RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,115
Posts: 5,400,713
Members: 24,744
Currently online: 455
Newest member: Ohwowmelody

TrekToday headlines

Trek Merchandise Sale
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek #39 Villain Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Trek Big Bang Figures
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Fan Film Axanar Kickstarter Success
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Retro Watches
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

New DS9 eBook To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

Trek Ice Cube Maker and Shot Glasses
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Literature

Trek Literature "...Good words. That's where ideas begin."

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 24 2012, 03:44 AM   #331
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: NEW ONGOING STAR TREK SERIES FROM IDW!!!

At least in that case, we saw his face. No, canonically we don't know for certain that it's McCoy, but given the evidence we have -- his appearance, his dialogue -- the hypothesis that it is Leonard McCoy has a very high probability. Conversely, we have no canonical evidence to suggest that Jonathan Archer living to a record-breaking age is more probable than Jonathan Archer having heirs who also went into Starfleet and liked beagles. The latter is far more likely to be true.

This is how you decide between different possibilities. Very few things in life are matters of absolute certainty. There's always room for doubt, and there are a lot of things that you can't know directly and have to deduce from limited evidence. So the thing to do is to think about the options in terms of probability. You pick the interpretation that's most likely, that's the best fit to the available evidence and to your understanding of the world in general. And you don't favor a far less probable option over a far more probable one unless you have solid evidence to back it up. As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. They're the ones that the burden of proof lies on. So I'm not going to believe an extraordinary claim like Jonathan Archer living that long unless I'm presented with proof.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 24 2012, 11:28 AM   #332
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: NEW ONGOING STAR TREK SERIES FROM IDW!!!

The thing is, you assume Archer must have lived all those intervening years and actually be 150. He did more time travel than anyone else for starters. Then there are a million other possibilities - like Columbia's relativistic journey in Destiny, dozens of temporal phenomena we've seen over the years etc etc. Bizarre is the norm for Star Trek characters.

It's not real life, it's fiction. I see a cool crossover story waiting to be told one day (one deliberately hinted at in the movie, no less), not a mistake to be grossed over and rewritten.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 24 2012, 01:16 PM   #333
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: NEW ONGOING STAR TREK SERIES FROM IDW!!!

^No, I'm not assuming that. The whole point is that I refuse to assume anything. I'm assessing probabilities based on the available evidence, like any scientist or scholar would do. I'm not insisting that anything is a "fact" or a certainty, I'm just weighing the relative likelihood of the hypotheses. I'm pointing out that we have no actual proof one way or the other so nothing should be assumed -- particularly not a premise that's incredibly unlikely and would require extraordinary circumstances to be true. Why is that so hard to understand?

I'm not saying it can't possibly have been Jonathan Archer -- sure, extraordinary and ridiculous circumstances can and do happen in Trek. I'm just puzzled that everyone seems to assume it was him, when there's another possible interpretation that's a lot simpler and more believable. I'm puzzled that it never even seems to occur to anyone that he could have had descendants, or that someone who's been president would not be called "Admiral."
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 24 2012, 02:42 PM   #334
iarann
Lieutenant
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: NEW ONGOING STAR TREK SERIES FROM IDW!!!

Christopher wrote: View Post
By analogy, it would be far more reasonable to postulate a character from a present-day series living to age 100 than it would be for a character from a Western.
It is worth noting that people in the 1800s (and earlier) did live to be 100, though it wasn't exactly common. The last surviving Union soldier from the American Civil War was 108 when he died in 1956. Have we seen anything on screen that says people don't live to be 150 in the 23rd century? Did they say McCoy being so old was rare? It isn't hard for me to suspend disbelief that Archer survived to 147+ years old in a world where faster than light travel, transporters, and telepathy exist.

