Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 2x05 - "Saints of Imperfection"

[Mudd]

Mind-body dualism and the existence of a "soul" existing as a separable entity from a living organism are tropes that Star Trek has employed since the episodes of the original TV series. The notion is complete superstition with no basis in science whatever, but it's fifty years too late to object that it somehow does not belong in a Star Trek story.

 

[fireproof78]

To be fair, this episode's treatment of the mycelial plane and Culber's survival there was nonsense, in terms of scientific plausibility. Sheer codswallop. Pure malarkey.

I mean, we're talking about fucking spores, people. Spores do not have minds and intentions of their own. They're not even full-fledged beings as such; they're the fungal equivalent of seeds, except much smaller.

Heck, even last season on this same show, the whole concept was simply that the spores were a real-universe thing, except that their natural growth network extended into some special plane of subspace that could be used for transit. That was weird enough on its own... but the concept was definitely not that spores were an intelligent species unto themselves that treated that plane as their home dimension, much less that they possessed powers of telepathy and matter transmutation. It's frankly ludicrous.

But you know what? I honestly don't mind. Star Trek has always been on the "applied phlebotinum" tier of SF, and this isn't even in the ballpark with some of its more extreme scientific whoppers. So long as it's reasonably consistent with itself, and it adheres to valid (in-universe) principles of metaphysical naturalism and doesn't start attributing anything to actual supernatural causes, I'm perfectly fine with it. So if the (re)definition of the mycelial plane presented here provides the setting for a well-told story, and in the process brings back a worthwhile character and (perhaps) helps explain why the mycelial network is Not A Thing in later Trek, it's all to the good.

Can we explain all the godlike beings through the mycelial plane? I mean, we have the Organians, we have Greek gods, we have the Q, we have the entity from "Day of the Dove" (for some reason called *), we have the Prophets and the Pah-Wraiths among others. It's not like Star Trek has some how avoided the metaphysical or the supernatural.

I'm not trying to be argumentative (though I'll probably come across as such) but what differentiates the mycelial network from prior god like beings?

 

[Turtletrekker]

Of course Culber's resurrection was scientific nonsense. So was Spock's. So was Coulson's. So was Clark Kent's. Resurrections in general represent scientific nonsense.

 

[Noname Given]

To be fair, this episode's treatment of the mycelial plane and Culber's survival there was nonsense, in terms of scientific plausibility. Sheer codswallop. Pure malarkey.

I mean, we're talking about fucking spores, people. Spores do not have minds and intentions of their own. They're not even full-fledged beings as such; they're the fungal equivalent of seeds, except much smaller.

Is it really any worse than say:

A dimensional corridor between two universes where to physically identical beings (one of matter and on of anti-matter) can enter and exist for all eternity and should one side of the corridor open and BOTH beings meet in one of these Universes OUTSIDE said corridor then ALL EXISTENCE will wink out into nothingness... ?

(Oh, and if you doubt Star trek ever had such a story, go watch TOS S1 - "The Alternative Factor" )

My point? Star Trek has ALWAYS had wildly unscientific setups in stories where they are trying to show or comment on an existential or philosophical point.

And "Science Vs. Faith" was billed as the main conflict component for Season 2 when Season 2 production was announced.

 

[lawman]

Is it really any worse than say... TOS S1 - "The Alternative Factor"

I've seen "The Alternative Factor" (more's the pity). No, what DSC did here wasn't worse than that; it wasn't even half as bad. For one thing, it provided the material for a pretty well-told story, as opposed to an incoherent and atrocious one.

And I'm happy to roll with that. (As I said! Did you read the rest of my post? My point was to agree that Longinus's criticism was valid, but explain why it didn't bother me.)

 

[fireproof78]

And I'm happy to roll with that. (As I said! Did you read the rest of my post? My point was to agree that Longinus's criticism was valid, but explain why it didn't bother me.)

