William Leisner on "Losing the Peace"

[danjamesb]

Defcon's latest interview is up at Unreality-SF.net.

He talks to Trek author William Leisner about the upcoming TNG book Losing the Peace ("it would probably best be described as a transitional story, providing a kind of epilogue to Destiny, and establishing the new status quo in the Federation and aboard the Enterprise"), the possibility of books based on the new Trek XI timeline ("any 'new Trek' stories should get down to basic storytelling that will stand on its own, no matter if the reader pictures Kirk as Chris Pine or William Shatner"), and also discusses Bill's online persona, and the demise of the Trek eBook line.

C'est ici.

 

[Paris]

Thanks for posting the interview, danjamesb. It was great Now I really can't wait for Losing the Peace to come out in July . All of the post-Destiny literature has been good, and i'm sure William's LtP won't be the exception

 

[JD]

Nice, thanks for sharing. I really enjoy the more character based stories, so I'm definitely looking forward LoP now.

 

[Bain Sidhe]

Oh, this sounds fabulous! The reason I read Treklit at all is to keep on following my favorite characters. As wonderful as Destiny was, a quieter character-driven work is exactly what I'm in the mood for. I'm anticipating this even more now!

Edit: I'm very happy that there is a significant Beverly subplot - she was criminally underutilized in the films. That said, I hope the allusions to Jack mean that she's finally burying his ghost once and for all. I understand and appreciate the history with Jack, but it's time to move on. (And I really hope they don't name their kid after him. That'd just be creepy.)

 

[Sci]

Edit: I'm very happy that there is a significant Beverly subplot - she was criminally underutilized in the films. That said, I hope the allusions to Jack mean that she's finally burying his ghost once and for all. I understand and appreciate the history with Jack, but it's time to move on. (And I really hope they don't name their kid after him. That'd just be creepy.)

Why would that be creepy? They both loved him. He was Beverly's first husband, and Picard's best friend. He's been dead twenty-some years, Picard and Beverly didn't get married until decades afterwords. Where's the creepitude?

 

[JB2005]

I can't really see it myself, because it's an old British tradition to name your children after friends and family (dead or otherwise.) Calling him Jack would be a way of honouring the friend/husband they lost.

 

[Sci]

I can't really see it myself, because it's an old British tradition to name your children after friends and family (dead or otherwise.) Calling him Jack would be a way of honouring the friend/husband they lost.

I'm fairly certain it's an old tradition, period, across many different cultures.

 

[JB2005]

Sorry just realised how that sounded!

I wasn't trying to say it was limited to Britain, I was just speaking of experience around here. It's always been a typical thing in this part of the world (but is and has been no doubt in other places too)

 

[Sci]

Sorry just realised how that sounded!

I wasn't trying to say it was limited to Britain, I was just speaking of experience around here. It's always been a typical thing in this part of the world (but is and has been no doubt in other places too)

I gotcha, no worries.

And either way, it wouldn't be creepy for Picard and Crusher to name their child after Jack.

 

[Bain Sidhe]

I just think the specific history there would make it very weird to name their son after Jack - it's not like he's an old family friend. Sure, it's an old tradition to name kids after loved friends/family members, but Jack's not just any old friend or family member. He was Beverly's first *husband*. How many kids are named after their mom's first husbands? Who just so happened to be their father's best friend - while Mom was married to said first husband? It'd just be really awkward, for all involved.

 

[Sci]

I just think the specific history there would make it very weird to name their son after Jack - it's not like he's an old family friend. Sure, it's an old tradition to name kids after loved friends/family members, but Jack's not just any old friend or family member. He was Beverly's first *husband*. How many kids are named after their mom's first husbands? Who just so happened to be their father's best friend - while Mom was married to said first husband? It'd just be really awkward, for all involved.

Oh, come on. Picard and Beverly are adults, not teenagers or awkward college students. They're both mature enough to accept that there's room in Beverly's heart for two true loves in her life, and they're both mature enough to accept that Jack was a wonderful, important person in both of their lives whom they both loved. It would be honoring his memory.

 

[William Leisner]

I hope the allusions to Jack mean that she's finally burying his ghost once and for all. I understand and appreciate the history with Jack, but it's time to move on.

