Violence in Trek lit: Opinions?

[Deranged Nasat]

This is my first new thread!

I was following a thread added recently to the Deep Space Nine forum, about violence in "Blood Oath" and responses to Jadzia's actions in that episode. I replied to it, and am now very thoughtful about violence as portrayed in Trek. Being free from the requirements of a TV show, (often restrictive), the literature line can take a deeper and more complicated view of violence, its effects, aftermath and ultimate meaning (or lack of). How do the authors feel about writing scenes that contain violence? How do they tend to approach this task, which i imagine must be difficult? How do readers think the modern novels have handled the issue? I know some took exception to the violent rape in "Fearful Symmetry", for example. Can anyone summarize their feelings on violence in Trek lit?

 

[Jbarney]

I don't have a problem with a true and raw presentation of violence. Many of the books have a lot of action in them with some degree of conflict. For me the more real the stories are in description and events, the better.

Perhaps that is one reason why I enjoyed Well of Souls more than some other posters. I found the reality of the world, and all of the pain of the characters involved very engaging.

To answer your question I can't think of a trek book I have read that was too violent or descriptive of aggression/violence/conflict. I'm not totally caught up with the most recent books, but when it is used it has not been over done.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

I don't have a problem with a true and raw presentation of violence. Many of the books have a lot of action in them with some degree of conflict. For me the more real the stories are in description and events, the better.

Perhaps that is one reason why I enjoyed Well of Souls more than some other posters. I found the reality of the world, and all of the pain of the characters involved very engaging.

To answer your question I can't think of a trek book I have read that was too violent or descriptive of aggression/violence/conflict. I'm not totally caught up with the most recent books, but when it is used it has not been over done.

I tend to agree Trek lit handles violence well. I also agree with you on the issue of "Well of Souls". It is one of my favourite Star Trek books, partly due to the strength and realism of the raw emotion conveyed, including in the aftermath of violent death. I also agree that to shy away from realistic depiction would diminish the story and the suffering of those afflicted by violence.

 

[Christopher]

It's important to me never to depict violence as something casual or desirable, or to depict death without acknowledging the loss. I try not to depict violence or killing as the solution to a problem, or as something without consequences. To me, one of the key things that distinguishes heroes from villains is that villains have no problem with killing while heroes treat it as an absolute last resort and regret it rather than celebrating it. So my heroes tend not to be violent if they can help it, whereas I can portray villains as absolutely brutal. I don't want to sanitize violence when I do depict it. It should be unpleasant to read about.

Writing scenes in which the protagonists kill willingly and justify it as moral is extremely unpleasant for me. Some of the hardest scenes I've ever had to write in my life were: 1) A scene from Wolverine's POV in my X-Men novel, in which he was mercy-killing members of a town who were slowly dying and then expressing his desire to torture and kill the person responsible; 2) The scenes in Greater Than the Sum in which the members of the Enterprise crew were killing Borg drones in personal combat. It was hard to put myself into those viewpoints. It's different with a villainous character, someone who doesn't really care about life; I can put myself in that character's head for the duration of the scene and not be affected any more than they are. But to imagine what it feels like to care about human life and take it anyway, or to be a basically decent person but be capable of enough hatred to want to torture someone -- that's a very unpleasant place for me to go. So just for the sake of my own peace of mind, I'll probably never write a war story.

I don't find violence particularly entertaining anyway. To me, the most exciting action scenes aren't those that involve death. My favorite action scene in all of Star Trek is the one in ENT: "Divergence" where Enterprise is racing out of control, Columbia has to rendezvous with it at high warp, and Trip has to climb across on a cable between them. It's intensely exciting and nobody's dying -- it's just people solving problems under great tension and urgency, using their wits and courage and skill.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

It's important to me never to depict violence as something casual or desirable, or to depict death without acknowledging the loss. I try not to depict violence or killing as the solution to a problem, or as something without consequences. To me, one of the key things that distinguishes heroes from villains is that villains have no problem with killing while heroes treat it as an absolute last resort and regret it rather than celebrating it. So my heroes tend not to be violent if they can help it, whereas I can portray villains as absolutely brutal. I don't want to sanitize violence when I do depict it. It should be unpleasant to read about.

Writing scenes in which the protagonists kill willingly and justify it as moral is extremely unpleasant for me. Some of the hardest scenes I've ever had to write in my life were: 1) A scene from Wolverine's POV in my X-Men novel, in which he was mercy-killing members of a town who were slowly dying and then expressing his desire to torture and kill the person responsible; 2) The scenes in Greater Than the Sum in which the members of the Enterprise crew were killing Borg drones in personal combat. It was hard to put myself into those viewpoints. It's different with a villainous character, someone who doesn't really care about life; I can put myself in that character's head for the duration of the scene and not be affected any more than they are. But to imagine what it feels like to care about human life and take it anyway, or to be a basically decent person but be capable of enough hatred to want to torture someone -- that's a very unpleasant place for me to go. So just for the sake of my own peace of mind, I'll probably never write a war story.