Christopher wrote: View Post
Oh, and another thing: According to Archer's bio in "In a Mirror, Darkly," he retired from Starfleet in 2169 to become ambassador to Andoria, then became a Federation councillor, then the President of the UFP. Granted, that wasn't stated in dialogue so it isn't strictly canonical, but if you accept it, then nobody is going to refer to a former president as "Admiral Archer" instead of "President Archer." So it would have to be someone else.
This can be explained as well. If he was at Starfleet Academy, one could think after he retired from the Presidency he reassociated himself with Starfleet in some way, perhaps he became an instructor or advisor. Knowing how little he thought of politics (based on various jabs he makes about politicians in Star Trek: Enterprise) and how enthusiastic he was about Starfleet perhaps he preferred people refer to him as Admiral rather than President.

As to why people assume it is Jonathan Archer, I think the answer is simple, why not have it be Jonathan Archer? People want to believe he is still alive at that point in the timeline, and while a stretch, it's not too bad of one.
iarann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 24 2012, 03:00 PM   #335
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: NEW ONGOING STAR TREK SERIES FROM IDW!!!

iarann wrote: View Post
It is worth noting that people in the 1800s (and earlier) did live to be 100, though it wasn't exactly common.
Yes, that's the point. It's not about absolute possibility or impossibility. It's about probability. Living that long was far more unlikely back then than it is today, so having a character live that long would be more believable in a present-day story.

The last surviving Union soldier from the American Civil War was 108 when he died in 1956. Have we seen anything on screen that says people don't live to be 150 in the 23rd century? Did they say McCoy being so old was rare?
The dialogue seemed to imply it was fairly remarkable. And we had later episodes like "Too Short a Season" that portrayed a man in his 80s as decrepit and near death, and nobody there said he was far too young to be in that condition. In DS9, Dax once assured O'Brien that she expected him to die peacefully in bed at 140, implying that was seen as an above-average life expectancy, near the top of the curve (since if that were just an average or low life expectancy, it would hardly have been as optimistic a prediction as she intended).

It isn't hard for me to suspend disbelief that Archer survived to 147+ years old in a world where faster than light travel, transporters, and telepathy exist.
Sure, in the absence of evidence, it would be reasonable to assume that. But that's just it -- I'm trained to base my conclusions on the evidence, and the evidence canon presents, while not conclusive, implies that living to 140 is a best-case scenario in the 24th century, while also suggesting that 24th-century medicine is significantly more advanced than 22nd- or 23rd-century medicine. Thus it seems unlikely that someone born in 2122 could be expected to live to the age of 146.


This can be explained as well. If he was at Starfleet Academy, one could think after he retired from the Presidency he reassociated himself with Starfleet in some way, perhaps he became an instructor or advisor. Knowing how little he thought of politics (based on various jabs he makes about politicians in Star Trek: Enterprise) and how enthusiastic he was about Starfleet perhaps he preferred people refer to him as Admiral rather than President.
Doesn't work that way. The highest title always takes precedence. Anyone who referred to a former president as "Admiral" instead of "President" would be committing a serious breach of respect and protocol. So there's no way that would become an accepted practice in Starfleet. Sure, it's possible Scotty was misspeaking, but it's unlikely. When was the last time you heard someone refer to President Eisenhower as "General Eisenhower," except when talking about his accomplishments before the presidency?


As to why people assume it is Jonathan Archer, I think the answer is simple, why not have it be Jonathan Archer? People want to believe he is still alive at that point in the timeline, and while a stretch, it's not too bad of one.
I think I've presented many reasons "why not." You don't say "why not" about an incredibly unlikely interpretation when there's a far simpler and more probable interpretation.

And why wouldn't people want to believe that he left a legacy? That he had children and grandchildren who carried on his tradition of Starfleet service (and loving beagles)? I think that's a far more heartwarming and desirable interpretation than just "He lived to be incredibly old and dropped dead right after the movie."
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 24 2012, 05:29 PM   #336
iarann
Lieutenant
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: NEW ONGOING STAR TREK SERIES FROM IDW!!!