Curious comment, since I believe Beverly had moved on well before we met her at Farpoint Station. Remember, she was the one who requested to serve under Picard on the E-D, and Jean-Luc who balked, projecting his uneasiness onto her. And, without pulling my DVD with "Attached" out right now, I'm pretty sure Picard was the only one who used Jack as an excuse for having never pursued the relationship. Meanwhile, Beverly was getting busy with Trills and ghosts, and acting for all the world like she'd finished mourning a decade or so earlier.

I'll be very curious to see the reactions to the Beverly storyline once the book comes out.

 

[Bain Sidhe]

Oh, come on. Picard and Beverly are adults, not teenagers or awkward college students. They're both mature enough to accept that there's room in Beverly's heart for two true loves in her life, and they're both mature enough to accept that Jack was a wonderful, important person in both of their lives whom they both loved. It would be honoring his memory.

Not sure what their age has to do with it, and I still think it's creepy for Picard and Beverly to name their kid after the other "love of her life." It does not follow that to love and honor his memory they have to name their kid after him. If anything, they should name their kid after Data, who gave his life so that Picard would live in Nemesis. (Let's hope they don't do that, either.)

But either way, this is just my opinion; you're obviously free to disagree.

 

[Bain Sidhe]

William: I guess I'm picking up on all the mentions of Jack in some of the relaunch books. I think Jack is mentioned in all of them whenever Beverly's POV picks up, and while I understand where she's coming from, it just seems like she still broods about Jack a lot. Again, I understand the importance of his character in both her and Picard's pasts, but I'm kind of ready for his ghost to be laid to rest. YMMV, of course.

Either way, I'm excited to see what you've done with Beverly and with the whole crew in general; I've been waiting for this book since I finished up Destiny.

 

[Sci]

Oh, come on. Picard and Beverly are adults, not teenagers or awkward college students. They're both mature enough to accept that there's room in Beverly's heart for two true loves in her life, and they're both mature enough to accept that Jack was a wonderful, important person in both of their lives whom they both loved. It would be honoring his memory.

Not sure what their age has to do with it,

Because it would be incredibly immature to think it "creepy" to name their son after Jack.

and I still think it's creepy for Picard and Beverly to name their kid after the other "love of her life."

Why?

He's dead. Dead for decades at this point. It's not like he's gonna get jealous, and it's not like Beverly is cheating on him. Unless you're going to argue that a spouse should never re-marry after his/her spouse has died, there's no rational reason to find it the least bit objectionable.

It does not follow that to love and honor his memory they have to name their kid after him.

I did not say that they would have to name their child after Jack in order to love and honor his memory. I said it was an option to express their love for him and to honor his memory. It is a sufficient condition, not a necessary condition.

If anything, they should name their kid after Data, who gave his life so that Picard would live in Nemesis. (Let's hope they don't do that, either.)

I see no particular reason to find that idea objectionable, either.

 

[Stevil2001]

I think "Data Picard" would be awesomest name the little kid could have. Is there time to change the manuscript Bill?

 

[LaBarre]

Calling him Jack would be a way of honouring the friend/husband they lost.

Maybe, but I think that it would come across to the reader as just too corny and obvious - more in the realm of a fanfic choice than anything else.

We'll just have to wait and see and of course it doesn't seem as if junior will make his appearance in Bill's book, so we have plenty of time to ponder.

I'm also very happy to see from the interview that this will be a more "domestic," character-driven book, and thank God that an author has decided to give Beverly something substantial to do in her own right!

I'm very much looking forward to reading it.

 

[Bain Sidhe]

Sci, you're more than welcome to have your opinion. I have mine. Neither of us is "right" - that's why they're called "opinions." Ad hominem attacks (calling an opinion you disagree with "immature") are really not necessary.

 

[Sci]

Sci, you're more than welcome to have your opinion. I have mine. Neither of us is "right" - that's why they're called "opinions." Ad hominem attacks (calling an opinion you disagree with "immature") are really not necessary.

An ad hominem attack is an attack upon a person's character. As you correctly noted, I attacked the opinion as immature, not you. And you have yet to provide a logical explanation for why naming the child after the deceased first husband is "creepy."

 

[Bain Sidhe]

I have explained repeatedly why I think it'd be "creepy" to name their son "Jack." Whether or not you accept those explanations is really not that important to me. Why you feel the need to attack my opinion at all is rather beyond me - it is not incumbent upon me to justify my opinion to your liking. It is also not incumbent upon you to agree with everything stated on these boards. If you are this contentious every time you encounter an opinion with which you disagree, you must not be much fun at parties. Have a terrific night.