Spoilers TOS: The Captain's Oath by Christopher L. Bennett Review Thread

Hey, I just finished The Captain's Oath and I have to say that you remain my favorite Star Trek writer, Christopher. You have always managed to weave together a fascinating series of Star Trek minutia and come out with a consistent portrayal of continuity despite the original series having absolutely none of that. Some thoughts about your book and discussion topics that have been going on for 15 pages.

Kelvinverse

1. I think Captain Kirk was affected by multiple factors in the Kelvinverse. Losing his father was certainly one but I think there's other ones to to speculate on. This Kirk doesn't seem like he ever was on Tarsus IV but lived on Earth instead. As such, he never had a sobering encounter with a madman who murdered half the colony until meeting Nero. I always consider "The Conscience of the King" whenever thinking of mainstream Kirk's history. Another thing to note is that this Kirk is a cadet for most of his career and has not had enough time to polish off the rough edges and learn from other captains.

2. This is just my impression of Starfleet but I think the greatest failure of Kirk in Into Darkness was the fact that he lied. He didn't have faith in the system or his own actions to stand on his own. I believe in the Kelvinverse that they would have accepted his reasoning regarding saving the race. The demotion is entirely for the fact that he betrayed his oath as a Starfleet officer to the First Duty of the truth.

Prime Directive

1. Speaking as a failed historian, I do think there's actually some arguments that interfering in developing cultures with natural disasters isn't one hundred percent justified always as well. However much that sticks in our craw. Much of cultural development is driven by cutlures coping with disasters and upending existing social systems for better and worse. The Black Death helped destroy the system of slavery and feudalist tyranny in Europe. Provided it doesn't lead to total extinction, a culture may have to gain new perspectives from dealing with challenges on a historic macro scale.
And this is absolutely something that works in the abstract but not real life.

2. This is completely just my headcanon but I never thought of the Iotians as actually stupid and felt the writers were ignoring the historical facts of our world to make fun of "gangster planet." Spock says the computer has nothing remotely like gangsters in charge of a civilization and thus can make no recommendation when I'd argue that feudalism is something extremely similar to what was on display in Iotia. If the Iotians were a violence and territory-driven society like, well most of Medieval history, then THE BOOK wouldn't remotely look that strange to them.

Indeed, if you introduced it to, say, Westeros then indoor plumbing and Thompson machine guns and cars are the big changes rather than society.

3. There's a certain fact that there's not much Starfleet can do in certain situations. The thing about "Homeward" is that it's not really a good story about the Prime Directive but it's an interesting story about what exactly is an utter failure. There's fifteen people saved from the end of their world and that will be a genetic bottleneck that will end them in a few generations. It's not a happy ending for their species that will never go on to be anything else.

4. I've always felt the Prime Directive shows have a "U" shape as some of them show the Federation feeling like they are playing God in the exact way it's meant to avoid. Forget "Dear Doctor", the worst Enterprise episode is "Terra Nova". They decide that the disaster that has resulted is an interesting science experiment to see what sort of new culture would result. Culture trumps life and any responsibility the Earth owes its colonists is less than informing them of the disaster that has happened. T'Pol also snearing at the idea of the colonists wearing t-shirts and flip flops as opposed to dying of a papercut.

 

Captain's Oath

1. I always liked the idea that Captain Kirk started as an enormous nerd in Starfleet and Gary Mitchell described him as a book-worm that needed to loosen up. It's far from our idea of Captain Kirk as the ladies man rulebreaker but that's never been the case as Christopher stated repeatedly. He's always been the "balanced" one between McCoy's optimism and Spock's logic, the Superego. This plays more into it the fact he's a dedicated careerist and military man that is a good "Character Rerailment" after so much treats him otherwise.

2. I do think that Captain Kirk's career suffers from, in and out of universe, the "you jamaharon one goat" in the fact that it's a career absolutely full of exceptions despite the fact Kirk is within the bounds of the law and his moral duty. In this book we have him get involved in a massive Prime Directive violation (by trying to PRESERVE the Prime Directive) and almost go to war with an allied Federation applicant in the name of the truth. From an outsider's perspective, or Kelso's, of course he's going to be seen as a military maverick.

