Multiple versions of the same story

[Christopher]

Guinan's vision was because she was picked up from one branch and set down in the other, and saw that she had an unexpected landscape around her as she went down the river, while everyone else just flowed down it naturally and so it's what they'd always expected to see. Not because it wasn't the original, but because it wasn't the one she came from.

Well, not exactly. That Guinan was the one from the Klingon-war timeline; she just had the ability to perceive that it was the result of a temporal disruption and that there was another, "better" timeline out there. As we learned in Generations, her time sense was the result of leaving a piece of herself behind in the Nexus. Thus, some aspect of her consciousness existed "outside of time" and could sense temporal anomalies or shifts.

Anyway, we've drifted off-topic, haven't we? This was supposed to be about tie-ins offering different versions of the same event. And there's kind of an example of that here -- Vendetta assumed that Guinan's time sense was an intrinsic ability of her species, since it hadn't yet been revealed that it was a result of her own Nexus experience.

 

[Extrocomp]

There's not really any explanation for the magic universe from "Magicks of Megas-Tu" or the Imaginationland universe from "Where No Man Has Gone Before" or the reverse universe from "The Counter-clock Incident" either. Or even DS9's Celestial Temple, if that is its own universe of weirdness.

Actually, there was an explanation for the reverse universe from The Counter-Clock Incident in the novelization. It was an illusion created by telepathic beings who were testing the Federation.

So in Yesterday's Enterprise when the E-C entered the anomaly (or whatever it was) it created a timeline where the Federation and the Klingon Empire were at war. But when it returned (with Tasha) it did create a new timeline that existed parallel to the war timeline, but was not the same as the "original" (hah) timeline.

According to Christopher's explanation of time travel in his DTI novels, the peace timeline erased the war timeline, so they would not exist parallel to each other.

Anyway, we've drifted off-topic, haven't we? This was supposed to be about tie-ins offering different versions of the same event.

This happens all the time around here. I remember when my thread about Admiral Komack turned into a thread about Admiral Comsol.

 

[revolution22]

The solanogen-based species from TNG - "Night Terrors".

you mean "schisms"

 

[TalonCard]

Actually, there was an explanation for the reverse universe from The Counter-Clock Incident in the novelization. It was an illusion created by telepathic beings who were testing the Federation.

Oh, for...I love retcons, but these kind just irk me. "There are a lot of strange things in this franchise, but this one thing is just so over the top that I refuse to consider it at all. Or it's actually telepathic aliens. Or a theme park attraction. Or a movie." For one thing, the quality/level of believably for any given story is incredibly subjective. For another, it imposes a major element onto the original story that is often at odds with its original intent. Finally, it's incredibly disrespectful to the original author. "I bet you thought you did a good job there, but actually your story is so bonkers that I find it necessary to create my own outside fictional elements to justify its fictional 'existence'."

In this particular case, IIRC, the script writer was pretty excited about writing for Star Trek--why trample on that? Why not just say something like "That was a strange phenomena that does not conform to anything in the known universe. I can't explain what happened there," and move on? It wouldn't be the first time in Trek.

TC

 

[Christopher]

According to Christopher's explanation of time travel in his DTI novels, the peace timeline erased the war timeline, so they would not exist parallel to each other.

Not exactly. "Erasing" is the conventional sci-fi explanation that doesn't make sense. In my model, the two timelines do run in parallel for the duration of the interval spanned by the time-travel event, then reconverge after the farthest-future point of the time travel, so that, going forward from there, it's as if the other timeline didn't exist. So there is a parallel, just not a permanent one. That's the only way that kind of story can make logical sense -- the events that occurred in the alternative history still have to be part of the overall sequence of history, because they did occur and did have an effect on other events. It's just that the alternative history doesn't continue forward indefinitely. It's like a side road that splits off briefly and then dead-ends, or merges back in to the main road, depending on how you look at it.

 

[Jinn]

I'm surprised that even has to be asked. Fluidic space is overtly a separate continuum with different physics -- it doesn't have stars or planets or duplicate humans or any of that. Nobody could possibly mistake it for an alternate timeline.

Of course not, I was curious about the extra-dimensional thing.

No, the timeline where the E-C went back with alt-Tasha was the "original" timeline, insofar as that term has any meaning. People constantly make the mistake of assuming that the order in which the viewers and characters experience events is the single, universal, objective reality of things, but that's misunderstanding the very nature of time travel, which allows effect to come before cause. A lot of things in time travel are causal loops where the time travel was "always" part of events, even if the characters and viewers didn't know that it was until the timeline caught up with their involvement in things.

Damnit I screwed that part up.

 

[flandry84]

I have a very vague recollection of an early TNG book where Data is transformed into a human being("metamorphosis"IIRC).That would rather short-circuit all that followed regarding the emotion chip etc.

