Star Trek ideas for fun

We were putting together folders for the AGM chatting about ideas and new Star Trek series. These were some of the ideas we came up with. At the time we were discussing the Islamic State’s continued expansion in the Middle East and potential Western intervention. I had also been listening to a series of podcasts concerning the Mongol conquests of settled civilisations. We both felt the idealisation of the Federation (representing the West) presented in earlier television series felt out of place in today’s world and that Star Trek should explore underlying weaknesses and imperfections.

Afterwards I recorded them my notebook for some relaxing afternoon writing. I used to enjoy coming up with story ideas all the time without having the creative writing skills to realise them. It can be a good practice to start with these simple summaries creating many for fun and to explore your imagination. Anyway here are some of my ideas. Maybe I’ll or someone else will use them for some future fan fiction project.

The Federation turns imperialist. The recent Borg attacks and the Dominion War including the Breen’s attack on Earth have exposed the Federation’s lack of strategic death. Starfleet has become a massively expanded battle fleet. The ongoing breakup of the Romulan Empire creates new threats and opportunities. The Federation Council begins a policy of encouraging migration from the core worlds to the sparsely populated frontier and lays claim to all planets within their borders. This includes those pre-warp civilisations – with whom the Federation promise not to interfere and plan to exclude any outside influences. The species of the core worlds look set to continue their dominance (Humans, Andorians etc). The Federation’s social and economic policy shift towards expansion, internal and external conflicts grow and the newly reorganised Starfleet faces an uncertain future.
Romulan Civil War strains the prime directive. The events of Nemesis have started an horrific civil war within the Empire. The peaceful Federation is war weary and its leadership increasingly facing inwards. The Romulan Empire is dealing with mass migration and militant opponents and proponents of reunification. Terrorist attacks strike across the Empire as its subject people rebel against the weakened central authority. The military’s attempts to reassert control are bloody. Along the neutral zone border Federation governors grow nervous, Romulan warbirds routinely intercept convoys they accuse of smuggling weapons and refugees. The decision of whether or not to intervene is difficult. Some star systems declare independence and request Federation recognition and support. The Starfleet Admiralty is divided over whether they have the moral duty or capacity. The Romulan Empire view such independence movements as terrorists and indeed in some areas second-class non-Romulan subjects of the Empire are imposing revenge oriented nationalist regimes. The Klingon Empire close their borders and mindful of their own populations are poised to back the crumbling Romulan central government at any cost, potentially driving a rift between the Klingon Empire and Federation. The Federation Senate has long been a talking shop subservient to the permanent bureaucracy, it is now divided between the interventionist and anti-interventionist factions which agree that the Federation’s own democratic systems are in need of reform. The quadrant’s empires are deeply suspicious of such democratic tendencies. Will the Federation risk war and the abandonment of the prime directive to impose democracy and other noble policy aims or will it stand by and witness genocide on its own borders.
Alternative origin of the Borg. During the Dominion War the Federation were looking for allies. One such species was the Borg a one system civilisation who have only recently discovered warp drive. They were denied entry into the Federation due to their authoritarianism and the Federation’s attitude to genetic and cybernetic augmentation. The Federation saw little risk in encouraging the Borg to attack outlying Dominion territories. However now the war is over and the Borg have assimilated the territories and technologies they are a growing threat. Although their technological starting base is low by the standards of Alpha Quadrant, they are assimilating new technology at an alarming rate and have an almost religious conviction of their own perfection.
Reemergence. The Federation was lazy, the luxurious and easy life of its post-scarcity, economy didn’t prepare its citizens for the hard realities of the Dominion War. 15 years later the Prean, a migratory species of organic spaceships, cross through Federation space. Despite their technological and military superiority Starfleet is slow and inefficient in responding to the threat. Earth is devastated and only the use of antimatter nova bombs divert the Prean threat. Federation space is further reduced by opportunistic expansion of other Alpha Quadrant powers and local independence movements sometimes spanning multiple systems. The Prean threat continues to reduce interstellar commerce and communication. Once a final resort the use of antimatter nova bombs gradually begin to replace traditional fleet actions. In one case a Starfleet crew refuse their orders to deploy nova bombs – raising the possibility that crews may be replaced with automated ships. Five decades after the devastation of Earth, the Restoration movement on the new Federation capital planet of Aadora seeks to resurrect the infrastructure, ships and ideals of Starfleet.
The Alpha quadrant is on the verge of peace. It is an age of plenty and unprecedented interstellar cultural and economic integration. Following the events of Endgame the Borg threat has been removed and the Dominion War alliance seems to have united the Quadrant’s three major powers, opening up new avenues of trade and cultural exchange. For the Federation’s new build warships have been scrapped and a further 30% are being refitted for scientific duties. The Klingon and Roman empires have agreed to mothball 50% of their own fleets in orbit around designated planets. In return for reconstruction aid the Cardassian Empire transferred significant numbers of numbers of merchant ships and military assets to Bajor. On Romulas Delta (the planet of the Roman Empire’s second solar system) the Federation have established their first embassy. the size of a small city is an economic, cultural, scientific and diplomatic mission. The head of security is newly transferred to the diplomatic service having been a fighter ace during Dominion War. She just wants to see out the last five years of her enlistment and retire to a frontier world. However a catastrophic event changes the face of the galaxy. A massive Omega Particle chain reaction devastates subspace making warp navigation and travel all but impossible throughout the Alpha quadrant. We see the consequences of this. Hope’s position is extremely tenuous and its diplomatic status in doubt as the authorities’ suspect and blame the Federation. Bajor become a major interstellar power as they have sublight access to the wormwhole and thus to unaffected space where warp travel is still possible.. While Star Trek has a positive message that any problem solved through technology, this sometimes manifests in treating technology as magic whose rules can be suspended when convenient to the plot – beaming through the shields anyone? So would be good to see some firm technological boundaries put in place. Perhaps small ships can still still navigate through low warp speeds at great risk – this could open whole new storytelling possibilities, new ways of trading, new ways of waging war, all of which will affect the role of Starfleet and the domestic societies we see. One potential story arc could be of a Federation trade convoy on a routine route when forced out of warp with no knowledge of what’s going on how would they react? At what point will they realise a trip intended to take perhaps a week may now be a multi-generational journey. Perhaps one of the shipowners is a retired Starfleet captain, at what point did they break their secrecy over the Omega Particle? What sort of society would we see begin to form? How would people used to post-scarcity economics fare in a closed system? Would their Federation ideals help or hinder their survival?

