Eminence said:
Brennyren said:[/i]
This is how I see it: you can justify the lack of conflict and the lack of any real desperation on Voyager any way you like, but at the end of the day, the question has to be: if there is no conflict amongst the crew, if there is no desperation in Voyager's situation, then what, exactly, is it that distinguishes VOY from every other Star Trek series? And the answer, I think, is "not much."
To amplify: What is the point of combining Maquis and Starfleet crews if (except, of course, for the annual "Maquis episode") everybody gets along just fine from the get-go? Might as well make it an all-Starfleet crew in that case. And what is the point of stranding Voyager away from its chain of command and its supply lines if a) being away from the chain of command isn't going to change the way the ship is run (they're still true-blue Starfleet) and b) the crew is not going to have to find any alternate sources of supplies? Might as well leave them in the Alpha Quadrant.
What is the point of introducing differences in the premise if they're not going to have any effect in the execution? Again, I say: not much. Everything that could and should have made VOY daring and unique was frittered away in favor of everything that made it safe and familiar -- and that's a real shame.
One thing I have often wondered about society is when and where in our history did "being different" become such an important metric of being "good", or "worthwhile, or "of quality"??!! Historically, the importance of being different was passionately defended against forces of hegemony, against forces of universalization and normalization, because at the time, they sought to paint "different" as "inferior, less important". It was vital to defend differences so as to ensure equality WITH plurality in our society.
But somewhere along the way, what was "regular", what was "usual" or "ideal", started to become attacked, for not being "different enough". A whole new force of universalization came to be, only this time, being different was considered properly normal. And when these agents of "difference" began such an attack on the fold, they too began perpetuating the same injustice to which they cried foul before.
I start out talking about storytelling values and the next thing I know I'm a symptom of what you see as being wrong with contemporary society -- and I'm supposedly advocating a point of view I don't even agree with. ::
:: Teach
me to shut down the computer and go to bed!
The only answer I can offer to this,
Eminence, is that I really don't think saying that VOY should have exploited its premise for facets that would make it unique is quite the same thing as saying whoa! let's eliminate every traditional value, ideal, and standard of normalcy in society. Nothing I said suggested I was an advocate of anarchy. And I am not. Indeed there are some traditional values and ideals I might quarrel with, and I could happily debate all day on what constitutes "normalcy," but this forum really isn't the place for that. I was, and am, discussing storytelling. And on a storytelling level, I say: telling the same story over and over again gets old.
It is a sad turn of events in our sociology, and it is this same sort of attack that I see from Brennyren now, against Star Trek Voyager.
When a thread's titled "What would have improved Voyager?", I don't think that my presenting a reasoned (though admittedly intense) argument on what I think would have improved VOY really ought to be considered an attack.
Voyager was an exploration, an Exam of Starfleet Ideals. The point of the show was to display what can be accomplished when the crew does their level best to maintain those ideals--and boy did they do a great job.
Of course, maintaining your ideals is a whole lot more impressive if you're in situations where they're challenged. To suggest a few examples: we believe in not interfering with the cultural development of a aociety, but what happens when we see a society that, say, enslaves women or children? It would take a hard heart indeed to not be even slightly tempted to interfere, especially if one actually sees these abuses taking place. We believe that it's wrong to trade technology to people who aren't ready for it, but what do we do if that's the only thing they want in exchange for a food or mineral we need for survival? Are we at least tempted? Even when Sam Wildman comes to the bridge and says Naomi is hungry?
When Janeway was excoriating Ransom and the
Equinox about how one doesn't abandon Starfleet ideals under trial, wouldn't her words have been much more meaningful if she had faced similar trials and not succumbed to temptation? But she hadn't, and so she came off as being more than a little self-righteous -- and possibly with shades of recoiling from the notion that, there but for the grace of damned good luck might be her?
As I said upthread, I'm not advocating dystopianism or abandonment of Trek ideals. What I would have like to see was those ideals being tested and surviving.
That's what would prove they're strong -- not the assumption that they're never to be questioned.
One other thing to note also is that...If in fact your ideals are really and truly strong, then they probably won't come into question all that much! Usually people who end up in moral conundrums tend to be less firm in the belief of their morals to begin with.
Unless you have some stats to back that up, that's an assertion and an opinion. I could -- and do -- as easily say that never questioning your ideals, moral views, and values implies a lack of thought and imagination. And again, a lack of situations in which your ideals are challenged. If I say I'm opposed to theft, but then am tempted to steal when I have no money and my child is hungry, that doesn't mean my morals aren't strong -- it means I have two values coming into conflict. But if,
despite being tempted, I don't steal but struggle hard to find another solution, then that's the proof that I really don't believe in theft. Not in never facing temptation, but in surmounting it.
Maybe Sisko's loyalty to the Starfleet way and the Federation's ideals just wasn't as strong as Janeway's?
The only reason I cited Sisko's actions at all is because he was being cited as an authority on the moral values of Federation citizens and ex-citizens. Surely his opinion on the subject may be called into question if he doesn't consistently practice those same values himself?
You draw allusions to DS9,
Actually, most of my comments on DS9 were responses to DS9 references upthread. As for the quotation, "It's easy to be a saint in paradise" (I'm not sure who said it -- Cal Hudson, maybe?), it simply seemed appropriate.
but remember this: DS9 had a war going on. Much of DS9's "differences" from other ST series that you cite are a direct result of that war storyline--take that out, and DS9 is pretty much like any other ST show--watch one of the non-war episodes (early Seasons, for example) to see evidence of this.
Some differences I cited had nothing to do with the war storyline. Sisko always had less complete control of the station than another captain might have had over a ship -- he had civilian authorities to deal with, he had ships and traders coming and going who didn't feel obligated to do as he said, he had foreign (including non-Feddie) nationals on board. He had Cardassian technologies and traps, and the ever-looming presence of Gul Dukat. DS9 always dealt more with religion than any other Trek. In the very first episode Sisko figured in a religious prophecy, and that colored his dealings with many other characters throughout the series. Can you picture something like that happening on another Trek series, as anything more than a one-episode wonder?
For you to expect then, the same level of "difference" from the Federation ideal on Voyager is a bit silly -- Voyager, obviously, couldn't wage war against an entire quadrant!
Who's asking them to?
Further, I for one, would hope that humans wouldn't devolve into the type of moral ambiguity seen on DS9 just because they were far from home?!! I think our ideals are made of much sterner stuff.
Actually, I do too. But I would have liked to see those ideals survive the kinds of situations that would have made adhering to them difficult. And that never happened.
I stand by my assertion:
Voyager's crew were, for the most part, presented as being "saints in paradise." How is it an attack, that I thought they could be more?