Christopher wrote: View Post
iarann wrote: View Post
This can be explained as well. If he was at Starfleet Academy, one could think after he retired from the Presidency he reassociated himself with Starfleet in some way, perhaps he became an instructor or advisor. Knowing how little he thought of politics (based on various jabs he makes about politicians in Star Trek: Enterprise) and how enthusiastic he was about Starfleet perhaps he preferred people refer to him as Admiral rather than President.
Doesn't work that way. The highest title always takes precedence. Anyone who referred to a former president as "Admiral" instead of "President" would be committing a serious breach of respect and protocol. So there's no way that would become an accepted practice in Starfleet. Sure, it's possible Scotty was misspeaking, but it's unlikely. When was the last time you heard someone refer to President Eisenhower as "General Eisenhower," except when talking about his accomplishments before the presidency?
You are assuming the practice and protocols of modern day real world military carry forward to Starfleet with the same rigidity. But as Gene Roddenberry loved to point out, Starfleet isn't military. I could easily see someone with a long service record preferring to be called Admiral instead of President, despite what protocol says while involved in Starfleet related tasks. If he was a professor and would correct his students when they called him President, than the habit could spread. If the former President of the Federation wants to be called Admiral while he teaches at Starfleet Academy, using his Starfleet title, than who would a cadet be to argue?

Christopher wrote: View Post
You don't say "why not" about an incredibly unlikely interpretation when there's a far simpler and more probable interpretation.
Sure I do, I say that about lots of things in Star Trek. If I say it about McCoy showing up and wandering around in Ecounter at Farpoint, I have precedent for saying it about Archer. The dialogue in that episode led me to believe 137 was old, but not any different than how 80 is old now. Sure, we haven't seen a lot of guys 140 years old in Star Trek, but that's because most of what we see is on star ships or bases where retired people are less likely to frequent. There was an Enterprise episode that said the average lifespan was 100, perhaps by TOS the average lifespan was 120 and living to 150 was uncommon but not unheard of. I haven't seen anything or read anything that would contradict that.

Christopher wrote: View Post
And why wouldn't people want to believe that he left a legacy?
Nothing says he can't live to 146 and have a legacy.

The writers said they intended it to be Jonathan Archer. Is that canon? Nope, but neither is the concept of his decedents. I doubt canon will ever say one way or the other.
iarann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 24 2012, 05:50 PM   #337
Admiral James Kirk
Writer
 
Admiral James Kirk's Avatar
 
Location: Tucson, AZ
Re: NEW ONGOING STAR TREK SERIES FROM IDW!!!

iarann wrote: View Post

The writers said they intended it to be Jonathan Archer. Is that canon? Nope, but neither is the concept of his decedents. I doubt canon will ever say one way or the other.
I say it's Archer. We all know who it was intended to be. The writers say outright who it's intended to be. Scott Bakula himself got the joke. Let's not let something so silly as real world life spans and Christopher's need for empirical evidence ruin the cute little Easter egg they planted there for us.
Admiral James Kirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 24 2012, 06:57 PM   #338
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: NEW ONGOING STAR TREK SERIES FROM IDW!!!

iarann wrote: View Post
You are assuming the practice and protocols of modern day real world military carry forward to Starfleet with the same rigidity.
Again, the whole point is that you shouldn't assume. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You're the one making the claim in opposition to established evidence and precedent, so the burden of proof lies on you. This is fundamental reasoning and argument.

Besides, we're not talking about the military. We're talking about the presidency, which is a civilian post in the UFP as well as the USA. It's a custom of both military and civilian protocol that the highest former rank or title earned by an individual supersedes all lower ranks when addressing or referring to them. You wouldn't refer to President Obama as Senator Obama or President Carter as Governor Carter any more than you'd refer to President Eisenhower as General Eisenhower or President Kennedy as Lieutenant Kennedy.


But as Gene Roddenberry loved to point out, Starfleet isn't military.
Which was BS, because it's obviously military in its forms and structure. No, it isn't warlike, but it clearly uses naval forms and traditions and discipline -- something Roddenberry embraced and incorporated willingly when he created TOS, since he was a veteran of both the military and the police. It was only later, in the TNG era when he'd bought into the myth of himself as a visionary philosopher, that he began to treat that military aspect as a bad thing. Yet he still didn't erase the fact that Starfleet followed military forms and protocols.