Fanfic and religion

What a conservative Christian’s choice to rewrite Harry Potter shows about fandom and religion

This week several newspapers reported that fanfic.net user ‘Grace Ann’, a conservative Christian, is rewriting Harry Potter to remove the magic and bring the story in line with her own values. Grace Ann has posted the first 7 chapters of her fic. All the reporting I’ve seen on this has been pretty disparaging of Hogwarts School of Prayer and Miracles. A bit of digging makes it look like the fic may be Poe but this is by no means clear.

As a liberal, an atheist and a Harry Potter fan, you might think I’d be against seeing one of my favorite pieces of fiction used in this way. But though I probably disagree with her values, I can imagine the appeal Grace sees in writing her own fic.

Even if Grace is a Poe, if she or other fans find the ideas and characters of the Harry Potter story valuable but have problems with other parts, then as a fans they’re welcome to reinterpret the work to reflect that. Just as when I read certain chapters I make mental adjustments to “fix” the original work’s objectively awful Quidditch rules.

Definition: “Fanfiction is when someone takes either the story or characters (or both) of a certain piece of work, whether it be a novel, tv show, movie, etc, and create their own story based on it.”

Fan fiction allows consumers of piece of fiction to take ownership of it. Fan fiction allows people to reinterpret an original work, to explore different themes or ideas and even to reimagine large parts of it to fit with their own values. This can include enhancing elements that the fan feels the original author(s) could have better explored.