I don't find violence particularly entertaining anyway. To me, the most exciting action scenes aren't those that involve death. My favorite action scene in all of Star Trek is the one in ENT: "Divergence" where Enterprise is racing out of control, Columbia has to rendezvous with it at high warp, and Trip has to climb across on a cable between them. It's intensely exciting and nobody's dying -- it's just people solving problems under great tension and urgency, using their wits and courage and skill.

Thank you for your response, including with some rather personal information. I really appreciate it. I second your opinion on violence not being particularly entertaining.

 

[captcalhoun]

sex and violence? more please!

 

[Christopher]

It always bugs me when people talk about sex and violence as though they were intrinsically linked or morally equivalent. To me, they're at opposite ends of the moral spectrum.

 

[Lonemagpie]

This is my first new thread!

I was following a thread added recently to the Deep Space Nine forum, about violence in "Blood Oath" and responses to Jadzia's actions in that episode. I replied to it, and am now very thoughtful about violence as portrayed in Trek. Being free from the requirements of a TV show, (often restrictive), the literature line can take a deeper and more complicated view of violence, its effects, aftermath and ultimate meaning (or lack of). How do the authors feel about writing scenes that contain violence? How do they tend to approach this task, which i imagine must be difficult?

Depends. There's a difference between action and violence - you can have either without the other, but when it's action violence, I love it. In fiction. I've been hit by cars, gone through plate glass doors, etc in real life, and I have to tell you, it's an overrated experience.

Spool me some Bond music and coffee, and I'll give you thrilling balletic fight scenes.

OTOH, when it's a scene where it's violence that's going to meaningful and not necessarily actiony, it's a different matter. Have to think more carefully, and psych myself into that.

It all really depends on the demands of the story, and what sort of audience it's for, actually.

How do readers think the modern novels have handled the issue? I know some took exception to the violent rape in "Fearful Symmetry"

Ah well, that's one taken off the to-get list.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

It always bugs me when people talk about sex and violence as though they were intrinsically linked or morally equivalent. To me, they're at opposite ends of the moral spectrum.

Indeed. Isn't Dukat's linking of the two in "Fearful Symmetry" exactly what makes his behaviour- and attitude- so shocking?

 

[Deranged Nasat]

How do readers think the modern novels have handled the issue? I know some took exception to the violent rape in "Fearful Symmetry"

Ah well, that's one taken off the to-get list.

I would point out i very much enjoyed "Fearful Symmetry" and the scene is, in my opinion, handled well and with the right balance between what we see and what we do not. I would recommend the book wholeheartedly, but I am aware some readers didn't like it, which is why I mention it.

 

[captcalhoun]

It always bugs me when people talk about sex and violence as though they were intrinsically linked or morally equivalent. To me, they're at opposite ends of the moral spectrum.

you're not a James Bond fan then?

 

[Christopher]

Well, the way Bond treats sex isn't particularly moral in my opinion.

 

[Jbarney]

If I remember correctly another book which used violence very nicely was Fallen Heroes. I can't remember how each character met their fate, but I do recall that their ends weren't exactly bloodless. The idea that we would see the deaths of most of the characters told with specific details was very interesting to read.

 

[Thestral]

I've always thought Trek action and violence (not the same) were always handled quite well, and this is especially true lately. Seeing the psychological reactions of the characters in the aftermath is especially interesting. One of the grimmer/more horrifying scenes recently (haven't yet read "Fearful Symmetry", so...) was the friendly fire scene in the Destiny trilogy. Seeing that scene from multiple perspectives was chilling, and I really appreciate David Mack showing us how it affected Lonnoc Kedair afterwards. It might be an odd choice, considering the massive death and destruction in that book, but it was very personal.

 

[Marie1]

How do readers think the modern novels have handled the issue? I know some took exception to the violent rape in "Fearful Symmetry"

Ah well, that's one taken off the to-get list.

That book is a pretty good bridge between Warpath and the forthcoming novel.

It isn't (IIRC) that the rape is graphic, it's that it happens. We thought we knew the rapist was a "bad" character... now, there's no doubt.

And even then, that's a brief part of side two, there's still all of side one.

 

[donners22]

It seems rather silly for me to complain about the violence in Trek books. The other two series I read regularly are Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms, and there is no shortage of blood, death and destruction in those. I also love the work of Peter David, and he is certainly capable of some pretty violent scenes.

However, I find that a lot of the violence in modern Trek books just does not work for me. Perhaps I have unfair expectations on them based on the fact that they are Star Trek books, which alone should not necessarily limit their content, but I am quite put off by a lot of what I read.

It doesn't help that several examples have been done for quite poor reasons - whether a sledgehammer Iraq war parallel or a poor attempt at humour based on slash fan fic.