Christopher wrote: View Post
You don't say "why not" about an incredibly unlikely interpretation when there's a far simpler and more probable interpretation.
Sure I do, I say that about lots of things in Star Trek.
So if you were on a jury and they showed you surveillance footage of the defendant robbing a bank, and the defense claim was that he was possessed by ghosts and made to do it against his will, would you say "why not?" and vote for acquittal? This is basic reasoning. In the absence of certain knowledge, the more likely interpretation is favored over the less likely one. That's what "likely" means!


If I say it about McCoy showing up and wandering around in Ecounter at Farpoint, I have precedent for saying it about Archer.
I've already explained the difference between those two situations. The available evidence strongly supports it being McCoy. We have no actual canonical evidence that the admiral is Jonathan Archer instead of his daughter or grandson or something. It's simply a matter of following the evidence. If there were any real evidence that it was Jonathan rather than a different Archer, then I'd accept that, just as I accept that the guy who looks and talks and acts like McCoy is almost certainly McCoy. But since there is no conclusive evidence for that, and since it's so unlikely, I remain skeptical.


There was an Enterprise episode that said the average lifespan was 100, perhaps by TOS the average lifespan was 120 and living to 150 was uncommon but not unheard of. I haven't seen anything or read anything that would contradict that.
But that's for someone born in the era in question. Someone born in 2122 with a life expectancy of a hundred can be expected to make it into the 23rd century, but their life expectancy doesn't suddenly increase once they get there, not statistically speaking, since they haven't had the benefit of 23rd-century medicine their whole lives the way someone born in 2233 would. So sure, Christopher Pike might have a life expectancy of 120 or better, but that doesn't mean Jonathan Archer would, even if their lifespans did overlap.


The writers said they intended it to be Jonathan Archer. Is that canon? Nope, but neither is the concept of his decedents. I doubt canon will ever say one way or the other.
*sigh* Which is exactly the point I've been trying to make all along -- that you don't make assumptions without evidence. Sure, maybe there's a remote chance that it could be Jonathan Archer, but I get so sick of everyone assuming that it is and never even considering that there's room for doubt, that there's a simpler, more likely interpretation that shouldn't be rejected out of hand.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 24 2012, 09:28 PM   #339
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: NEW ONGOING STAR TREK SERIES FROM IDW!!!

Admiral James Kirk wrote: View Post
iarann wrote: View Post

The writers said they intended it to be Jonathan Archer. Is that canon? Nope, but neither is the concept of his decedents. I doubt canon will ever say one way or the other.
I say it's Archer. We all know who it was intended to be. The writers say outright who it's intended to be. Scott Bakula himself got the joke. Let's not let something so silly as real world life spans and Christopher's need for empirical evidence ruin the cute little Easter egg they planted there for us.
One mans "cute" is another mans "dumb" much like the Delta Vega Easter Egg. I thought from day one they were referring to one of Archer's descendants.

How would Scott even get at someone like Archer who was a one-time Federation president?
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 24 2012, 09:49 PM   #340
Enterprise is Great
Rear Admiral
 
Enterprise is Great's Avatar
 
Re: NEW ONGOING STAR TREK SERIES FROM IDW!!!

I think that the main reason why people assume that Admiral Archer is Jonathan Archer is because they want him to be the same person.
__________________
JJverse Star Trek...ROCKED on May 17, 2013 and beyond!
Enterprise is Great is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 24 2012, 09:59 PM   #341
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: NEW ONGOING STAR TREK SERIES FROM IDW!!!