More of a curiosity as to where the line actually is

 

[Ravenswood]

Of course Culber's resurrection was scientific nonsense. So was Spock's. So was Coulson's. So was Clark Kent's. Resurrections in general represent scientific nonsense.

I like Dr Culber a lot, but I like deviousness even more, and as such, I really, really, really want this Dr Culber to be mycelial fabrication with ulterior motives. (But I highly doubt that's how it'll work out.)

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Who's more redeemable? Georgiou or Negan?

Georgiou is Negan...

 

[Jinn]

Who's more redeemable? Georgiou or Negan?

What's so wrong about shipping Tegan and Nyssa anyway?

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

...I mean, we're talking about fucking spores, people. Spores do not have minds and intentions of their own. They're not even full-fledged beings as such; they're the fungal equivalent of seeds, except much smaller.

Heck, even last season on this same show, the whole concept was simply that the spores were a real-universe thing, except that their natural growth network extended into some special plane of subspace that could be used for transit. That was weird enough on its own... but the concept was definitely not that spores were an intelligent species unto themselves that treated that plane as their home dimension, much less that they possessed powers of telepathy and matter transmutation. It's frankly ludicrous.

Well, then let's try to fit it in with something that's at least pseudo-sciency (an explanation that still works within the fictitious science of Star Trek). Bear with me while I invent that explanation....

....Maybe each spore is just a spore, but the mycellial network allows the spores to act collectively based on the simple reactions to stimuli for each spore. The domain/dimension of space in which they truly live (their appearance in our dimension is only a shadow of their existence in their own dimension) allows each spore to connect with the other through these reactions to stimuli -- reactions that might include a chemical release not unlike that of an ant, or maybe some sort of bio-electrical signal.

Connect enough of these individual spores together through these chemical and bio-electrical signals, and maybe you can have a thinking entity, much like a collection of simple neurons connected by chemical and electrical impulses can create a thinking human brain, even though each individual neuron is relatively unremarkable on its own.

So in the case of the spores' reaction to Culber covering himself in that stuff that kills the spores, maybe it wasn't each individual spore who knowingly understood the implications of the situation (because, as you said, they are just spores), but rather each spore gave off some sort of chemical/bio-electrical reaction to the fact each was being harmed/killed by Culber, and it was the collective that interpreted the individual reactions of each spore in the intelligent manner. May's description to Tilly about the individual spore's reaction was just her way of explaining it.

And again, that collective of the individual spores into a thinking entity is only possible in their special dimension. So the way these spores manifest themselves in our dimension doesn't allow them to fully connect in that way.

So if the (re)definition of the mycelial plane presented here provides the setting for a well-told story, and in the process brings back a worthwhile character and (perhaps) helps explain why the mycelial network is Not A Thing in later Trek, it's all to the good.

Amen to that.

 

[Jadeb]

Re: the redemption discussion: I thought they botched Michael's redemption arc pretty badly in season one, so I can't say I'm eager to see what happens when they start with a character that's one-dimensional cardboard.

Beyond that, I fear that the writers are too infatuated with the campy eeeeevilness to really let go of it. Can anyone really imagine Yeoh not hissing her lines at this point?

I hope the show proves me wrong, but I struggle to envision how a character whose sole trait is to be theatrically eeeeeevil becomes more interesting when you take away that eeeevilness. It's sort of like Batman redeeming the Joker. You could do it, but why?

 

[Timo]

....Maybe each spore is just a spore, but the mycellial network allows the spores to act collectively based on the simple reactions to stimuli for each spore. The domain/dimension of space in which they truly live (their appearance in our dimension is only a shadow of their existence in their own dimension) allows each spore to connect with the other through these reactions to stimuli -- reactions that might include a chemical release not unlike that of an ant, or maybe some sort of bio-electrical signal.

Or then the spore realm is host to a zillion different species, canonically including at least one "tree", and the JahSepp were such a species and not P. stellaviatori at all.

