posted
Okay, here's my most important piece of advise: get a feeling for the characters that you are writing about. If the characters you are writing about are your own creation, then you pretty have free reign with them so far as the actions they perform are not a sudden afront to the readers. In this case, you're writing on characters that were created and developed by someone else. So, you have to try to stay true to those people have in mind for their creations. This is a really tough thing to do unless you have massive writing experience under your belt. Sometimes you can be tempted to have a character act in a way you would or would want him/her to act that goes contrary to every established for them.
Let's use Worf as an example. He's a tradition Klingon who places importance on honor and expects all other Klingons to follow suit. He has low regard for anyone (Klingons or not) who act in dishonorable ways. This resulted in him killing Duras after Duras killed his mate and took his family's honor (TNG's "Sins of the Father" and "Emissary" and "Redemption"). He believes very strongly in the traditional Klingon upbringing and customs that surround his culture. He has oftentimes felt disconnected from his people by having grown up with humans and having his family killed early in his life. This might account for his determination to force himself to adhere to Klingon culture so much. When it comes to his son Alexander, though, he doesn't force him into the Klingon routine. In fact, in an almost human attitude, he lets Alexander choose his own path (although it took the latter seasons of TNG for him to accept this). He values loyalty highly and will remain supportive of his commanding officer, even at times when the orders run contrary to what he feels is right.
This is just the tip of the iceburg for Worf, but you can see that there is a lot more to him than being a warrior. The massive backstory that has been developed for him needs to be taken into account when writing for him. And there are backstories for all of the characters you were writing about. Some are more developed than others, but you can see the direction I'm going, right? I know it'll be impossible to completely catch up on 15 years of modern Trek to write for the characters, but watching a moderate amount of episodes will help you realize the bare minimum of these characters' personalities. It might also be helpful to search for Trek websites that include character biographies so that you can see a list of events in their lives and what effect that they might have had on them. I think StarTrek.com has a bio section somewhere.
Characterization, aside from the plot, is the most important thing to follow through on. Technological snafus and things of that nature are easily forgivable in Star Trek, having flat characters or characters acting in ways that aren't normal for them will cause unrest with the readers. One of the biggest complaints about Voyager was the lack of development for some of the secondary characters and the sometimes schizophrenic nature of Janeway's command decisions. This tended to bug the fans more than the fact that Voyager's hull was always shiney and new-looking.
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
posted
Just to support the guy who wrote all this stuff - we all have to start somewhere, so keep writing as you can only get better with time, effort and practice - look at me, I've been at this for over ten years and still haven't got my first page of my novel written. I keep starting over as I think of new things and new approaches. It's difficult at time and depressing when you think it is a hopeless cause, but constructive criticism from friends and family have helped me along my way. It should be noted that my writing is a hobby and my education has taken priority and first place.
Keep going bubba, you'll make it in the end.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong but on the MSD pic in the back of my DS9 tech manual, doesn't the Defiant have landing pads? If so, why can't a small ship like that land on a planet like Voyager? Or at the very least as small planetary body such as an asteroid moon . . . say, what about the time where the Defiant crashed on a planet and wnet back in time - did it crash or did they manage to land the ship?
-------------------- If you cant convince them, confuse them.
posted
Does anyone now where I can get some DS9 episodes and early Voyager. I got the DS9 Companion and the Encyclopedia and neither has seemed to have helped. I guess I need to actually see it. Thanks for the back up akb1979. Could somebody lock the Scott Bakula thing? Just a thought.
[ July 28, 2001: Message edited by: Dr Phlox ]
-------------------- President Josiah Bartlet: Congratulations. So, who is da man on this one?
Communications Director Toby Ziegler: I think this time we're all collectively da man, sir.
Deputy Communications Director Sam Seaborn: I accidentally slept with a call girl.
Communications Director Toby Ziegler: Accidentally? Did you trip over something? ----------------- The West Wing
Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
akb1979: The master situation diagram in the back of the DS9 tech manual does show some landing struts. However, the implication has always been that they were for the Defiant to land on small asteroids and such with very low gravity and little atmosphere and for landing in starbase hanger bays.
In my mind, it doesn't seem rational for the Defiant to be able to land on a planet. Sure, she may be small enough to do so, but I don't the think the over all design of her lends her to planetary landings. I really wouldn't see it a need for a warship. A troop transport and planetary explorer certainly would benefit as would the saucer sections on separable ships. That's why I give if I assume the Defiant has landing struts then I don't assume it's capable of planetary landing.
The DS9 episode we're all thinking about is "Children of Time" from either the 4th or 5th season. The plot is that when exploring a planet, the Defiant crew encounters their descendants. At this point in the time, the Defiant is supposed to hit a temporal atmospheric anomaly thing and be transported back in time about 200 years where the ship crashes on the planet. The Defiant was said to have crashed because the survivors and descendants used the bulk of the wrecked Defiant to build their homes and stuff.
Dr Phlox: By all means, keep writing and posting your work here. Practice makes perfect and critism is helpful. I've been writing Trek short stories and epics and parodies for many years now. I'm not going to post a lot of the earlier stuff because I don't want to subject anyone to my epic of myself and my high school buddies stealing a Galaxy-class starship to rescue our friends who were on their way to a inter-Federation high school convention/conference/competition. Bare in mind, this relied on a select few of the characters becoming one with Wesley Crusher. Yeah, that story is safely locked away where it will no longer harm anyone.
posted
I'm afraid none are really on tape, unless you get a DVD of the season or something. For now, read the Companion synopsises and go to Star Trek.Com for details. Or, watch UPN and tape some of them with an old tape (they are cheap, I tell ya). Here, though, they don't show DS9!
-------------------- "Lotta people go through life doing things badly. Racing's important to men who do it well. When you're racing, it's life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting."
-Steve McQueen as Michael Delaney, LeMans
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Madison, as in the capital of the Dairy State Dr. Phlox and I live in. They have diiferent stations there, so I guess they would show DS9 every day.
posted
Siegfried: What you've said makes sense. However, I'd like to take another look at the troop deployment aspect. What if there is atmospheric interference that blocks the transporters or even transporter dampers? If the Defiant were carrying troops, then it would need to land to deploy them. Just a thought and other than that I agree with you.
-------------------- If you cant convince them, confuse them.
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
akb1979: Well, any ship that would be responsible for troop deployment would need some sort of backup system in the event that transporters are down or that transporter inhibitors are present. This would be landing the ship or using auxiliary craft to deploy the troops. The Galaxy, Nebula, and Akira classes would make reasonable troop carriers since they are well-armed and apparently possess the capability to launch a large number of shuttles. However, I'd be willing to bet that Starfleet has transports already dedicated to this purpose. What was it, a Deneva or Istanbul class that was carrying 400 colonists when it struck a gravitic mine?
Going back to the Defiant, whether or not she could land on a planet surface really depends on whether one of the purposes she was built for was troop deployment. I don't think she was built for it. Her normal crew complement is around 50, and to fit them in requires the crew (except for senior officers) to share quarters. This ship only has four full decks, and a lot of room is taken up for the engineering and weapons systems. Add in the possibility of maybe 25 to 30 crew quarters, a shuttle bay, the bridge, mess hall, etc. you don't have any room left over for housing troops only they're carrying a squad of maybe 10. And ten troops isn't a heck of a lot to do anything important.
Anyway, that's why I think that the Defiant isn't capable of landing on planets. She's first and foremost a deadly warship. More of her interior is taken up by weapons systems and engineering and operations than for crew quarters. She simply doesn't have the internal volume to house a temporary troop contingent. And if she doesn't have the capacity for deploying troops, then she really doesn't absolutely need the ability to land on planets.
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
posted
Thanks, Shik. My encyclopedia is packed away right now.
And, yes, the Yorkshire-class Denver is capable of transporting a large number of people. If I recall, the Denver was carrying about 400 colonists to settle it (or was it a terraforming mission? I can't remember). She struck a gravitic mine and the Enterprise had to go rescue the survivors. This was "Ethics," and it was the same episode where Worf snapped his spinal cord and screwball doctor with no ethics comes on board and saves him with experimental technology.
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