Christopher wrote: View Post
It was only later, in the TNG era when he'd bought into the myth of himself as a visionary philosopher, that he began to treat that military aspect as a bad thing.
A bit earlier than TNG, perhaps. By the time he was doing the lecture circuit of university campuses in the 70s, GR had already "come to regret" giving Franz Joseph enough creative license to suggest the existence of dreadnoughts in Starfleet, and the fact that the semi-licensed "Star Fleet Battles" was a "war game", not the gentler "role play game" concept that evolved later.
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/
Therin of Andor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 24 2012, 10:06 PM   #342
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: NEW ONGOING STAR TREK SERIES FROM IDW!!!

Enterprise is Great wrote: View Post
I think that the main reason why people assume that Admiral Archer is Jonathan Archer is because they want him to be the same person.
And what wonderful, fulfilling lives those people must've had if they actually expect what they want to correspond to what actually is. In my experience, they're usually two very different things. For instance, when I try to make a simple point that there's more than one possible interpretation of an ambiguous piece of evidence, I want people to understand and accept that straightforward idea so I can make that simple point and move on. Instead, somehow, they always argue against it aggressively for no reason I can fathom, as if there were something wrong with even acknowledging the idea that there could be more than one Starfleet officer named Archer in the history of the universe, and it always ends up becoming a big controversy somehow.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 24 2012, 10:23 PM   #343
iarann
Lieutenant
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: NEW ONGOING STAR TREK SERIES FROM IDW!!!

Christopher wrote: View Post
iarann wrote: View Post
But as Gene Roddenberry loved to point out, Starfleet isn't military.
Which was BS, because it's obviously military in its forms and structure.
Hey, don't get mad at me, I didn't make that up.

Christopher wrote: View Post
iarann wrote: View Post
Sure I do, I say that about lots of things in Star Trek.
So if you were on a jury and they showed you surveillance footage of the defendant robbing a bank, and the defense claim was that he was possessed by ghosts and made to do it against his will, would you say "why not?" and vote for acquittal? This is basic reasoning. In the absence of certain knowledge, the more likely interpretation is favored over the less likely one. That's what "likely" means!
What part of "lots of things in Star Trek" didn't you understand? My willing suspension of disbelief when watching a science fiction show far closer to fantasy than science is not going to fit how I would look at things on a jury in real life.

Here's the thing you seem to not understand, not all of us treat Star Trek as we would a religious text, trying to explain away inconsistencies and such. I understand it's your job and you wrote a couple of great novels doing so, but when I watch Star Trek I just assume continuity and science are going to be secondary concerns at best. If the next movie has a couple of 200 year old people just show up and no one thinks twice, I'm not going to sit and think "No way! In almost 50 years of Star Trek they have never inferred people live to be 200". Instead I'll just think "Eh, Star Trek" and keep watching.

Christopher wrote: View Post
I've already explained the difference between those two situations. The available evidence strongly supports it being McCoy. We have no actual canonical evidence that the admiral is Jonathan Archer instead of his daughter or grandson or something. It's simply a matter of following the evidence. If there were any real evidence that it was Jonathan rather than a different Archer, then I'd accept that, just as I accept that the guy who looks and talks and acts like McCoy is almost certainly McCoy. But since there is no conclusive evidence for that, and since it's so unlikely, I remain skeptical.
It's not strong evidence, but it is evidence. They made an in joke about Admiral Archer's beagle. The writers said that reference referred to the Jonathan Archer whose adventures were chronicled in Star Trek: Enterprise. Based on that evidence it was easy to come up with a basic workaround for how he could still be alive (146 is old then like 90 is old now) and why they called him Admiral (he decided he wants people to call him that). I'm not making crazy assumptions any more than the people that created the movie did. I'm sorry that bothers you, but if you don't like it you can stick with your hypothesis of Admiral Archer the Third, and others of us will stick with the Jonathan Archer theory. That movie was full of scientific holes, Jonathan Archer surviving to his 140s is the least of what I would think people would freak out about.
iarann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 24 2012, 10:29 PM   #344
Scout101
Admiral
 
Scout101's Avatar
 
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Re: NEW ONGOING STAR TREK SERIES FROM IDW!!!