Data becoming human(temporarily at least)is kind of a mundane pitch anyway and would obviously be problematic in the long run but maybe it's indicative of editorial laissez-faire.

 

[Christopher]

I have a very vague recollection of an early TNG book where Data is transformed into a human being("metamorphosis"IIRC).That would rather short-circuit all that followed regarding the emotion chip etc.

The thing is, Data wasn't retconned as an emotionless being until the third season, when Michael Piller came onboard. The original intention, as evident in episodes like "The Naked Now," "Skin of Evil," and "The Measure of a Man," is that Data was capable of emotion, just at an underdeveloped and subdued level. And Jean Lorrah's novels, Survivors and Metamorphosis, are based on that version of Data and did a lot to explore his emotional capacity. They were totally canon-consistent at the time they came out, but they were negated by the show's later decision to force Data into conformity with the tireworn and silly sci-fi cliche of emotionless AIs.

 

[flandry84]

Mmm,but Data never had a memory blackout had he?
If he had had an experience of being an emotion-capable being,then why all the confusion and drama in "Generations"?

 

[Christopher]

Mmm,but Data never had a memory blackout had he?
If he had had an experience of being an emotion-capable being,then why all the confusion and drama in "Generations"?

But that's my point -- because of the "no emotion" retcon in the show, the Lorrah books were already retroactively rendered canon-incompatible anyway, even aside from that issue.

 

[Stevil2001]

The events of Metamorphosis are rolled back, aren't they? Doesn't Data have to undo them to make time better, or something? I haven't read the book in a decade, so my memory is vague.

 

[Christopher]

The events of Metamorphosis are rolled back, aren't they? Doesn't Data have to undo them to make time better, or something? I haven't read the book in a decade, so my memory is vague.

Yeah, they're undone, but I don't remember whether Data forgets them along with everyone else.

 

[Idran]

Yeah, they're undone, but I don't remember whether Data forgets them along with everyone else.

I'm pretty sure he does, yeah; I remember some scene in the end about him realizing his internal clock was set back and his memory correcting itself to match.

 

[WebLurker]

The thing is, Data wasn't retconned as an emotionless being until the third season, when Michael Piller came onboard. The original intention, as evident in episodes like "The Naked Now," "Skin of Evil," and "The Measure of a Man," is that Data was capable of emotion, just at an underdeveloped and subdued level.

How'd he show emotion in "Measure of a Man"? I recall seeing that show under the understanding that he couldn't generate emotions and I don't remember anything that broke that. And Jean Lorrah's novels, Survivors and Metamorphosis, are based on that version of Data and did a lot to explore his emotional capacity.

Been curious about those books. Are they any good?

They were totally canon-consistent at the time they came out, but they were negated by the show's later decision to force Data into conformity with the tireworn and silly sci-fi cliche of emotionless AIs.

I actually think that Data not having emotions works because of one important detail. As stated in the pilot, his goal is to become as human as he can. If he has emotions, that severely undercuts his quest. From a character standpoint, he's not that much different from a person with poor social skills (as an aside, while it was a good thing that he grew out of those as the series progressed, poor social skills Data was a lot of fun). He's pretty much a person already, just one that needs to figure out how to take charge of it.

As an emotionless character, he's missing a key piece. There's a barrier to his quest, which may not be able to be overcome. There's a set difference between him and the rest of the crew that he, they, and we are aware of.

On top of that, I'd argue that Data not have emotions is okay since he's been given a personality that works, so even with other such characters, he still stands out and is an interesting character. In fact, my only complaint with Data and emotions was that Nemesis seemed to just reset him back to his TV show persona rather than playing with the idea of him further integrating the emotion chip into his life, like he was in most of the previous movies (can't remember if he ever plugged it in in Insurrection or not). (As always, your mileage may vary on all of this.)

 

[F. King Daniel]

I'm a big fan of Jean Lorrah's TOS and TNG work, so I'd say yes.

 

[Christopher]

How'd he show emotion in "Measure of a Man"?

Through the sentiment he expressed about his memento of Tasha Yar from "Skin of Evil."

Of course, one of the reasons the whole "no emotion" thing was stupid and misguided was because Data always obviously did have emotions, no matter how much he insisted he didn't. He had affinities and preferences and hopes and dislikes. Even saying "I wish I had emotions" is a contradiction in terms, because just having that wish means you do feel something. It was deeply wrong to say that Data's emotions didn't exist just because he didn't express them outwardly in easily recognizable forms like laughing or crying or yelling. There are people on the autistic spectrum who can't show emotion in that way, but they definitely have the same emotions as anyone else. That's what Data was originally conceived to be like -- someone who had the capacity to feel, just not to express it very well. The mistake Piller and the later writers made was to confuse the expression of emotion with its existence. (Also to regurgitate the hackneyed and ignorant sci-fi cliche that "machines can't feel," that emotions are some uniquely human thing too complex for AIs. That's nonsense. Emotions are simple. Most animals have them, and they're very straightforward -- experience an urge, act on it. It's silly to say they can't be programmed, because they are programming -- automatic responses hardwired into the brain. What makes them complicated in humans is their interaction with our intelligence and abstraction, our ability to have thoughts and goals that come into conflict with our feelings.)

