Chancellor L’Rell and Klingon culture moves backwards in a century

[Lord Garth]

Given that L'Rell agreed to cease hostilities with the Federation and ended the War, and Azetbur was Chancellor during the Khitomer Peace Conference, I think there's a chance some of the "more conservative elements" in the Empire (to quote Spock) thought women were too soft and wanted a harder line. Which sounds hypocritical since there's later peace in TNG but we're talking about politicians here. Hypocrisy is a pre-requisite for them... when it comes to any species. And I doubt most of the ones we have are even part of our species. But, anyway.

There's a Star Trek novel by David R. George III, Serpents Among the Ruins (link), set in 2311, that partly deals with Klingons who are fed up with the way Azetbur has been running things.

 

[Timo]

I think it's implicit that the "Chancellor of the High Council" is on the Council.

...As opposed to being IN it, is my point. The King may have a Council he never was a mere member of. And whether the Empire is an extreme meritocracy or relies on nobility rules including ones on inheritance of power, "gradual rise" is unlikely to feature much.

It never made any sense that anyone could just challenge the chancellor in a duel at any moment and claim the job. If it is that easy, why someone didn't just challenge K'mpec? I'm sure both Duras and Gowron would have had way easier time against him that against each other.

Although we are never quite told this, it would appear that one can only challenge one's immediate superiors - unless the one challenged agrees to a duel with one from the lower ranks. Gowron was a man of honor in accepting Worf's challenge a number of times, but he could probably have said "duel this with my secretary's undersecretary and then he may arrange an audience with my secretary" and retired to his goblet of guthooch.

Challenging did go in orderly steps in "A Matter of Honor", and more or less so in "Soldiers of the Empire" and "Once More Unto the Breach", too. And the practices of the government reflecting those of the warship would seem like a very Klingon thing.

Of course, L'rell would also need her set of secretaries and undersecretaries and their sharp swords. But she comes from a powerful House, so she probably would command plenty of those from the get-go. Not to mention a broad collection of her enemies' enemies who, as per the debacle with Kol, would seem eager to forge quick alliances with anybody brave and powerful enough to take the leading position and its associated risks.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Locutus of Bored]

It never made any sense that anyone could just challenge the chancellor in a duel at any moment and claim the job. If it is that easy, why someone didn't just challenge K'mpec? I'm sure both Duras and Gowron would have had way easier time against him that against each other.

Because it's not that easy. Sure, perhaps anyone of a ruling House can challenge the Chancellor to a dual, but unless you have the political support of enough of the other ruling Houses to back your chancellorship (not to mention the military might to defeat any opposition), you're just going to get deposed by the next guy right away, and so on and so forth. So you still have to consolidate your political and military power first before you can make the challenge in order to hold on to the position.

K'mpec may not have been the most athletic Klingon, but we can infer by his unprecedented longevity in the Chancellorship that he was extremely well-connected politically, powerful militarily, and popular among the other ruling Houses, if for no other reason that he offered stability and a continuation of the status quo.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Since the people who are actually CREATING DSC have unequivocally stated that it takes place in the Prime timeline...that ends the discussion right there. It is not our place to question them.

I mean, you don't have to LIKE the show, of course. If it's not your thing, then fine. But who are you to tell DSC's showrunners what it "is"? Only those involved in creating a show (or film, or novel, or whatever) can know for sure what that thing actually IS.

It's always our place to question obvious stupidity or misdirection.

Authorial intent also changes over time. For example, Branon Braga saying ENT was an altered timeline spinning out of First Contact, and Manny Coto seeing it as a direct prequel to TOS. Or Kurtzman and Orci saying the Kelvin timeline split in 2233 and Simon Pegg saying it was the dawn of time. Or Data being conceived as the creation of unknown aliens but then changed to a human inventor. Or Trill hosts being literally hosts rather than a true symbiosis as it became in DS9. Or Ferengi being cannibals (holy shit, 2018 Klingons are 1987 Ferengi)

 

[Timo]

We can also refer back to precedent: every Trek spinoff (save just perhaps TAS) has had ambitions of being different, yet every Trek spinoff has also eventually gyrated back to Kirk, Klingons and the Enterprise. Typically through a phase of intense backpedaling, starting with a long Easter...