I mean, we now know that the place is a biosystem in a rather concrete sense, not much different from Stamets' little farm. Stuff lives there. Some of it is important, some less so. The JahSepp likened themselves to Earth insects, but clearly they were not literally that. Yet living in a place that connects everything must automatically make life easy for small social creatures. Especially social life!

I wonder if the network would really have been significantly affected even if the frankly quite hysterical JahSepp had indeed been eradicated. The place is basically infinite - some other species of recyclers would have taken over the former JahSepp niche easily enough.

Considering May a spore is IMHO too simplistic a take. She may have hitched a ride on a Mirror Universe spore to reach Tilly, but she's never considered to be a spore herself in dialogue, either by our heroes or by herself.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Re: the redemption discussion: I thought they botched Michael's redemption arc pretty badly in season one, so I can't say I'm eager to see what happens when they start with a character that's one-dimensional cardboard.

Beyond that, I fear that the writers are too infatuated with the campy eeeeevilness to really let go of it. Can anyone really imagine Yeoh not hissing her lines at this point?

I hope the show proves me wrong, but I struggle to envision how a character whose sole trait is to be theatrically eeeeeevil becomes more interesting when you take away that eeeevilness. It's sort of like Batman redeeming the Joker. You could do it, but why?

I can't see them making a show with the main protagonist (which is what Georgiou will be) being eeeevil. As you said, there will probably need to be a redemption for the character in order for them to move forward with a show built around her.

However, even that is wrought with problems. There would be too many people -- fairly or unfairly -- who will claim that such redemption is too implausible or that a magical wholesale change in such a character is simply not possible.

A case in point might be the character of Sharon Raydor on Major Crimes. Her character (and the show) was spun off of the show The Closer. The character in The Closer was pretty much a one-dimensional asshole whose only trait seemed to be contempt.

Then that character became the protagonist of the spinoff series and had a major trait overhaul. She was suddenly given a warmer side, almost motherly. Many people complained about the implausibility of the Captain Raydor seen in The Closer being the same character in Major Crimes. But I was fine with the change because (a) it was just a TV show, and (b) it's possible we did not know the character deeply enough at first in The Closer, and once we DID get to know her deeply, that newly displayed warmth made sense.

Maybe they will do a good job showing us the deeper Georgiou, and that depth of character may make it seem plausible that she could be a valid protagonist, even one who is more than just an anti-hero.

 

[Alan Roi]

I can't see them making a show with the main protagonist (which is what Georgiou will be) being eeeevil. As you said, there will probably need to be a redemption for the character in order for them to move forward with a show built around her.

However, even that is wrought with problems. There would be too many people -- fairly or unfairly -- who will claim that such redemption is too implausible or that a magical wholesale change in such a character is simply not possible.

A case in point might be the character of Sharon Raydor on Major Crimes. Her character (and the show) was spun off of the show The Closer. The character in The Closer was pretty much a one-dimensional asshole whose only trait seemed to be contempt.

Then that character became the protagonist of the spinoff series and had a major trait overhaul. She was suddenly given a warmer side, almost motherly. Many people complained about the implausibility of the Captain Raydor seen in The Closer being the same character in Major Crimes.

I was fine with the change because (a) it was just a TV show, and (b) it's possible we did not know the character deeply enough at first in The Closer, and once we DID get to know her deeply, that newly displayed warmth made sense.

Maybe they will do a good job showing us the deeper Georgiou, and that depth of character may make it seem plausible that she could be a valid protagonist, even one who is more than just an anti-hero.

We've already seen them adding depth to Georgiou, and I expect that will continue. Yes, there will be a conflict between the fans who want the traditional Star Trek experience and those looking for a new unexplored side of the Federation. I see it kind of more like how the Legends of Tomorrow was spun off myself as like White Canary. Georgiou isn't going to exactly be the only character we've seen end up in the cast.