3. I also appreciate the statement Kirk is never a womanizer but a serial monogamist. What others perceive as his being a ladies man is just the fact his relationships usually fail in spectacular ways.

4. I didn't much care for the treatment of Gary Mitchell who I actually think got treated as the horndog fake Kirk. I don't think Kirk would have been friends with him if he didn't have a good deal of professionalism on his own. Its a tragedy that he's driven mad by the Great Barrier rather than his innate character flaws making sure he'd be a monster. Yeah, he tells Kirk some lecherous stories during the episode but he's trying to get Kirk to remember the good times because he knows his old friend is planning to maroon or kill him due to his telepathy (as well as longstanding knowledge of the man).

5. Much like the "Homeward" people, the Chenari are doomed but it is a humanitarian effort that allows them to die peacefully over time.

6. I admit, I wasn't sure how I felt about the discussion of "human privilege" in Starfleet because I always assumed other races had plenty of their own ships. Starfleet is always manned by humans but that's partially because we're following humans in the setting. I'm sure the Starfleet vessels around Rigel and Vulcan are 99% Vulcans. I also liked the fan theory that Federation members maintain their own fleets or the Vulcan Expeditionary Group or Andorian Defense Force but Earth is all in on Starfleet.

7. On the other hand, I love the resentment that Kirk gets as the youngest captain as that felt both real and an excellent rib to the Kelvinverse.

8. I liked the fact the Agni are a bit like the Geth in Mass Effect. Not being artificial but Legion points out that they have absolutely no requirements that biologicals do so the two races have no REASON to fight over resources or land like most species. It does make me wonder if the Agni and Tholians would be an interesting conversation or if their types of environments are too different.

9. My favorite story was definitely the Nacmorian section that was an excellent capturing of the "Planet of the Week" feel of the Original series. It satirizes I think some of the conspiracy theories prevalent today and again shows how Kirk can get caught in a situation that makes him look bad despite doing everything right and by the book. He's trying to obey the Prime Directive but ends up horribly breaking it due to the fact the situation is far different than what it appears to be.

10. I liked that the Agni actually gave some of their unreasonable demands up. I have always been of the belief the Maquis were justified in their actions so Kirk being initially, "We can just relocate all these flying cities because the Agni's need is great" being treated as incredibly unreasonable hit well for me. The settlement required everyone to give and that worked for me.

11. I also noted that the Agni's lack of concept of territory was something that corresponds with many RL cultures but could have been talked around and probably was. "Space is usually unclaimed but if you showed up, we didn't know if you were going to attack or not. Hence we have a tradition of saying who you are."

 

I don't accept that all interaction is automatically interference. That's a facile assumption that Trek makes far too often. Interference means getting in the way, impeding someone else's efforts. Of course you should try not to interfere, but that doesn't mean you can't offer to assist others with their problems. The difference is who has control. Being a good friend or neighbor means being available to help those who seek your assistance, while respecting the limits they set and their right to say when you've done enough. It only becomes interference if you push too far, if you impose your will on them rather than following their lead.

There's a reason we have firefighters instead of telling everyone "No, you have to learn self-sufficiency and put out your own burning house." Helping is not imposing. It's just basic decency. We don't barge into other people's homes on general principles, but in an emergency, we do what we must to help them when they're unable to help themselves.

The problem is that humans are too prone to oversimplify, to react to one unhealthy extreme by adopting the opposite, equally unhealthy extreme. The absolute avoidance of interaction is just as toxic as the invasive cultural imperialism it reacts to. As with most things in life, the best answer is to reject both extremes and find a healthy balance in between.

And I don't buy the whole "That which does not kill us makes us stronger" line. I had an awful childhood, and it didn't make me strong, it left me scarred, afraid, and emotionally fragile. What gave me strength, what made me healthier and better, was finally being given kindness and compassion, finding true friends who helped me heal. Modern psychology understands that negative stimuli only cause damage, that positive reinforcement is the true source of a strong, healthy psyche. Traumatized cultures often pass on their trauma the same way abused children do, by becoming abusers themselves and perpetuating the cycle. If you want a child or a culture to learn positive values, you have to show them positive values. The only lesson people learn from pain and cruelty is more of the same.