What I do find interesting is the purported conversion of a pretty progressive work of fiction to make its values less progressive.

Take for example Hermione Granger; my interpretation of the character is as an important feminist hero in modern popular fiction. Grace Ann has apparently interpreted the character as “so different from the girls in public school who were focused on trying to be like the career women they saw on Sex And The City.”

My interpretation is more in line with the character in the book and my own values. But my interpretation, Grace’s interpretation, a million other fans’ interpretations and even JK Rowling’s interpretation are all in their own way valid.

As long as we all understand we’re talking about a fictional character then there’s the potential to respect and debate each others interpretation. This possibility would not exist with someone who believed that the character was real, or who was willing to use violent or legal means to pressure me into accepting their interpretation.

This brings me to my central idea, that religion can be interpreted as a form of organised fandom. Most religions have a central conon with large mythical / fictional elements along with a host of other ideas and writings inspired by the central cannon. Appreciation for and interpretation of this cannon is a form of fandom which can heavily influence the lives of fans / followers.

If you were to ask most Christians in the West in 2014 to describe Jesus you’d get a very different interpretation of the character than you’d get in 15th century Europe. This interpretation would to varying degrees be based on some elements of the character as portrayed in the Bible while lacking or minimising other elements.

Over time different interpretations of characters become more or less accepted. For example almost all Christians today would say that Jesus opposed slavery. But Christians a few centuries ago may have been more likely to hold to an interpretation of the Jesus character in the Bible explicitly endorses it.

Some Christians would focus on the elements of the Jesus character which stress love and forgiveness. Others, just as validly, would interpret the Jesus character based on the elements that stress conservatism and obedience.

There are four are characteristics that healthy fandoms tend to have:

Fans recognise when the object of their fandom is a work of fiction. But that works of fiction are valuable ways of exploring questions about reality.
Fans recognise the validity of other fan’s interpretations. Despite disagreements, there’s no such thing as apostasy
Fans recognise flaws in the original work and that the author(s) are not infallible.
Fans’ enjoyment of a work is not reliant on forcing others to think the same.

Unfortunately religion, by in large, lends itself to an unhealthy form of fandom because it generally speaking fails these four characteristics.

The problem does not lie with the falsehood or immorality of large elements of the major religions. The problem lies with the inability of elements of the religion’s fans to honestly recognise this. The little moral worth we find in the Bible (and the larger amount of moral worth we find in other Christian inspired writing) would be more accessible, not diminished, if Christians could accept the fictitious nature of the Bible.

Religions’ fans divide themselves constantly over their different interpretations of Gods and holy books. Many religious parents exercise (and often expect the state to exercise) dogmatic control over their children’s education and experiences to try and ensure that they grow up with the ‘correct’ interpretation.

The process of religious reform would be far smoother and more fruitful if religions’ fans were to be more honest with themselves and others about the flaws in the religion. For example progressive Christians, Muslims and Jews who use religious arguments to support the equality of women and gay rights would be much better off just admitting that their holy books got these questions wrong, but that this doesn’t mean they got everything wrong.

Finally religious fandoms almost always seek privileged status. Not content to draw inspiration for themselves from religious ideas, the fans of religion believe that the laws and values of whole societies should also draw their inspiration from the same source.

Harry Potter and indeed most popular modern fiction is inherently more likely to lend itself to healthy fandoms than religious fiction. Its creator, characters and consumers are products of an enlightened society.

It is unlikely that anyone who has read a Harry Potter book is could possibly be as ignorant of the world as the authors of the Bible. Even if we except that the authors of the Bible made a genuine attempt to explain the world and morality to the best of their knowledge, they had the bad luck to be born when they were. Through no special talent of our own, Harry Potter fans have been born into an enlightened society and gained the skills to understand to various degrees and engage with a work of fiction.