 

[fireproof78]

Can anyone really imagine Yeoh not hissing her lines at this point?

Yes.

I hope the show proves me wrong, but I struggle to envision how a character whose sole trait is to be theatrically eeeeeevil becomes more interesting when you take away that eeeevilness. It's sort of like Batman redeeming the Joker. You could do it, but why?

Because redemption arcs offer narrative drama and have been apart of human story telling for many years.

 

[Alan Roi]

Re: the redemption discussion: I thought they botched Michael's redemption arc pretty badly in season one, so I can't say I'm eager to see what happens when they start with a character that's one-dimensional cardboard.

Beyond that, I fear that the writers are too infatuated with the campy eeeeevilness to really let go of it. Can anyone really imagine Yeoh not hissing her lines at this point?

I hope the show proves me wrong, but I struggle to envision how a character whose sole trait is to be theatrically eeeeeevil becomes more interesting when you take away that eeeevilness. It's sort of like Batman redeeming the Joker. You could do it, but why?

The Klingon from TOS were introduced as theatrically evil. They were brought back as revered heroes in DS9. Ducat went back and forth and then back and forth and maybe again. Watch G'Kar in Babylon 5 go from a mustache twirling villain in The Gathering to the most deeply revered character on the show by the time the series comes to a close. Can Disco pull a G'Kar or Ducat with the Emperor? Maybe, maybe not. But I'm a bowl of Gagh half full kind of guy. Why don't we let them try?

 

[Jadeb]

Maybe they will do a good job showing us the deeper Georgiou, and that depth of character may make it seem plausible that she could be a valid protagonist, even one who is more than just an anti-hero.

Hope so. But it just seems like a stretch to start with a cartoon and try to turn her into a compelling three-dimensional character. Even the original MU introduction from 50 years ago wasn't as caricatured and flat as Eeeevil Georgiou.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Hope so. But it just seems like a stretch to start with a cartoon and try to turn her into a compelling three-dimensional character. Even the original MU introduction from 50 years ago wasn't as caricatured and flat as Eeeevil Georgiou.

As Alan Roi pointed out above:

We've already seen them adding depth to Georgiou....

Specifically the way they showed Georgiou at the end of Point of Light warming up to the baby contrary to her earlier words about the uselessness of babies.

Perhaps the "evilness" that Georgiou outwardly displays includes at least some posturing on her part because that is the persona she wants to project (for various reasons), but she is actually less evil than that persona, as they might have been hinting with how she seemed to be a little enamored with the baby.

So maybe the baseline from which the character will begin her redemption is less "pure eeeevil" than we think.

(Granted, she eats sentient sapient Kelpiens, which seems pretty evil. However, maybe it was a cultural thing, and she will eventually understand the error of her ways in following those old cultural traditions that may not align with our own sensibilities).

 

[Jadeb]

Yeah, I expect that's how they'll go. But they'll have to do a pretty dramatic course correction. Seems like a long walk for a drink of water.

I suppose my real objection is that they've created such a cartoon character in the first place. You could have built a show around MU Spock pretty easily.

 

[Alan Roi]

Yeah, I expect that's how they'll go. But they'll have to do a pretty dramatic course correction. Seems like a long walk for a drink of water.

I suppose my real objection is that they've created such a cartoon character in the first place. You could have built a show around MU Spock pretty easily.

I'm pretty certain you would have said similar things about G'Kar a few eps into Babylon 5's first season. Sure it may be a long walk for a drink of water, but we've all had a drink of water after a long walk. And it is pretty satisfying nonetheless.

Its also becoming clear that her theatrical evil was for the benefit of an audience, just as Lorca played his audience in the MU different than in prime universe. Just look what it took for Tilly to get some appreciation as Captain Killy, IE pretending to be theatrically evil. Every encounter William Shatner or Chris Plummer in real life? When they aren't playing for an audience they don't quite come across as when they are acting on a stage.