Which is just the inevitable way that episodic-TV romances were structured in the days of minimal continuity, so I'll never get why people are so quick to blame Kirk for it. Many of his contemporary male leads (and successors well into the '80s or '90s) engaged in far more womanizing and/or had even more tragically failed romances.

I don't think I portrayed Gary as unprofessional, just looser than Kirk, which was sometimes beneficial. If anything, the idea was to show Kirk learning from Gary's example that it was okay to be more flexible, that he'd be a better captain if he weren't so bound by the rulebook.

And "Where No Man," especially the original unaired edit, made it clear enough that Gary was a womanizer and a lowbrow party dude in comparison to the more serious, disciplined Kirk. I just went with what the episode showed.

For my response to that, read The Higher Frontier. It's sort of a follow-up to The Captain's Oath in some respects, since I wrote them consecutively.

Not true at all. See the first paragraph on p. 216 (or if you have the e-book, the first paragraph of the second-last scene in Chapter 12, beginning "The Chenari's vestigial wings turned out..."). I made a point of establishing that they had a large enough genetic base to remain viable, especially with the assistance they'd receive.

Except that doesn't explain why nearly every Starfleet admiral and commander-in-chief we've ever seen is human. That was the whole point -- that the alien diversity we see in Starfleet is very rarely in the highest ranks.

I don't think I intended a "rib to the Kelvinverse," except in the sense that the entire novel was meant to offer a Prime-universe version of Kirk's backstory as a balance to the Kelvin one. The notion of Kirk being the youngest captain in Starfleet comes from the 1968 The Making of Star Trek, the book that also established his first command as a "destroyer-equivalent" vessel. Since I based the book on that backstory, it was natural that the issue of his youth would come up.

It's the diplomacy game from this week's Lower Decks! "Everyone's unhappy, so we've achieved compromise! Yay!"

 

That would be the preferable reading of the PD. My philosophy would be, basically, what is the minimal interference needed to get the job done. Ideally, maybe Starfleet wouldn't need to interfere at all. If they do have to get involved, is there a way to get involved that doesn't interfere with their normal development. Then if that's still not possible mitigate the interference as much as possible.

I didn't like the 'let them die' attitude that seemed to be adopted by the time of TNG. That seems not only harsh, but a gross misinterpretation of the PD (it's one reason I sometimes speculated that maybe there was some event between the original series and TNG where some sort of interference led to tragic results and Starfleet got carried away and went too far--as can happen sometimes in any culture).

It gets much more murky when you are dealing with a civilization at war. Helping in natural or cosmic disasters is one thing. But when the society is engaged in self destructive behavior what is the best course. It would obviously vary based on the situation, but sometimes people also learn best by the mistakes they have made.

Yeah, I agree with you. That is almost a cruel understanding of what makes us stronger. There's a difference between overcoming challenges life may throw at us (constructive challenges) and just cruelty and abuse that are meant to bring us down. I applaud anyone that has faced cruelty and/or abuse in their life and have overcome that. But that shouldn't be a pre-requisite. I think sometimes people say things like that either in a misguided attempt at support, though they don't mean it to be cruel. That's different from someone who maybe has a limitation and fights through that. Say someone who has some sort of intellectual disorder who gets a college degree through perseverance and hard work. I always feel the worse for children (and pets for that matter) who have to deal with abuse or neglect. They are the least able to defend and advocate for themselves, and it's an awful thing when they are abused or neglected by the people they depend on.

That was an unfortunately byproduct of the way TV was back in the day. I take some solace that Kirk was always a gentleman (except maybe in "Catspaw" though in that case he was being manipulated himself and he was trying to save his crew).

I know we've discussed "Bread and Circuses" before and how hard it is to reconcile the scene with him with a slave girl with his respect for women. In that case I've tried to rationalize that a bit in universe that Kirk would never take advantage of any woman in that situation, while at the same time if he rejected her out of hand it would mean her death. Plus, well, we really don't know how far they went. Kirk was a master at finding the way around difficult situations so maybe he found a way to make it seem like they went all the way but didn't.