TV tropes vs. skeptics

“You’re a bad person for not supporting my irrational beliefs.”

For a while now I’ve wanted to address some of the common tropes used to represent sceptics and atheists on television. The purpose of this is not to pick on isolated examples, I don’t think using stereotypes is always completely wrong and I don’t expect every representation of a group I identify with to always be positive. But, I want to address some common tropes which send harmful messages and maintain the social privileged position of certain irrational beliefs.

I’ve picked three examples here because they’ve all come up in some of my favourite sitcoms recently and annoyed me, not because of the individual storyline or characters but because of their underlying message.

The basic trope is this: Character A holds some irrational or Woo-based belief, which is not shared / wholly supported by Character B. Character B is represented as the bad-guy or closed-minded and by the end of the episode the audience is expected to feel either angry at Character B for their closed mindedness or sorry for them not having a sense of magic / imagination. Character A is usually female, because you know how those women are irrational, and magic pixie dream-girl’s only exist to teach rational men lessons.

Big Bang Theory S3E10: The Psychic Vortex

Penny reveals that she has cut her hair on the advice of her “psychic” Leonard cannot help but laugh at this objectively stupid idea. This breaks the social taboo on criticising (privileged) irrational beliefs and leads to an argument. Penny accuses Leonard of being closed-minded and belittling her. His desire to prevent someone he cares about being exploited by a charlatan is represented as “obnoxious”. Leonard is pressured to be “open-minded” by visiting the “psychic” but Penny refuses to be open minded enough to read a book sceptical of psychics Leonard suggesting this is again presented as “obnoxious”.

Raising Hope S4E19: Para-Natesville Activity

“Virginia stops believing in magical things” and as a result becomes depressed and loses meaning in her life. Through various antics her husband Burt helps rekindle her belief in ghosts, eventually he also becomes a believer and this is meant to be seen by the audience as a positive outcome. Eventually the low income family decide to resume spending large amounts of money on the lottery.

How I Met Your Mother S7E13: Tailgate

This at least bend the stereotype by making a male character the irrational one and a female one the sceptic. Basically Marshal has a large number of supernatural and conspiratorial beliefs that have been passed down from his father and he wishes to pass on to his and Lily’s child in order to ensure they have a sense of magic. Lilly confesses that she is jealous of Marshal’s farther teaching him to believe in “a magical universe” while her own absentee father taught her to “only believe in herself”. The audience are meant to feel sorry for Lilly for not believing in the stuff that Marshal does and happy that at the end of the episode the agree to raise their child with his beliefs.

This trope sends three negative messages. Firstly that believing in things without evidence is open minded, while basing your beliefs in evidence is closed minded. This attitude privileges credulity and socially stigmatises the sceptical.

Secondly it reinforces the idea that being disillusioned of false beliefs is always/mostly a negative experience. This can pressure sceptics not to challenge irrational beliefs and paints outspoken sceptics as bad people. This denies the vast range of positive experiences people can have through embracing reality and can leave many people afraid to challenge their own irrational beliefs.

Thirdly it sends the message that having a sense of wonder or magic requires holding irrational beliefs. This can cause people to cling to irrational beliefs rather than embracing the far grander magic of reality. It is also something that many sceptics (and in particular atheists) find insulting and demeaning. We are regularly socially shamed and told that we have something missing from our lives.

Each of these messages have real-world consequences which can range from the trivially annoying to the really quite hurtful and damaging. How patronising is it to be told by friends and strangers that there’s something missing from your life? Is it good for social pressure and not wanting to be stigmatised as closed-minded to protect bad ideas from criticism? Is the world made more magical by relationships breaking down because one partner want’s to protect another from being taken advantage of by charlatans?

I love sit-coms, I think they are a good way to explore life. I like good cooky characters and good surreal or supernatural storylines and making fun out of a sceptical or atheist character can be funny. But I don’t expect it to be lazy and I don’t expect it to be used as an excuse to shame or stigmatise people who base their beliefs on evidence.