Introducing myself properly.
I know, I know, there are getting to know you threads, but what I have to say applies across so many different boards one thread feels confining.
Hi, I'm Penta.
I've posted intermittently on TrekBBS for a while now, but never felt motivated to really introduce myself til now.
I get a lot of questions re my approach to Trek, so I'll explain where I come from.
Before DS9, I was only mildly a Trek fan. It was on TV, I was young enough that I'd watch it...But TNG (I was born in the early 80s and TOS didn't often appear) felt preachy even to 9-10 year-old me. It was too perfect; I could spot holes in fridge logic too easily.
DS9 got me hooked on Trek, it's fair to say. More than DS9, though, was roleplaying.
MUSHes and MOOs, old telnet-based forms of RP, have been my main hobby for well over a decade now. Naturally, in the early 90s, a lot of RP was Trek.
I happily admit that my thoughts on Trek may be heretical, absolutely heretical, to many.
For example, I don't see religion among humans as dead. Decreased in adherence, yes. Even your most devout crewmember aboard a 24th century ship is going to be less devout, by our terms, than the same person might be today. But I do not see the traditional human religions as dead. Hence, I still believe Starfleet could have chaplains, possibly posted to starbases (with lay leaders handling day to day stuff, like aboard USN subs today). Why?
Because to me, it makes the world feel more textured. It enables new perspectives. Fundamentally, to me, it makes for better writing and better roleplay to imagine that.
I believe Starfleet probably does use fighters and bombers and carriers (and am a fan of the concept of the Akira-class as a carrier) - not often, but they have a strategic role. May be absolutely heretical to think of Starfleet being so militaristic, but to me? I may never be backed up by canon, but it opens new possibilities.
Even I waffle about ground forces. But I'm willing to submit they might exist.
Why do I focus on realism, then? What place does realism have in Trek?
I am, at heart, a deep skeptic of the "evolved humanity" idea of TNG. In my personal canon, humans have
not evolved.
They're still, at heart, the same humans we know and...deal with...in our time. They're examples of a possible future. But nothing's really changed in our psychology or sociology.
Which is why I get grumpy when people tell me "But you aren't being futuristic enough!" or similar.
Maybe not. To me, the tech makes Trek sci-fi. All the claims of an enlightened philosophy are fundamentally bullshit, and more often an excuse for decidedly wishful thinking.
States will always act according to the interest. People have morality...But not organizations.
I don't mind my Trek being dark at all.
I was happy when Sisko did what he did in "In the pale moonlight", and Section 31 made me cheer.
Because to me, it represented something special. Trek was losing its naivete.
So...I dunno where to go with this.
Therefore, I'm ending it.