I recall that was something similar I noticed in the My Brother's Keeper trilogy as well. Gary was trying to get Kirk to loosen up. But Gary didn't get to where he was by being a maverick himself.

It's why I always say you and Friedman had a similar, and more correct, view of Kirk during the original series (as opposed to something like Enterprise: The First Adventure where Kirk was very much a maverick and headstrong captain. Someone who was very much a rule follower, and esp. during the 1st season, by the book. As time went on during the original series, he just seemed to become more comfortable with interpreting the rules. Perhaps not to the satisfaction of every paper-pushing admiral, but not breaking the rules or doing anything that would cause him to be hauled before a review board.

Yes, and Kirk of the Abrams films is very different from Kirk int he prime-universe. Most likely owing to his upbringing in the Abrams-verse, that Kirk is a maverick and someone who flaunts the rules. I liked that we got some stories with The Captains Oath and MBK (which, granted, came out years before the film) that gave us a prime-universe look at his upbringing. While story wise they aren't totally compatible, they both give a good glimpse of what Kirk's earlier career was like in a way that was consistent with season 1.

There is this unfortunate tendency to treat Kirk as some rule-breaking maverick who loves giving the finger (metaphorically) to his higher ups. But he really wasn't. As time went on he simply became more comfortable with his role as captain and learned how to interpret the rules, which is natural as he gained more experience. It wasn't really until TSFS that he actually broke the rules. And even then, he tried to go through official channels first. Even once he's re-established as Captain he's more or less following rules. Though I suppose in TUC they refuse to return to base when ordered, even after Kirk returns to the ship (but, of course, they fake a communication outage).

I think the main thing Kirk does as time goes on is he rubs a few admirals the wrong way because they don't like his style and his interpretations of the rules. It's nothing they can court martial for, just that they don't like his style.

Incidentally I did note in your current book that you noted a warning from Cartwright to Kirk that Kirk needs to delegate more now that he's an admiral or he's in 'danger of becoming a maverick.' A nice little nod to what his future holds .

 

The problem is that you're still using "interfere" as a synonym for "interact," and THAT is what I categorically reject. As I just spelled out in my previous post, interaction and assistance are NOT interference when they're done right, with respect and deference to the choices and decisions of the people you're assisting. Interference means getting in the way. It means preventing something from happening the way it should. If you stick out your leg and trip someone crossing the street, you're interfering with them. If you extend your arm and offer to help them across the street, you're not interfering, you're assisting. There is a difference.

Referring to any and all contact as "interference" is begging the question, in the literal sense of the phrase as a logical fallacy (aka assuming the conclusion). It's formulating the statement in a way that presumes an unproven or false conclusion, namely that all contact is disruptive. It's a logical fallacy and one of the biggest flaws with modern Trek's frequently lazy and facile treatment of the Prime Directive.

It's not that complicated. As with all relationships, the key to approaching it ethically is to keep the other party's consent and autonomy in mind. You can offer to help, but let them decide whether and how to accept help, and don't impose anything they don't ask for or try to dictate what they do with what you give them.

We've seen repeatedly how the Federation deals with civilizations at war. They offer humanitarian aid and their services as mediators for peace talks, but they leave the decisions in the hands of the warring parties and don't provide military assistance to either side. Again, it's about respecting their autonomy and choice, offering them a hand instead of making them do what you think they should. That's the root of it, which tends to get lost in all the clutter about first contact and warp drive and whatnot.

 

You actually bring up something that I note makes the Prime Directive extra-weird, @Christopher, with the fact that Starfleet is an organization of explorers as well as a Federation of people who are all interested in interacting as well as learning from it. So making their primary mission view interaction as "contamination" is a doubly weird one since it's a rule against their central ethos.

Mind you, I always half-suspected the rumor that the Prime Directive exists because it gave something for Kirk to angst about on-screen to be truer than some fans believe. However much it makes sense for a space fairing society to avoid exploiting less technologically advanced cultures, it also might be best to look at it from a Doyleist rathe thanr Watsonian POV.