So if we feel like placing bets, it should be on those squares where ambiguity allows for consistency, or specifics (however unintentionally) support it. So far, the croupier has never stopped before the little ball has hit those squares. Even though in ENT it was a close call, and we still can't be totally sure about the Kelvin movies.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[INACTIVERedDwarf]

Honestly, assuming that every alien civilization is progressing at the same rate as the Federation strikes me as a bit of stretch. Sure, STAR TREK is based on the notion that human society is steadily improving (aside from little bumps like the Eugenics Wars, the Bell Riots, and World War III), but STAR TREK is also full of cautionary fables about once-great civilizations that took a wrong turn. And it's not as though the Klingons were ever intended to be socially enlightened role models. They're the anti-Federation antagonists, so why should we expect them to agree with us that the future is female? They slaughter civilian populations, poison grain shipments, plot political coups and assassinations, etc.

Agreed, it's just do they have to follow human tropes of backwardness? They are aliens, so there is no reason to suggest that it is progress, because they might never have had human social structures to begin with.

Sometimes enemy alien societies could have interesting, maybe somewhat redeeming, or maybe alternative/advanced social traits, and be more compelling as a culture for that reason, i.e. the Peacekeepers in Farscape, where their entire civilization is regimented, militaristic and organised like a barracks, to the ultimate effect that all Peacekeepers, man or woman, are a soldier from birth, and little attention is paid to gender.

They are not an ideal society by any stretch, they are totalitarians, and their society is full of abuse and ostracism, but they aren't without interest as a speculative view of an alien culture.

My impression of Klingons in Star Trek was that they were somewhat less sexually divided than many historical human societies. Perhaps it was more headcanon than screen evidence, but I thought that Klingon society might be more sex blind, as seen on Riker's visit to that Bird of Prey, where sexual relations within the Klingon military are discussed without stigma, and women are as physically imposing as men. Sort of a space-age Spartan or Viking attitude that anyone capable of killing is an equal. But the portrayal made them more sexist after that episode, and was not always consistent before that.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Didn’t one of the writers say that was a mistake on their part?

How come Klingons not wanting women around is a mistake but Pike going from a being a 60's sexist prick to captain of a ship predominantly staffed by women is progress?

Surely it's the same??

 

[Locutus of Bored]

How come Klingons not wanting women around is a mistake but Pike going from a being a 60's sexist prick to captain of a ship predominantly staffed by women is progress?

Surely it's the same??

Well, I would guess because one was an actual mistake (I guess, I'm just taking Tuskin's claim at face value that someone said it was a mistake, I don't know myself), and the other was a deliberate choice reflecting the less than stellar views towards women of the mid-60s which is best forgotten when making a show in the present day. Is that really difficult?

Also, the Federation is supposed to represent more egalitarian and progressive ideals than the Klingons, so having the Klingons have regressive treatment of women is not supposed to be considered a good thing, whereas if the Starfleet personnel who are depicted as the heroes of the show did it would seem supportive of mistreating women, which would be bad.

 

[Timo]

Where does this "mistreatment of women" come in with Pike, though? It's the poor boy who is having trouble with women, not vice versa - he can't (won't) stop women from frequenting his bridge, say, even if this anguishes him a lot and he's the bloody skipper.

The man has problems. Not abstract problems vis-á-vis the expectations of the society, but actual personal problems that make him feel ill at ease. But no women are hurt in the process, as far as we can tell. Quite the opposite, it seems, as Pike is the first to defend all the choices they make. Including deciding to get defended by Pike.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Nyotarules]

What happened to your society that made you shun women following the century where you had not one but TWO female chancellors (that we know of)?

That makes me like TNG Klingons a little less.

The same thing that some humans want to happen on Earth, give the extreme wing of any political party a go at running things and women will be forced to stay at home, always pregnant, making tea for good ole hubby and changing nappies for baby number 10.
Consider Pakistan and India had female Prime Ministers, the USA still has not even managed that yet. Pakistan and India are not exact Earth's HQ for feminism.
The leader of the free world has followers who don't care he likes to grab hold of little female cats...
And you wonder how fictional aliens have a problem?

 

[Noname Given]

The absolute worst part was the entire "Klingon drama" was reduced to four people - Voq, L'Rell, T'Kuvma, and Kol. There were a handful of others who at least had names (like that woman who wore the head jewelry) but they weren't characters really.

Thus, at the end of the season, since T'Kuvma was dead, Kol was dead, and Voq was in a human body, L'Rell had to control the Klingon Empire, because there was no one else left to do it.

Oh please under TNG era Star Trek it was all Gowron, Worf, Martok, and Duras as far as intersecting 'Klingon plotlines' for nearly a decade.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

so why should we expect them to agree with us that the future is female?

I’m fine with the Klingons not aligning with human values - they are aliens when all said and done. But their attitude towards women has never broadly suggested that women would ever be excluded from any part of Klingon society. I’m beginning to think that Gowron was perhaps way more of a conservative traditionalist than I realised.