I actually avoided the Myriad Universes books for a while because I thought that some authors would relish the opportunity to gruesomely dispatch or maim certain characters. I was pleasantly surprised to see the first book avoided that for the most part, yet shortly into the second, there's a torture scene.

I think it it is far more interesting where something terrible is conveyed without lurid description, using the reader's imagination to draw the full picture. The TV shows manage to get their point across without graphic depictions of violence. Why is it that the books, which surely invite a far greater use of the reader's imagination and engagement, have to be so unsubtle?

I know I'm in the minority, but it has affected my purchasing habits and reading preferences.

 

[Mike Farley]

I've been hit by cars, gone through plate glass doors, etc in real life, and I have to tell you, it's an overrated experience

Wow. Being a writer in the UK is very different than being one here in the USA.

 

[Trent Roman]

It seems rather silly for me to complain about the violence in Trek books. The other two series I read regularly are Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms, and there is no shortage of blood, death and destruction in those. I also love the work of Peter David, and he is certainly capable of some pretty violent scenes. However, I find that a lot of the violence in modern Trek books just does not work for me. Perhaps I have unfair expectations on them based on the fact that they are Star Trek books, which alone should not necessarily limit their content, but I am quite put off by a lot of what I read.

I think it's perfectly fair to hold different franchises up to different standards, on the basis of premise. If I read a Warhammer or 40K novel, I expect they'll be piles and piles of casualties; ditto BSG or any property which has established violence as one of the fictional universe's underpinnings. When I read Star Trek, however, a rare franchise predicated on optimistic, humanistic values, I expect that violence will be a last resort (or else a misunderstanding that does not cause irreperable harm), that the heroes will do what they can to preserve life--even of their foes, and that more often than not, they will be succesful in their endeavours to save the day to match with the essentially hopeful mode of storytelling in represents.

To me, it's not how graphic the violence is--any murder, any shootout, or ship-to-ship battle can be as bloodless or gory as the author so chooses--but the scale at which violence becomes a driving force in the universe. I've once said that I thought the Dark Passions duology, for instance, was insufficiently dark, because the premise of that universe, even within Star Trek, is built on epistomologies of repression, cruelty and abuse; but such things should not dominate in the main universe because they run against the essential spirit which underpins it. This is one of the reasons I hated the most recent so-called Star Trek film, the perfunctory murder of billions on Vulcan (and tacking on a cheery ending is just ghastly considering they should be in mourning over civilization-level trauma), why I hated the extended, unjustified and irredeemable violation of Janeway in BD, and why I'm having a seriously jaundiced reaction to the devastation taking place in Destiny. Violence cannot and should not be ignored... but in Star Trek, I believe strongly that it should not be the victor, either... which it has been far too often of late.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[JD]

I've been very happy with most of the action and violence in the modern Trek books. IMO it usually stays at the right point between describing what is happening without going into to much detail. As for how I feel about it in general, I'm not a huge fan of gory detailed violence, but if there good reason for the violence, or if the overall story is good enough then I can move past it. This is pretty much the same for books too, and so far I have not run into any Trek books where I did not feel that what was in it was appropriate. As Fearful Symmetry in particular, while I did find the rape to be one of the most disturbing things I've come across in Trek, I was able to accept it since it plays such a big part in the story, which I did really enjoy overall.

Edited to react to Trent: Trust me, if you continue with Destiny and the PD books, you will get to see plenty of reaction and responses to the destruction.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Such things should not dominate in the main universe because they run against the essential spirit which underpins it. This is one of the reasons I hated the most recent so-called Star Trek film, the perfunctory murder of billions on Vulcan (and tacking on a cheery ending is just ghastly considering they should be in mourning over civilization-level trauma), why I hated the extended, unjustified and irredeemable violation of Janeway in BD, and why I'm having a seriously jaundiced reaction to the devastation taking place in Destiny. Violence cannot and should not be ignored... but in Star Trek, I believe strongly that it should not be the victor, either... which it has been far too often of late.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

I also disliked the film, but I loved the "Destiny" trilogy. I believe there is a significant difference between the two. I've argued this issue to death in another thread, so I won't go into detail here, but I feel "Destiny" and the books set in its aftermath have portrayed violence and mass destruction in a sobering, dignified manner, and put much thought into the consequences. "Destiny" didn't simply destroy planets for shock value, it took the logical conclusion to the Federation-Borg conflict and then made sure to acknowledge the suffering and aftermath on the scale of the entire Federation (and beyond), something subsequent books have expanded on. The film, on the other hand (and I acknowledge it is aimed at a general audience, not those who have an in-depth enjoyment of Trek) blew up Vulcan and depicted what was essentially war with Romulans, only for the ending to be happy because Jerk-Kirk (if you'll excuse me...) now has a ship. Woohoo. All it cost was your First Officer's planet and six billion of his people!