I did read Higher Frontier and very much enjoyed it. But, sadly, I read it before Captain's Oath so different elements stick out in my brain than ones linked here. I felt you did an excellent job trying to justify psychic powers among Star Trek's humans despite the fact, well, they don't exist in real life. I also liked the tie-in to Roddenberry's New Humans even if I just think we're not seeing the vegetarian nudist free love hippies.

Ah, that's a relief. Triceratops people deserve to live.

Fair enough, I wonder if that is impacted by the Federation's Presidents always being aliens and there's one element affecting the other or if it's just Starfleet culture being affected by the legacy of Jonathan Archer.

I mean more in the context that being the youngest captain in TCO comes with a lot of downsides. It was something that was also in the Stargazer series that instead of being taken as a sign of how badass Kirk is, it creates issues of disrespect from the troops (like Kelso) and extra scrutiny from the higher ups that he hasn't paid his dues. That it comes up as much with Kirk in TCO makes the completely ridiculous situation in the Kelvinverse all the more notable.

(And I like the Kelvinverse movies. A whole lot even. I just turn my brain off at the insta-captaincy)

 

Exactly. The rule was supposed to be about respecting others' autonomy and right to choose for themselves, but it's been warped into this incongruously xenophobic belief system based on cultural isolation and "purity" as the ideal, which is diametrically opposite to the principle of IDIC.

What people tend to forget is that the impetus behind the PD is not other cultures' primitivism, as TNG: "Homeward" assumed, but our own capacity for error and abuse. It's a precaution against Starfleet captains like Ron Tracey or civilians like John Gill trying to play god and impose themselves on other cultures. But guarding against abusive interactions doesn't mean all interactions are automatically harmful. It just means it's safer not to take the chance, unless circumstances compel a carefully considered exception (e.g. if the society is in danger of extinction; Kirk explicitly said in "For the World is Hollow..." that intervention is preferable to letting a whole culture die, and I underlined that with the Chenari in TCO).

Maybe, but I think it was also a commentary about cultural imperialism. TOS came out in the era of decolonization, when we were beginning to understand the harmful consequences of the West's supposedly benevolent interventions in other nations' politics and religion and so forth. Asserting the right of other cultures to self-determination, even when their beliefs differ from our own, was part of the era's progressive politics that TOS generally embraced.

Now, I'd say that the absolutist TNG-era Prime Directive, the arbitrary and bizarre "Let them die to avoid damaging them" principle introduced in "Pen Pals," was undoubtedly postulated to give Picard and his crew something to angst about.

We've seen three UFP presidents onscreen, four if you count the "In a Mirror, Darkly" text graphic saying Jonathan Archer became president, and only two, Ra-ghoratreii and Jaresh-Inyo, were non-human. The first was Robert Ellenstein's character in ST IV (Hiram Roth). In the novels, there have been quite a few human UFP presidents, from Thomas Vanderbilt to Nan Bacco.

My point is that my motive was nothing so petty as merely throwing eggs at the Kelvin Timeline. I was telling the story that made the most sense to me within the Prime Timeline. I was not unaware that I was offering a contrast to the Kelvin version, but it wasn't purely intended as some kind of gotcha.

Also, I think you're being a little unfair to the Kelvin portrayal. It's handled somewhat superficially due to the nature of motion picture storytelling, but Into Darkness did make it clear that Kirk's youth and inexperience in command were a detriment, leading him to make poor and reckless choices that got him suspended. He had to admit his failings and learn some humility over the course of that film, even sacrificing himself in the climax. And by Beyond, four more years had passed and he'd grown more mature and seasoned, closer to the Kirk we know from Prime. So it's totally wrong to say that Kelvin treated Kirk's youth as pure badassery. The first film handled it implausibly, indeed preposterously, but the sequels did what they could to course-correct.

 

Not suggesting you were throwing shade. Quite the opposite, I like how you drop hints that at least some of the Kelvin timeline's stuff is true in the main timeline. Just saying I liked the handling in The Captain's Oath of how Kirk struggled for the respect of Starfleet even as he's achieving magnificent results, simply because the amount of time he's put in was less.

