Can anyone remember if it was mentioned that the alternate future Anselm was a novel not a biography or did assume it was ?
Spoilers Star Trek: Starfleet Academy 1x05 – “Series Acclimation Mil”
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
I don't believe so. They say that Jake wrote it in the house we see him in, and that he wrote it before he was forty. I think that's about it.
Pretty sure there's no indication of what that version really was, we only get the autobiographical push when young Jake starts it in The Muse.
Pretty sure there's no indication of what that version really was, we only get the autobiographical push when young Jake starts it in The Muse.
Okay. Had the weekend to stew on it.
Not much has changed on my opinion. but to me, they said they "Honored" DS9 and Avery. How? Had Jake on which was nice, but didn't do much of anything. Didn't really clear up the "Mystery" no big revelations. It was just to me a big, lets do a DS9 story for the memeberry's and clear up nothing, because there was nothing to clear up. DS9 ended like the story tellers wanted it finished. Its not like Enterprise where it just ended without a proper series finale ( No i don't acknowledge that finale ever) Or a Tng follow on from Nemesis.
Still my opinion, poorly written, which is saying something because i Love Kristen Beyers books.
Not much has changed on my opinion. but to me, they said they "Honored" DS9 and Avery. How? Had Jake on which was nice, but didn't do much of anything. Didn't really clear up the "Mystery" no big revelations. It was just to me a big, lets do a DS9 story for the memeberry's and clear up nothing, because there was nothing to clear up. DS9 ended like the story tellers wanted it finished. Its not like Enterprise where it just ended without a proper series finale ( No i don't acknowledge that finale ever) Or a Tng follow on from Nemesis.
Still my opinion, poorly written, which is saying something because i Love Kristen Beyers books.
Have you ever tried finding webpages from 20 years ago? Even Archive.org is missing a lot of them.
Regardless, while I admit historians fucking up a family tree this badly is a bit of a stretch, the most plausible possible reason is just the records got corrupted somewhere along the way.
I will fully admit that the real reason is the VFX department shit the bed yet again. One of the single worst aspects of modern Trek is the lack of coordination between the VFX and everyone else. Kinda feels like the directors do a semi-final cut, and then the graphic designers are given no direction more than "throw some shit in here!" But VFX is a notoriously overworked field now where folks are put on absurdly short deadlines, so I'm not surprised things slip (particularly when you don't do pre-vis like in the MCU, where they decide the VFX scenes prior to even having a script, and then build the story around them).
Historian here: yes, we can.
It still fits with the general model where the VFX work isn't really coordinated with the writer's room, or arguably even the showrunners.
My favorite example of this in modern Trek comes from the Season 1 DIS episode Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum. When the episode came out, it made no sense to me, because the Pahvans were these glowy blue energy beings, yet Saru and Burnham hang out in a yurt that someone presumably made. An interview later clarified the aliens were supposed to be humanoid and under heavy makeup (the original plan was for them to be mute and communicate through sign language), but they decided whilst filming the episode it wasn't working, and so decided "fuck it, we'll do CGI." Then the VFX team showed them as blue sparkles, which was really overused in Season 1 (used to depict the spores as well multiple times).
at this point it's time to take that bed to the ol' landfill.
I could see that there may have been actual confusion. The art department reads the script and maybe does a few internet searches, but really doesn't understand the complexities of Sisko's background. Perhaps they read guides written before season 7. Illa Dax off-handedly says that Benjamin Sisko was part prophet, not entirely human, which is not literally biologically true, but certainly descriptive. They go back to see that Sarah Sisko was the actual mother, that a non-corporeal being was involved in conception, and don't see any other named mother. Is it unreasonable to think they might mistaken Sarah for the human wife of Joseph but some other entity as the actual mother? And once the prop is on set ...
Now, I don't see why Sarah Sisko would be recognized as Benjamin's legal mother. It seems out of character for him to seek to replace the woman he cherished with another he never knew just to get facts right. No one in that family tree should have been described as a "non-corporeal" entitiy. Even Sarah was human. Leaving out Ben and Kasidy's child may be a mistake, but it is still an opportunity, and it could be argued that the genealogy was selective (as they sometimes are). The epsiode was so replete with facts from Sisko's biography that in spite of the errors, the win percentage is likely very high. The thrust of SAM's journey was to find a figure to emulate, and the facts given are sufficient. Tawny Newsome's (not to mention Cirroc Lofton's) mission was to bring Benjamin Sisko back into the mainstream of modern consciousness, which I think that episode could do.
I postulated in the thread over in the DS9 forum that the errors may be deliberate, both in a real world and an in-universe sense. For the privacy and safety of Ben's child and their descendants. I imagine the last thing Ben would want would be for his child to grow up under the shadow of being the child of the Emissary or under the threat of pah wraith wackos.
And if what SAM interacted with when she opened Anslem was some sort of program or hologram left by Jake, I submit that it may be very significant that the program referred to SAM as 'Sis'.
And if what SAM interacted with when she opened Anslem was some sort of program or hologram left by Jake, I submit that it may be very significant that the program referred to SAM as 'Sis'.
Or could it be that Jake wrote the book in a way that it could be easily interpolated into a hologram? Maybe Jake made his reputation providing holo-novels to Quark's franchisees.
I would say irs just the easiest way to someone with a hearing impairment that its Avery Brooks saying the dialogue?
Why would they deliberately leave off Ben's siblings? Why would they label the wrong wife of Joseph as Ben's mother? Why would they intentionally spell Kasidy incorrectly?
If you're gonna do all that, why have a public family tree in the museum at all?
Obviously, I can't answer those questions (and the fact that these questions are raised, again, may be deliberate). My theory is along the lines of providing safety and privacy for Sisko's descendants, particularly his child with Kasidy and their descendants.
I don't think the point of the episode was to provide definitive answers about anything because that would have ran counter to the questions that SAM was asking, both about Sisko and her own journey.
Then why the public tree at all?
It's difficult to buy "Kassidy Yates" is an effective way to help hide "Kasidy Yates"...I think you might be giving them too much credit.
Or possibly I'm not giving them enough.
Time might tell. 
I did because I think that an episode dedicated to Benjamin Sisko and how he became the Emissary to the Prophets via his arranged birth should get the simple facts of the arrangement correct.
The museum announcer even mentioned the name of Sarah right before SAM approached the family tree graphic. But the graphic says Sisko’s stepmother is the one who was joined with the “noncorporeal entity” (as they put it) and does not have Sarah’s name there at all!
That is incredibly sloppy and it seemed like they didn’t really care.
I rarely give under a 7 but this pissed me off. Maybe it’s the military veteran in me.
Sarah is on there, just not as Sisko's mother. That's what makes the error extra confusing.
20 years ago yes, though the technology keeps on getting better by leaps and bounds. I would expect the technology to keep progressing and getting better for the 800 or so years before the burn.
Look at the storage capacity from say the GameCube/ PS2 generation to what we have today. It is such a massive difference its almost unbelievable. Our interconnectedness for better or worse and substantially grown over hte last 20 years, let alone getting to the trek era.
All i'm saying it that the corrupted or lost data argument when talking about the burn just not a believable argument to me. Honestly the reason for the burn is much more believable than this is.
Technology does not grow in linear fashion.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll