nineteen Eighty-Four, or as films like The Last King of Scotland or The Queen, prove.
I never said they weren't. But you are inaccurately representing the fundamentals in the Trekverse. The roll of the dice is not always counterfeit, the result does not always favor the altruist, the main character, the moral of the story, or the whims of the author. Millions of altruistic Bajorans were killed in the Occupation. Billions of Cardassians were murdered by the Dominion. Seven million Humans were murdered by the Xindi (of whom only the Reptilians and the Insectoids were held responsible, whilst the rest of the Xindi Council went unscathed). We've seen main characters die plenty of times (perhaps most infamously in the TrekLit world in Wildfire), and the authors have made it clear on numerous occasions that they tend to find the creation of those stories to be deeply upsetting, not "a whim."
That is why your argument is specious: It presents the premise that everything always works out for the best in the end, and it ignores numerous pieces of evidence in the Trekverse that everything does not always work out in the end. It falsely represents the fundamentals of the Trekverse.
But that's not what history is about. History is about the meaning of that event, about the motives behind it and the forces that it unleashes and the ways it changes society. And all of that is deeply subjective.
You are confusing the past with history. They are not the same concepts. The past doesn't change, but history -- which is our understanding of the past -- changes constantly.
Yes, that's right. I'm the one who's sour.
You are the one who began using very disrespectful, condescending language against other posters who expressed and logically supported their disagreements with you (such as in this post). You are the one who chose to make personal insults and slights, and who has consistently resorted to insults since. Don't be surprised when someone calls you on it.
Once again, resorting to insults rather than logically supporting your conclusions. (Though, of course, given your tendency to engage in unfair over-generalizations, that's not surprising.)
You are talking about yourself, Sci.
An eye for an eye, Sci.Yes, that's right. I'm the one who's sour.
You are the one who began using very disrespectful, condescending language against other posters who expressed and logically supported their disagreements with you (such as in this post). You are the one who chose to make personal insults and slights, and who has consistently resorted to insults since. Don't be surprised when someone calls you on it.
You quoted my post - look at your post to which I had responded: http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=2649105&postcount=363.
I'm disrespectful, condescending and insulting? Same back to you.
And yes, you are sour.
History.
History is the study of the past. Its purpose is to accurately record the past and discover the causal relations between events - all of which doesn't change. A person who writes a book and doesn't present the facts objectively doesn't deserve to be called "historian" - and the book doesn't deserve to be called a "history book".
Look at the definition of history - as with any science, you'll find the word "objective" in there.
Real world vs Trekworld.
There is a fundamental difference between the real world and the trekverse. The real world happened, the trekverse didn't.
In the real world, the roll of the dice is not counterfeit. In the trekverse, it is, always - unless the writers are using radioactive decay results to write their stories. Many times, the author is constrained by real world concerns - the actor is leaving the show, the editor is imposing this and that.
And there is a fundamental moral difference between the real world and the trekworld. Any star trek story - any fictional story has a theme. The author is always trying to express an ideea, a thought, and the story is built accordingly - and this is the moral substrate of any fictional universe. Happy endings are not necessary for the existence of a moral substrate.
In the vast majority of cases, Star Trek stories - filmed or otherwise - have happy endings. Sometimes - rarely - not. That doesn't change the fact that the autor is trying to say something, to entertain. You will never find this "purpose" in events that actually take place.
As for the trekverse immoralities - I'll quote myself, because you obviously didn't read my posts (and more about that later):
Sometimes, the fictional story can imitate the real world quite well. But that doesn't mean that they have the same value as real world facts in any discussion concerning the real world.
Have I? I suggest that you actually read your rhetorical opponent's posts before profering insults:
And about this claim "I argued that there is no inherent or fundamental difference. That doesn't mean that there can't be a difference, but that the difference is not inherent." - define clearly "fundamental difference" as opposed to "difference"
Last edited:
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
Including everything, sure, that's a bad idea. Including things which have been explicitly integrated into the novels isn't at all.
Pity, that. They're good.Of course not. We all choose what to retain from star trek movies, novels etc.
We should not include in this conversation the part of the rihannsu (and other) novels that doesn't contradict canon because if we would, the discussion will last forever. And i didn't read the rihannsu books.
I count the Rihannsu novels inasmuch as they can be counted upon because the detail that they include about the Romulans has been adopted--as much as possible, of course--into the novels. If Krad goes so far as to include Artraleirh, the Romulan colony world that supported the first two Free Rihannsu victories against the RSE, in A Singular Destiny, on top of all of the other details which have been incorporated into other relaunch novels in different series, then it's justified to conclude that the Rihannsu series are, if not novelverse canon, then novels which are freely mined for canon.
Post-coup Romulus must have been chaotic. That said, the Remans explicitly threatened to attack Romulan cities if they didn't get what they wanted; Remus would presumably have been depopulated, but I don't think that they cared.
The ones that we see, sure. Romulan society before the split was established as chaotic and factionalized; other factions and other individuals, not seen in the movie, were also in play.