 

I basically agree with you. Basically what I'm saying is if a less advanced civilization is just proceeding on their merry way with no natural or cosmological disasters and no civilization ending disasters, then it's best just to leave them be. If the Federation wants to observe and learn about them, that's fine. We've seen sometimes where less advanced societies can still teach us things. But otherwise they should basically leave them be to advance at their own pace without interference.

I do agree if there is some disaster coming that Starfleet can help with, then they should (much like we see in "The Paradise Syndrome"--there was never a question we would help, just how can we help). Now preferably if Starfleet can help with a minimal amount of interference, then that's probably best. That goes back to what I said before, what's the minimum amount of involvement necessary to achieve the goal. But at the end of the day, get the job done.

And I don't object to that either. As long as the Federation stays neutral in the conflict itself and offers aid to both side (whether they take it or not is up to them of course).

I like the idea behind the Prime Directive. Not to the extreme we saw in TNG. But more akin to how it was in the original series. And it also gave captains like Kirk something to think about. Before Kirk deactivated Landru and Vaal, having to think about the PD forced him to play devil's advocate first. It made him think of any reasons he shouldn't interfere before he did. It's also probably why the couple of times he did interfere he didn't get court martialed. His reasons were sound.

Yes, exactly. Usually when I talk about non-inteference, that's usually what I mean. If things are going fine for a society, then just leave them alone.

Ironically in "Homeward" their strict reading of the PD actually probably caused more interference than was necessary. First, I mean, it seems heartless to leave a society to perish. That's a warped and cynical way to look at the PD. But beyond that, had Starfleet decided at the first sign of trouble to move the civilization, they might have actually been able to formulate a plan that caused little interference. They would have had time to formulate and execute and well laid out plan to move them. But because they didn't, and Worf's brother took things into his own hands (to his credit, IMO), then it was a rushed evacuation that was disrupted and ended up with one of the colonists committing suicide because he wasn't prepared to accept what he saw. I'm not sure if they would have been able to move them without their knowledge necessarily, that'd be a tall order. But given enough time they might have been able to prepare the colonists better psychologically.

 

I still think that's too cautious. Interaction between cultures is healthy and normal. Like I keep saying, contact is not interference when it's done right, so it's wrong to keep using the words as synonyms.

Again, the goal of the Prime Directive is supposed to be to safeguard against those few cases where someone would abuse their power advantage to play god or try to convert the natives to their belief system or something invasive and harmful like that. That doesn't mean that most interactions would be harmful; it just means there need to be precautions in place against the abusive ones. It's like how all over-the-counter medicine bottles now have tamper-proof seals in the wake of the incident back in the '80s where some nut poisoned some bottles of Tylenol. That doesn't mean people are poisoning drugs all the time; it's just considered necessary to have a blanket safeguard so you catch the few cases where people do have ill intentions.

The Prime Directive is a gross, crude precaution; it does the job, but in the least subtle way possible, and it prohibits a lot of interactions that would probably be harmless or even beneficial in the name of policing the few harmful ones. It's like relying on complete sexual abstinence as your exclusive method of birth control. Sure, it achieves that goal, but is it worth all you have to give up for it? There are less extreme ways to achieve that objective. So I believe there ought to be a subtler, more refined safeguard, a way of managing contact responsibly, like practicing safe sex instead of just no sex at all. The Prime Directive should not be seen as some absolute ideal; it's the clumsiest, most simplistic fix possible for the problem, and it should be the first step along the way to developing a more nuanced safeguard. But instead it's just gotten even more clumsy and simplistic, with the nuances and exceptions that were recognized in the 23rd century becoming stigmatized in the 24th. That's going the wrong way.

I addressed this idea in my original novel Arachne's Exile with the concept of the Mentoring Protocols, a system that the galaxy's most advanced civilizations have worked out over tens of thousands of years to find a healthy balance for interacting with new civilizations in a way that respects their autonomy and independence while still providing help in their times of need. Like any system, it can be misapplied and abused in some cases, and that drives a lot of the story, but it's actually trying to solve the problem intelligently rather than just avoiding it.