Consider Pakistan and India had female Prime Ministers, the USA still has not even managed that yet. Pakistan and India are not exact Earth's HQ for feminism.

This could perhaps be a parallel for the Klingon empire. I wonder whether we’ll see L’Rell struggle against what could be a patriarchal Klingon society? Would that be too edgy for Discovery?

Oh please under TNG era Star Trek it was all Gowron, Worf, Martok, and Duras as far as intersecting 'Klingon plotlines' for nearly a decade.

That’s true - but Picard was an important starfleet captain, hence he was asked to perform the ascension ceremony by K’mpec. He then got to know Gowron, an important Klingon fairly well. He also got to know Duras because of his interactions with K’mpec - and the lynchpin of it all was that he had a Klingon serving on his starship. That same Klingon later served on a pivotal outpost in the following conflict with both the Klingon empire and the dominion.

So none of that was coincidental - there were key characters linking everyone together. And, even in so doing, Klingon culture was explored in deeper ways. Member when Kang Kor and Koloth showed up and they went on a mission with Dax? Member when we learned the strict class system Klingons have through Martok complaining about Kor? Member when we learned that Klingons don’t innately hate romulans and they could live together because of a rumour about worf’s Dad?

Now let’s look at what we learned about the Klingons in DSC through their four characters:

They are xenophobic except when they’re not (cf all the aliens on their home planet)

They’re cannibals when the story wants to gross us out.

They have terrible dress sense in the 23rd century.

They struggle to speak their own language.

My understanding of Klingon culture has never been so rich.

 

[Greg Cox]

They’re cannibals when the story wants to gross us out..

To be fair, the cannibalism took place during a Donner Party situation, when they were stranded in space without any food. Humans can and will react the same way under such circumstances. Doesn't mean Klingons routinely practice cannibalism. (And does it count as cannibalism if you're eating another species?)

"The Donner Party violates canon! Everyone knows 19th-century Americans don't eat human flesh! History is just trying to gross us out."

See also the Andes plane crash survivors back in the 1970s . . . .

 

[Tuskin38]

They are xenophobic except when they’re not (cf all the aliens on their home planet)

They were not entirely xenophobic, T'Kuvma was just afraid of the Federation taking over Klingon Culture.

Also see Chang in Star Trek 6. He was afraid of the same thing.

 

[eschaton]

Oh please under TNG era Star Trek it was all Gowron, Worf, Martok, and Duras as far as intersecting 'Klingon plotlines' for nearly a decade.

While the recurring Klingon characters were basically (as I said in another thread) Worf's family, houses feuding with Worf, and Martok, there were plenty of one-off Klingons who actually had names and even personalities in TNG and DS9.

Regardless, it was more excusable for most of the run, because the "Klingon arc" mostly dealt with the issue of redemption for House of Mogh. Of course with a smaller-bore story like that you're going to see a story which focuses on only a few characters. It only jumped the shark right at the end of the series, where a knife-fight between Gowron and Worf settled the leadership of the entire friggin Klingon Empire.

Still, I wouldn't argue that TNG/DS9 is the standard to hold to here. TV has moved past that. As I said in the past, Game of Thrones is an interesting comparison to DIS because the first season had roughly the same budget and runtime, and was also released on a week-to-week basis. They had 18 main cast members, and gave decent development to maybe another dozen recurring characters. How come GoT could do this for 30 characters in 10 episodes, but DIS couldn't even really flesh out a dozen in 15?

 

[Noname Given]

Now let’s look at what we learned about the Klingons in DSC through their four characters:

They are xenophobic except when they’re not (cf all the aliens on their home planet)

You forget to mention all the 'aliens' are in a ghetto area specifically set aside for them away from the rest of the planet.

They’re cannibals when the story wants to gross us out.

How many times on DS9 did Worf or Martok talk about "feasting on the enemy's "still beating heart" during or after combat?

They have terrible dress sense in the 23rd century.

Um, they look terrible no matter what century they're in. Plus the 'Klingon Look' changed from original TOS feature film to feature film and said look even evolved overall throughout the 18 years (24 TV seasons) of Berman/TNG Era Trek.

They struggle to speak their own language.

Hey, blame that on the Federation UT - which supposedly in TNG Era Trek is 'always on' and a function of the communicator pins - yet every so often it decides to NOT translate Klingon and let the 'real' Klingon word be heard instead.

My understanding of Klingon culture has never been so rich.