But Picard thought that a thalaron weapon made out of the deflector would be a viable defense against an entire Borg fleet. Even if the fleet was stationary, four thousand Borg ships would still have occupied a huge area of sky as seen from Enterprise's position. The thalaron weapon sounds like it was a wide-effect weapon, sterilizing things within dozens of degree of its point of generation.
About Relaunch/Rihannsu books:
We should consider canon for the purposes of this discussion, in addition to the filmed material, the relaunch novels, including the elements they imported from the rihannsu novels.
But not the rest of the rihannsu series - in many cases, the relaunch books contradicted facts established in rihannsu. Also, as I have not read the rihannsu books, I cannot coment on them.
From what you said, the rihannsu books painted the "rihannsu" in a pretty favorable light - correct?
About the thalaron weapon:
In my above post, I explained in detail why this weapon cannot be used effectively against a federation fleet, but can be lethal to the borg.
In short - the feds would see the weapon charging and would go to warp. The thalaron weapon can have a range large enough to "encompass" 10 planets - the feds would be out of that range in miliseconds.
The borg, on the other hand, don't run. The'll wait to be hit by the weapon, in order to adapt.
In any case - Tal'Aura&co were willing, at best, to start an interstellar arms race - with potentially disastrous consequences; in my opinion, the probable scenario was that they wanted to destroy Earth and start a war with the Federation - in the past, romulans tried to start wars with the Federation often enough - see TNG.
Any society contains many factions - but only the factions that have the power dictate politics. On Romulus, these factions were either isolationist or antagonistic toward the Federation - and Tal'Aura's belonged to the second category.
I finished this book this morning, I loved it. I had a original series feel about it. the Alpha quadrant feels like a much larger, more dangerous place now. Thank you KRAD for a very enjoyable book. I look forward to your next contribution to the 24th century meta-story & your Alien Spotlight next month.
Judge King, hotlink is not allowed on this board, please don't do it again.
I'm sincerely sorry.
Are you seriously trying to revive that little pissing contest a month after it ended?
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
I must say I am quite excited about the Typhon Pact stuff and though I hope they don't end up in a full blown war, I would be happy to see a cold war and tensions in the region as both sides try to get what they want. Plus, I really hope we get to see more of the Kinshaya and the Breen as it sounds like a perfect opportunity to peek into these new and never before seen alien races 
Also, don't want to resurrect the argument here but Captain's Blood had an interesting point saying that the Romulans did not expect Shinzon to actually destroy Earth but rather to end the Cheron Accords and to begin the militarization of the Neutral Zone. Was an interesting thought on the subject as I personally thought they wanted Shinzon to destroy Earth.
Also, don't want to resurrect the argument here but Captain's Blood had an interesting point saying that the Romulans did not expect Shinzon to actually destroy Earth but rather to end the Cheron Accords and to begin the militarization of the Neutral Zone. Was an interesting thought on the subject as I personally thought they wanted Shinzon to destroy Earth.
I must say I am quite excited about the Typhon Pact stuff and though I hope they don't end up in a full blown war, I would be happy to see a cold war and tensions in the region as both sides try to get what they want. Plus, I really hope we get to see more of the Kinshaya and the Breen as it sounds like a perfect opportunity to peek into these new and never before seen alien races
Also, don't want to resurrect the argument here but Captain's Blood had an interesting point saying that the Romulans did not expect Shinzon to actually destroy Earth but rather to end the Cheron Accords and to begin the militarization of the Neutral Zone. Was an interesting thought on the subject as I personally thought they wanted Shinzon to destroy Earth.
Outright destruction is not really the Romulan way; they are more calculating. Destruction on that level isn't even a Klingon way of thinking. The Romulans didn't need the whole AQ getting pissed at them.
I wonder what state the Cheron Accords, and the Neutral Zone for that matter, will be in with all of the new political bodies popping up
? Could be very interesting...
It was when they realized that Shinzon planned to destroy Earth that they turned against him. They wanted to increase the Romulan Empire's military strength and prominence, and no doubt advance their own careers, but genocide on that level, and based on nothing more than one man's crazed vendetta, was not something they wanted.
I wonder what state the Cheron Accords, and the Neutral Zone for that matter, will be in with all of the new political bodies popping up
What's the difference between the Cheron Accords & the Treaty of Algeron?
Frankly, I'd expect the Federation's diplomats to either get some pretty damn big concessions from the Romulan Star Empire or else, finally, after 200 years, say, "Fuck it! We're cloaking our ships now."
I wonder what state the Cheron Accords, and the Neutral Zone for that matter, will be in with all of the new political bodies popping up
What's the difference between the Cheron Accords & the Treaty of Algeron?
I have no idea what the difference is. If the RSE are aligned with the Typhon Pact, and we know that the Pact's agenda seems to be in contrast with the Federation/Klingon Alliance and their new allies that have joined the Khitomer Accords (the IRS included), then the treaties shold be in question.
I agree. The FED's should definitely say
I just don't see the federation adopting cloaking technology in any large way... they're about "Boldly going" not skulking around.
Similar threads
- Poll