 

I do admit, I take a bit more of a conservative view on the PD that you do. My philosophy wouldn't be nearly as strict as what we see in TNG, but probably stricter than yours. I go back to the 'minimum interference necessary' rule.

Looking at "Homeward" for instance--I agree that letting them just perish is heartless and cruel. But I like the idea of moving them using the holodeck and trying their best not to reveal themselves. Had the Federation not taken such an extreme view of the PD, it might actually have worked because they would have had time to make sure it was done properly and maximum preparation possible.

I suspect you'd probably view even that as a bit too extreme (though better than leaving them to die of course). So that's probably where you and I would part ways.

But we do agree the idea of leaving a society to perish just because it was 'meant' to be is way to harsh a reading.

 

Yeah, the "meant" thing is pure social Darwinism, and like most social Darwinism, it's nonsense.

 

And you're still presupposing that contact is automatically interference. As I keep saying, Trek's embrace of that simplistic assumption is the root of the problem with how it approaches the Prime Directive. It's only interference if you get in their way, if you stop them from doing what they choose. You can make contact without interfering if you do it right, just like you can be someone's friend or neighbor without interfering with how they lead their life. Parking your car in front of your neighbor's driveway is interference; offering to help your neighbor wash their car is not. Stealing their food is interference; sharing their food at a housewarming party is not. You don't have to avoid someone completely to avoid interfering with them. You just have to be able to tell the difference between participation and imposition.

 

I'm not really talking about civilizations that are on par with Federation worlds. More on less advanced societies. I'm just of the opinion it's probably best to leave them be, unless they are facing some catastrophe.

It's not even because I feel less advanced societies are more primitive. I'm not a fan of the word primitive. We saw in "Who Watches the Watchers" that their society was less advanced technologically, but I wouldn't call them primitive. But it would be best to leave them be to advance at their own pace, and learn from mistakes they make.

I think there's too much temptation when you start interacting with a less advanced society to try to 'help them' which can have unfortunate unforseen consequences. You don't even have to force them. You might unintentionally encourage them to take actions you think are best for them and actually end up hurting them, despite your best intentions.

If a civilization isn't facing some catastrophe, if things are just proceeding for a society without any natural or cosmic disasters, then I just feel it's better to leave them alone.

 

If you're only basing that on Star Trek, of course you'd think that. I'm basing my opinion on four years studying world history and cross-cultural interactions in college, which dispelled a lot of the myths I used to take for granted.

Yes, obviously that's the problem, but that doesn't mean there's only one solution to it. Like I said, complete abstinence may be a safe practice, but it's the crudest one available -- not an absolute ideal, just the simplest, laziest response. It's okay if you don't trust yourself to get it right, but there ought to come a time when you grow up and take responsibility rather than just hiding from it. For the longest time, I refused to learn to drive because I was afraid to take the responsibility. Eventually I had to learn how to do it, and now I strive to drive safely rather than not driving at all. The concern is the same, but there are other, more mature ways to address it besides mere avoidance.

That's the idea behind the Mentoring Protocols in my novel. As with safe driving practices and traffic laws, it's a set of carefully worked out rules for how to make contact safely and avoid making the kind of mistakes you mention. I can understand the Federation not having such a refined system after a paltry 2-3 centuries of interstellar travel, but I'm talking about a galactic civilization with hundreds of millennia of experience behind it. They've learned from their ancestors' mistakes and figured out what they can do safely. It's worked out in far more detail and precision than just "Don't do anything."

 

That's the order I wrote it in.

 

I'm re-reading this book now, which goes to show how much I enjoyed it the first time.

 

One wonders. When the final Borg invasion came in Star Trek: Destiny, what did the Borg do about the Agni settlements on Hearthside and 88 Leonis III? Lost Souls and Watching the Clock explicitly established a Borg siege on Regulus.

Would Borg even consider Class-N lifeforms worth assimilation? Their cubes can probably fabricate environmental habitats for Class-N lifeforms, though the power requirements would strike me as horrifically inefficient compared to all their standard humanoid drones' requirements. On the other hand, the Borg are implied to have interest in the Q, and the Q are not even corporeal.

 

Mess with the Agni, and you get burned.