Yeah, I never assumed Jonathan. Despite the writer wanting a cute nod, never really made sense. I put that down as grandson/daughter, or even great-grandson/daughter.

You wouldn't assume it's Jonathan any more than you'd assume the dog was Porthos. Like Christopher said, if your family always had one breed of dog, you're more likely to get one yourself, and so it goes. By the 'pro-Jonathan' camp, though, there's just as much evidence that it was Porthos, but don't see too many arguing that one. Works for one, but not the other? Same logic...

As for the Admiral vs President thing? Only thing I can put out against the argument is that while you'd refer to someone who'd done both as President, I guess there could be the argument that within a military group discussing the man, it may not be impossible to refer to him as Admiral. Especially if he went back to Starfleet after his Presidency, and further distinguished himself. Either could be appropriate in that case, and since the only evidence of it is from a group of military members discussing him...

Either way, I'm in the "not him" camp. Cute nod, but would have to be decendants of both Jonathan and Porthos to make sense...
__________________
Perhaps, if I am very lucky, the feeble efforts of my lifetime will someday be noticed and maybe, in some small way, they will be acknowledged as the greatest works of genius ever created by man. ~Jack Handey
STO: @JScout33
Scout101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 24 2012, 10:49 PM   #345
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: NEW ONGOING STAR TREK SERIES FROM IDW!!!

iarann wrote: View Post
Christopher wrote: View Post
iarann wrote: View Post
But as Gene Roddenberry loved to point out, Starfleet isn't military.
Which was BS, because it's obviously military in its forms and structure.
Hey, don't get mad at me, I didn't make that up.
I wasn't directing any hostility at you. Of course you were just passing along Roddenberry's own well-known stance, and it was that stance that I was responding to.


What part of "lots of things in Star Trek" didn't you understand? My willing suspension of disbelief when watching a science fiction show far closer to fantasy than science is not going to fit how I would look at things on a jury in real life.

Here's the thing you seem to not understand, not all of us treat Star Trek as we would a religious text, trying to explain away inconsistencies and such. I understand it's your job and you wrote a couple of great novels doing so, but when I watch Star Trek I just assume continuity and science are going to be secondary concerns at best.
It's not about "religious text." Although it doesn't always live up to the ideal, Star Trek was originally conceived with the goal of being a more credible, well-thought-out science-fiction universe than something like Lost in Space. On the whole, it's generally tried to make at least a modicum of sense and not throw basic logic or credibility out the window. When it does do so, I consider that an error or a shortfall rather than an excuse to treat the whole thing as a pile of random nonsense.

Besides, in any good fiction, even fantasy fiction, there's an expectation that it stay consistent with its own internal rules. It doesn't matter if those rules are crazy compared to the rules of our world; they should still be consistent within the world itself. That's just basic storytelling competence. So it's not "religious" fanaticism to expect Star Trek to live up to the same basic standards of competence one would expect of any work of fiction.

It's not strong evidence, but it is evidence. They made an in joke about Admiral Archer's beagle.
But that's not proof, which is my point. Especially since pet preferences are often handed down through the generations. Is it so impossible to admit simply that it could have been a descendant of Archer's? That's all I want -- for people to acknowledge that there's more than one possible interpretation of that throwaway line. I don't understand why I always get such fierce resistance to even admitting the possibility.


The writers said that reference referred to the Jonathan Archer whose adventures were chronicled in Star Trek: Enterprise.
Asked and answered, days ago. Writer intent is not canonical; and Mike Sussman's writer intent from IaMD is that Archer didn't live that long and would be called "President," not "Admiral." With two conflicting, equally non-canonical writer intents, it is arbitrary to hold one up as probative and completely ignore the other.

I'm sorry that bothers you, but if you don't like it you can stick with your hypothesis of Admiral Archer the Third, and others of us will stick with the Jonathan Archer theory.
*sigh* All I'm trying to do is point out that it's ambiguous, that there's not enough evidence to prove either hypothesis. Why can nobody understand that? Why is it so hard to understand that "I don't know" is a valid answer?
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.