Star Trek Picard and Trek Taking on Modern Politics

[Deledrius]

In the Culture books, another moneyless, post scarcity economy, people mostly live on orbitals and on city ships which allows them to have essentially unlimited living space as the things are built to need. We cannot all have mansions with vineyards on a planet surface because there simply is no room which is why a truly fair communist world would have us living in Soviet style concrete blocks. Iain M Banks was always a step above your average Trek writer God bless him.

Trek often tries to have things both ways, and it very nearly works when we're just told instead of shown.

[Riedquat]

In the Culture books, another moneyless, post scarcity economy, people mostly live on orbitals and on city ships which allows them to have essentially unlimited living space as the things are built to need. We cannot all have mansions with vineyards on a planet surface because there simply is no room which is why a truly fair communist world would have us living in Soviet style concrete blocks. Iain M Banks was always a step above your average Trek writer God bless him.

And that's all a setting which should really have zero storytelling potential yet he managed, and managed well. There were also a few characters who criticised the Culture without being set up as strawmen to say how wonderful it was (even if some of them were the villains).

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I like the refugee overlay of the Romulans.

[clearspira]

In the Culture books, another moneyless, post scarcity economy, people mostly live on orbitals and on city ships which allows them to have essentially unlimited living space as the things are built to need. We cannot all have mansions with vineyards on a planet surface because there simply is no room which is why a truly fair communist world would have us living in Soviet style concrete blocks. Iain M Banks was always a step above your average Trek writer God bless him.

And that's all a setting which should really have zero storytelling potential yet he managed, and managed well. There were also a few characters who criticised the Culture without being set up as strawmen to say how wonderful it was (even if some of them were the villains).

I would liken writing about the Culture to writing about Superman: both are insanely overpowered to the point of being near enough invincible and both have enough abilities to put an actual Greek god to shame. In such a scenario, creating stories that actually have stakes and which don't resort to deus ex machina or cliche is a very complicated task. And I think both Banks and the best Superman writers have taken the same approach: what does it ''mean'' to be a member of the Culture/an invincible alien? What does it ''mean'' to those people who interact with them? What does it ''mean'' in the context of the real world?

In terms of people criticising the Culture, I though the first book ''Consider Phlebas'' was easily the most interesting argument that Banks put forth. The lead character's reasoning for fighting in a war against the Culture and siding with the objectively evil side is that whilst the Culture is basically one of the freest places imaginable, it is impossible to ever actually reach the top unless you are an AI. It is the Minds who run the Culture, not the humans. This is by the simple fact that AIs are just flat out superior to us rather than anything malicious, but nevertheless, your freedoms are actually at their behest. The Idirans on the other hand were all about the organics having true free will and having control over their own lives.

[excalibur]

I find Raffi basically living in a trailer park vaping to be just...odd. She makes it seemed like Picard is more well off than her considering they are both humans living on Earth where anyone can have a life of luxury. It's paradise according to all other series. So this means Raffi chose to live a life of isolation and basically squalor and being real bitter to Picard despite the fact that he was sticking to his principle by resigning. It wasn't his fault that for some reason Starflet booted her out and she should know this.

Also, who else found it cringy when Picard is referred to by a subordinate by a nickname? Starfleet isn't a club house where you can give your boss colorful nicknames. None of Picards former subordinates ever called him a nickname in his face or in private. At most in serious situations, they'd call him Jean Luc.

Also reminding us that Starfleet pretends to be a military organization because Raffi's hair 14 years ago is no where in regulation. It's not as ridiculous as her afro in the comics. It's nice to know whoever does character design assumes a person of color must have a hair style that stereotypical to their people of a particular era even in a work environment that requires regulations on grooming standards. It's eye rolling.

Starfleet also wouldn't "fire" her under such circumstances, she committed no crime and broke no regulations. At worst she should have been re-assigned to some dead-end post, if anything discharging her without cause could be used to create a further media storm. It's almost like the writers treated this as a corporate job instead of a military organisation. None of this makes any sense, nor does it relate in anyway to Star Trek, but that's what happens when you all your writers aren't sci-fi or Star Trek fans.

The interview in episode 1 didn't even bring up that fact. You would think the reporter who's trying to get specific answers out of Picard would have mentioned his resignation had directly led to several other officers getting the boot.

As I said, this show reminds us how writers pretend Starfleet is a military but really fails on acting like one.