That's because it's never been consistant:
TOS era - They're effectively nomadic Mongol type warriors (Victory and success prized over any 'Honor')

TOS Film Era - They're buffoons (In STIII:TSFS the boarding party doesn't even realize they're listing to a countdown; and Kurg kills his wife/mistress for effectively verifying the data she retrieved is legitimate, etc.) In STVI:TUC The Chancellor has ZERO clue his entire Military Leadership is conspiring against him.

TNG Era - They start out as very similar to TOS Film era Klingons and we hear occasional talk of "Honor" (uyet is TNG S! "Heart of Glory" we have two Klingons ready to take a child as a hostage (If Worf wasn't there and they didn't still think they could win him to their cause - they would have used the child). And don't get me started on the idiotic Klingon Bird of Prey Captain in TNG S2 - "A Matter of Honor" who feels is perfectly okay to kill himself and his entire ship crew (not to mention perhaps start a war with the Federation) all because he somehow stupidly feels the Federation is out to sabotage/destroy his ship for no real reason. By Season 3 of TNG the writers started to show Klingons in general as more intelligent/politically minded; and seemed to model their society more along ancient Viking Culture - and 'Honor' was just a political tool to many of them.

The setup in ST: D is akin to how TOS introduced the Romulans in TOS - "Balance of Terror" - IE Klingons had retreated and come out for the occasional raid, but after the 22nd century 'Archer' Star Trek had really maintained contact with Humans/The Federation for nearly a century - until the T'Kuvma incident.

What we learned about Klingons is they're divided. they control a vast area of space; but it's all independent Houses who fight among themselves, and their is no one Chancellor or Klingon Council Leader uniting them. Klingons have supposedly attempted to take control over the past century, but none have succeeded. (IE - Very much like the Mongol tribes prior to Genghis Khan.)

While the recurring Klingon characters were basically (as I said in another thread) Worf's family, houses feuding with Worf, and Martok, there were plenty of one-off Klingons who actually had names and even personalities in TNG and DS9.

Regardless, it was more excusable for most of the run, because the "Klingon arc" mostly dealt with the issue of redemption for House of Mogh. Of course with a smaller-bore story like that you're going to see a story which focuses on only a few characters. It only jumped the shark right at the end of the series, where a knife-fight between Gowron and Worf settled the leadership of the entire friggin Klingon Empire.

Still, I wouldn't argue that TNG/DS9 is the standard to hold to here. TV has moved past that. As I said in the past, Game of Thrones is an interesting comparison to DIS because the first season had roughly the same budget and runtime, and was also released on a week-to-week basis. They had 18 main cast members, and gave decent development to maybe another dozen recurring characters. How come GoT could do this for 30 characters in 10 episodes, but DIS couldn't even really flesh out a dozen in 15?

True, but with only one Season (15 episodes) of ST: D - The Klingon story seems VERY centered around L'Rell and Voq/Ash, and it will be about how she either succeeds or fails to unify the Klingon Empire and the fallout from that.

ETA: I got confused between T'Kuvma and Voq, my bad.

 

[Greg Cox]

While the recurring Klingon characters were basically (as I said in another thread) Worf's family, houses feuding with Worf, and Martok, there were plenty of one-off Klingons who actually had names and even personalities in TNG and DS9.

Over the course of fourteen seasons of twenty-plus episodes. Yes, of course, you're going to find a greater number of interesting Klingon guest-stars when you compare more than 300 episodes of TNG and DS9 to the first fifteen episodes of DISCO.

How many memorable "one-off" Klingons did TNG or DS9 nine feature in their first 15 episodes?

 

[fireproof78]

. How come GoT could do this for 30 characters in 10 episodes, but DIS couldn't even really flesh out a dozen in 15?

The material was already written and just needed to be adapted, as well as a change of leadership midstream for DSC.

 

[Tuskin38]

You forget to mention all the 'aliens' are in a ghetto area specifically set aside for them away from the rest of the planet.

Wasn't that the Orion Embassy territory?

 

[lawman]

not necessarily. if the members of the Council are like members of Parliament then they are the legislative branch of government to the Chancellor who is the executive branch and therefore not part of the Council per se

The analogy is misplaced here. In a traditional parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is both the head of government and still a member of Parliament.

To be fair, the cannibalism took place during a Donner Party situation, when they were stranded in space without any food.

Yes, but obviously that was a choice by the writers — and a contrived one, as leaving the sarcophagus ship sitting there for months didn't really make any particular sense. DSC's S1 writers seemed rather preoccupied with cannibalism, as also evidenced by their later handling of Georgiou.