Star Trek Strange New Worlds, what did you think?

[Umbran]

The twist is, the Federation exists because of it's dark side. A couple of handfulls of people "do the dark deeds", so the whole Federation can honeslty claim to be good.

Yeah, except, the idea that this must be done runs against Roddenberry's optimistic vision. Section 31 can go soak its collective head.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

To me the problem with Section 31, as a plot element, is that espionage plots in imagined universes are just intrinsically both a little lame and a minor violation of trust between author and audience.

A lot of what makes espionage plots set in the real world compelling is that they play a game of recontextualizing our understanding of the world, and revealing a secret reality behind our actual reality and our assumptions about it. Espionage in an imagined universe is revealing the truth behind the lies the author told us and the assumptions they put in our head, which makes the reveals feel a lot cheaper and unearned.

I won't try to tell people who say their dislike of Section 31 is because it betrays the optimism of the Federation or whatever that they are wrong, but I will put it to them that they might also partly just be put-off by the more basic aspect that "what we told you was one thing was all secretly something else" narratives in fictional universes intrinsically wear on the trust between author and audience. The fact that in something like Star Trek there is a panoply of authors means that issues of violating another author's vision also arise.

Which is not to say espionage plots in an imagined universe can't be awesome, but just to say that they are not as intrinsically interesting as spy fiction set in some approximation of the real world, and can infringe on the trust that our authors are playing straight with us. The authors of Section 31 episodes I've seen don't seem to realize this. Nor, I think, does whoever thinks that a Section 31 show is a good idea (much less a good idea in a world that still hasn't given me my damned Captain Worf show!)

 

[Ondath]

I won't try to tell people who say their dislike of Section 31 is because it betrays the optimism of the Federation or whatever that they are wrong, but I will put it to them that they might also partly just be put-off by the more basic aspect that "what we told you was one thing was all secretly something else" narratives in fictional universes intrinsically wear on the trust between author and audience. The fact that in something like Star Trek there is a panoply of authors means that issues of violating another author's vision also arise.

I don't think it's about Section 31 stories betraying the trust we placed on the authors about the plot (i.e., the story that's being told), it's more that they betray the trust we placed on the main premise. The whole point of Star Trek (not its storyline, but the whole high concept behind it) is that it imagines a universe where humanity has finally dealt with some of its species-wide immaturities and got better. In the 60s, this led to imagining a black woman taking an officer role in the flagship of the Starfleet. In TNG, this took the shape of living in a post-scarcity society. From what I understand (still haven't gotten around to watching it), DS9 puts these ideals to the test by placing them in an environment where upholding them won't be easy, but it still respects the idea that humanity has gone beyond these tendencies to scheme and act selfishly to the best of its ability.

Section 31, on the other hand, argues that this high concept wasn't true at all. Humanity never got beyond these tendencies, it just hid them better. The problem isn't that such a scenario isn't more plausible in the show's setting, it's that it completely defeats the purpose of why we're listening to these stories in the first place.

So yeah, seconding @Umbran to say that Section 31 can go soak its collective head.

 

[Ryujin]

Whether you think that the concept of Section 31 betrays the trust between author and audience, or betrays the concept of The Federation, is largely just a semantic difference of opinion. In both cases the concept that the universe is based upon is violated.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

How to do espionage stories without betraying high moral principles is a challenge for writers.

Not avoiding challenging situations is an example of a high moral principle.

 

[Ondath]

How to do espionage stories without betraying high moral principles is a challenge for writers.

Not avoiding challenging situations is an example of a high moral principle.

Absolutely, though from what I understand Section 31's main issue is completely abandoning high moral principles in order to do espionage stories. But telling an espionage story in order to see how the high moral principles survive challenging situations is completely fine (and isn't that also the premise of DS9?).

 

[Ryujin]

Absolutely, though from what I understand Section 31's main issue is completely abandoning high moral principles in order to do espionage stories. But telling an espionage story in order to see how the high moral principles survive challenging situations is completely fine (and isn't that also the premise of DS9?).

One of DS9's greatest stories, was about precisely that: Does Cicso abandon his morals for a single act, in defence of the Federation? "It's a faaaaaaake!" It showed the slippery slope of one compromise after another, to get where he ultimately did. OTOH Section 31 stories seem to be largely about horrible people, doing terrible things, in a virtual Utopia.

 

[Stalker0]

One of DS9's greatest stories, was about precisely that: Does Cicso abandon his morals for a single act, in defence of the Federation? "It's a faaaaaaake!" It showed the slippery slope of one compromise after another, to get where he ultimately did. OTOH Section 31 stories seem to be largely about horrible people, doing terrible things, in a virtual Utopia.

Agreed, in comparison Section 31 stories seem quaint. There are enough high stakes scenarios that can test morales to make interesting stories, you don't have to start with the fundamental "we just do whatever we need to to get the job done"

 

[Ryujin]

Agreed, in comparison Section 31 stories seem quaint. There are enough high stakes scenarios that can test morales to make interesting stories, you don't have to start with the fundamental "we just do whatever we need to to get the job done"

Back in Roddenberry's day, Cisco's story would have never been permitted. While I mostly like the playbook that he wrote, it shouldn't have been an absolute straight jacket.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

No matter how many times you (or characters on the show) repeat it, I ain't gonna believe it. Ducks, etc.

I am torn on this issue, but I think, primarily Starfleet is Starfleet.
If it wants to, it's an exploration operation that does things purely for scientific purposes even if no sane military in the world would ever do it, or do it like that.
If it wants to, it's a military organization that will blow your naughty word up if you don't sign that good damn peace treaty already.