I actually think that Data not having emotions works because of one important detail. As stated in the pilot, his goal is to become as human as he can. If he has emotions, that severely undercuts his quest.

No, it doesn't. Again, where did we ever get this bizarre notion that humans have a monopoly on emotion? Anyone who has a dog should know better. Anyone who's seen animals mourning their dead should know better. (Elephants can mourn their dead for years.) And of course, in Trek, every alien species we've ever seen has emotion. Vulcans put on a facade of emotionlessness, but we know that's because their emotions are actually so overpowering that they have to control them tightly. So really, why should the exemplar of a quest for emotionalism be humans rather than, say, Romulans (since they're Vulcans who don't suppress their powerful emotions)? Or what about Betazoids? Surely a race of empaths is a far better exemplar of emotional awareness than humans. Equating "emotional" with "human" is a non sequitur both in real-world terms and in Trek terms.

And again, there are autistic-spectrum humans who don't show emotion in conventional ways. The suggestion that people who don't show emotion are less than human is very disturbing and ugly in that context. And it ran counter to Trek's ideal of inclusion to say that a neuro-atypical character like Data should aspire to conform to more ordinary behavior rather than being satisfied with who he was. I think that today there's more awareness of neurodiversity in the culture and the media, and I think a modern version of TNG would respect Data's individuality more rather than insisting there's something wrong with him just because his psychology and outward affect are atypical.

 

[jaime]

There's not really any explanation for the magic universe from "Magicks of Megas-Tu" or the Imaginationland universe from "Where No Man Has Gone Before" or the reverse universe from "The Counter-clock Incident" either. Or even DS9's Celestial Temple, if that is its own universe of weirdness.

The STO novel The Needs of the Many does explicitly mention the events of Greater Than the Sum and Destiny as an alternate universe along with what's now known as the Kelvin timeline, and suggests unknown time travels may he responsible for them. It was put in as an easter egg rather than a binding part of Trek lore (and as Christopher pointed out, doesn't work if you look too closely), but it's there as an option should the reader wish it. I don't play STO, so I've little knowledge of the game, but I think the STO novel works as an alternate reality to the novelverse.

To be fair, STO itself is now in a different universe to that which it started, both in its own continuity and through changing bits of the game...it shares more with the novel verse than any other continuity, and the reverse is also true...and in defence of its lone novel, that alternate universe Easter egg will always stand up because it's Q that makes the references whilst looking after a very dislocated temporal agent. I think the plan was for STO to almost exactly stick within novel continuity, then destiny happened and they needed the Borg. Even that is easy to hand wave, STO never says where precisely the Borg are'back' from....things like Risa would be harder to explain, and STO has diverged further as its gone on.
It is however one of only two known continuities where Captain Dax heads up the Aventine, and the Titan is the same in both also...to an extent.

 

[Jinn]

Also to regurgitate the hackneyed and ignorant sci-fi cliche that "machines can't feel," that emotions are some uniquely human thing too complex for AIs. That's nonsense. Emotions are simple.

As evidenced by the Doctor and other holograms who were showed to have emotions.

 

[jaime]

Oh, for...I love retcons, but these kind just irk me. "There are a lot of strange things in this franchise, but this one thing is just so over the top that I refuse to consider it at all. Or it's actually telepathic aliens. Or a theme park attraction. Or a movie." For one thing, the quality/level of believably for any given story is incredibly subjective. For another, it imposes a major element onto the original story that is often at odds with its original intent. Finally, it's incredibly disrespectful to the original author. "I bet you thought you did a good job there, but actually your story is so bonkers that I find it necessary to create my own outside fictional elements to justify its fictional 'existence'."

In this particular case, IIRC, the script writer was pretty excited about writing for Star Trek--why trample on that? Why not just say something like "That was a strange phenomena that does not conform to anything in the known universe. I can't explain what happened there," and move on? It wouldn't be the first time in Trek.

TC

And that sums up why I won't touch the bigoted James t Kirk autobiography with a barge pole.

 

[Idran]

And that sums up why I won't touch the bigoted James t Kirk autobiography with a barge pole.

I can understand being upset about how it took ST5, but what do you mean by "bigoted"?