I remember reading somewhere that the writers of this show did not in fact watch any previous Trek...which would explain a lot. They looked at wikia articles and infer some stuff without actually experiencing it

[Riedquat]

I would liken writing about the Culture to writing about Superman: both are insanely overpowered to the point of being near enough invincible and both have enough abilities to put an actual Greek god to shame. In such a scenario, creating stories that actually have stakes and which don't resort to deus ex machina or cliche is a very complicated task. And I think both Banks and the best Superman writers have taken the same approach: what does it ''mean'' to be a member of the Culture/an invincible alien? What does it ''mean'' to those people who interact with them? What does it ''mean'' in the context of the real world?

I hadn't thought of it like that but I definitely see where you're coming from.

In terms of people criticising the Culture, I though the first book ''Consider Phlebas'' was easily the most interesting argument that Banks put forth. The lead character's reasoning for fighting in a war against the Culture and siding with the objectively evil side is that whilst the Culture is basically one of the freest places imaginable, it is impossible to ever actually reach the top unless you are an AI. It is the Minds who run the Culture, not the humans. This is by the simple fact that AIs are just flat out superior to us rather than anything malicious, but nevertheless, your freedoms are actually at their behest. The Idirans on the other hand were all about the organics having true free will and having control over their own lives.

A reasoning I share to a degree (although not the point I'd aid the Idirans), and really plays towards me not being Mr Enthusiastic about technological advancement in general. I suppose the Culture feels like a gilded cage - the organics in it really do feel a bit like pets, even with no ill-will or looking down on by the Minds (with one or two minor exceptions).

I found Consider Phlebas a bit of an odd one, it felt rather more like standard space opera instead of a Culture novel.

[clearspira]

I would liken writing about the Culture to writing about Superman: both are insanely overpowered to the point of being near enough invincible and both have enough abilities to put an actual Greek god to shame. In such a scenario, creating stories that actually have stakes and which don't resort to deus ex machina or cliche is a very complicated task. And I think both Banks and the best Superman writers have taken the same approach: what does it ''mean'' to be a member of the Culture/an invincible alien? What does it ''mean'' to those people who interact with them? What does it ''mean'' in the context of the real world?

I hadn't thought of it like that but I definitely see where you're coming from.

In terms of people criticising the Culture, I though the first book ''Consider Phlebas'' was easily the most interesting argument that Banks put forth. The lead character's reasoning for fighting in a war against the Culture and siding with the objectively evil side is that whilst the Culture is basically one of the freest places imaginable, it is impossible to ever actually reach the top unless you are an AI. It is the Minds who run the Culture, not the humans. This is by the simple fact that AIs are just flat out superior to us rather than anything malicious, but nevertheless, your freedoms are actually at their behest. The Idirans on the other hand were all about the organics having true free will and having control over their own lives.

A reasoning I share to a degree (although not the point I'd aid the Idirans), and really plays towards me not being Mr Enthusiastic about technological advancement in general. I suppose the Culture feels like a gilded cage - the organics in it really do feel a bit like pets, even with no ill-will or looking down on by the Minds (with one or two minor exceptions).

I found Consider Phlebas a bit of an odd one, it felt rather more like standard space opera instead of a Culture novel.

Honestly, I think the way the Minds treat the humans is probably our future - far more realistic imo than something akin to the Terminator. The gap between us and the machines is already impassable and they aren't even alive yet.

Yeah, early instalment weirdness very much applies to CP. I wonder if at the time he was actually intending to make a series out of the Culture or whether it was originally meant to be a stand alone book. It is very self-contained either way.

[Riedquat]

Honestly, I think the way the Minds treat the humans is probably our future - far more realistic imo than something akin to the Terminator. The gap between us and the machines is already impassable and they aren't even alive yet.

I don't know about that as of now, machines have certain specialist uses where that's the case but that's always been the case since the lever and wheel were invented, as it stands now though most "AI" (which isn't AI in the way science fiction paints it) is pointless replacement of humans for no sensible reason ("good for the economy innit!") But you're probably right about the future, but then I find most visions of the future, both short-term realistic and long-term into science fiction territory downright depressing even when they're trying to be the opposite.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Jeri Ryan liked one of my tweets regarding 7/9 on Picard. edit: actually the tweet has no recorded likes on itself. Maybe it was unliked.

Also Icheb follows me.

[clearspira]

Jeri Ryan liked one of my tweets regarding 7/9 on Picard. edit: actually the tweet has no recorded likes on itself. Maybe it was unliked.

Also Icheb follows me.

What is your Twitter name?