Fact-Checking Inside Star Trek: The Real Story

[Tallguy]

That makes sense as far as it goes, but I still think it's misleading to use the word "prevalent," since we're talking about maybe 4-5 references out of dozens of books, and most of those being merely to events established in the SFC rather than to specific dates. The prevailing practice, by a huge margin, was to be as agnostic on the calendar date as TOS itself was (aside from being consistent about the 23rd-century setting).

OK. First you said there were lots of references to both date systems. It was pointed out that there wasn't. Then you said there weren't enough references to either. I don't have a full catalog. Someone probably does. But anytime there is a reference it's (as far as we've established here) 100% consistent. Then you said it wasn't any kind of official Paramount thing. Now evidence has been presented that it was absolutely an official Paramount thing.

They weren't agnostic since by the time of the novels it had been established that it was The 23rd Century. Anytime historical events are mentioned (which, sure, doesn't come up in a story about grain farmers in a far flung colony discovering a new intelligent life form and Kirk must make a moral decision) they pinned it down to the SFC dating system.

Now if you can come up with some counter evidence other than "well, it didn't happen that much" then we can see if you have a leg to stand on.

 

[Christopher]

OK. First you said there were lots of references to both date systems.

I never said "lots of references." My exact words were:

Also, only a few of the '80s novels used the SFC scheme. There were other novels and reference works that used the 2260s timeframe that was eventually made official, or something close to it... .

Granted, I did say (in the portion quoted from the other thread) that there were "many" uses of the 2260s dating scheme in fan reference books, but in the context of the original post, I was saying that the five examples of that scheme that I listed were "many" in comparison to the maybe four explicit references to the 2200s scheme that I can think of (the SFC, two of Lora Johnson's reference books, and Final Frontier, since the other SFC references in the novels only mentioned events rather than dates). So we're talking about a handful of examples of either scheme.

They weren't agnostic since by the time of the novels it had been established that it was The 23rd Century.

I don't know why you're pointing that out, since both schemes were in the 23rd century; the disagreement was over which decade, the 2200s or the 2260s. As I've said, both the Blish adaptations and The Making of Star Trek established the 23rd century as the timeframe, so that was universally accepted in fandom long before it was ever mentioned onscreen. So the earlier (SFC) scheme tried to balance the stipulated 23rd-century setting with the first season's "200 years" allusions by putting it as early in the 23rd century as possible. Putting the first season in 2206-7 or thereabouts puts it only about 210 years after Khan was exiled, and 240 years after "Tomorrow is Yesterday," both of which are close enough for the "200 years" references to work. (Although it didn't mesh with the "Metamorphosis" dates, unless you were willing to accept the premise that Zefram Cochrane was born c. 1970.)

 

[Ssosmcin]

Agreed, JB! B&C is an underrated episode.

I wrote this in another forum:

Bread and Circuses is my favorite of these [parallel Earth] stories. It's very sharply written and the satire is actually still funny. This is a classic episode for Kirk, who gets to sleep with a blonde babe for no other reason than a good time (not to seek escape or get info) and a fabulous opportunity for Spock and McCoy to exchange insights. Flavius Maximus is a great character who is sadly ushered out of the story midway only to die defending his new friends. "Murderers! If you want death, fight me!" While the Christ thing at the end was really hitting the button hard, it was still a really nice way to wrap up an episode that is shockingly violent. I consider this one of Gene Roddenberry's best episodes.

 

[Phaser Two]

I wrote this in another forum:

Bread and Circuses is my favorite of these [parallel Earth] stories. It's very sharply written and the satire is actually still funny. This is a classic episode for Kirk, who gets to sleep with a blonde babe for no other reason than a good time (not to seek escape or get info) and a fabulous opportunity for Spock and McCoy to exchange insights. Flavius Maximus is a great character who is sadly ushered out of the story midway only to die defending his new friends. "Murderers! If you want death, fight me!" While the Christ thing at the end was really hitting the button hard, it was still a really nice way to wrap up an episode that is shockingly violent. I consider this one of Gene Roddenberry's best episodes.

Thanks for reproducing that here! Great insights and very well-written. I agree 100%.

 

[MAGolding]

...I don't know why you're pointing that out, since both schemes were in the 23rd century; the disagreement was over which decade, the 2200s or the 2260s. As I've said, both the Blish adaptations and The Making of Star Trek established the 23rd century as the timeframe, so that was universally accepted in fandom long before it was ever mentioned onscreen. So the earlier (SFC) scheme tried to balance the stipulated 23rd-century setting with the first season's "200 years" allusions by putting it as early in the 23rd century as possible. Putting the first season in 2206-7 or thereabouts puts it only about 210 years after Khan was exiled, and 240 years after "Tomorrow is Yesterday," both of which are close enough for the "200 years" references to work. (Although it didn't mesh with the "Metamorphosis" dates, unless you were willing to accept the premise that Zefram Cochrane was born c. 1970.)

Since my copies of the Blish adaptations are packed away, may I asked which ones put the date in the 3rd century? I think I do remember Uhura being described as a 23rd century woman when the Enterprise has a visitor, maybe Christopher in "Tomorrow is Yesterday" or Lincoln in "The Savage Curtain".

As I recall, The Making of Star Trek quotes several memos that mention that the series is 200 years in the future and other memos that mention that it is 300 years in the future. Thus one might suppose that TOS was about 250 years in the future to make both descriptions as close to accurate as possible. Since those memos were written about 1964 to 1968, TOS would happen about 2264 to 2268 if 300 years is always exactly 300.00 to 301.00 years in the future of the memos. Those 300 year memos imply, but don't directly state, that TOS is in the 23rd century. Is there a direct statement in The Making of Star Trek that TOS is in the 23rd century?

Putting the first season in 2206-7 or thereabouts puts it only about 210 years after Khan was exiled, and 240 years after "Tomorrow is Yesterday," both of which are close enough for the "200 years" references to work. (Although it didn't mesh with the "Metamorphosis" dates, unless you were willing to accept the premise that Zefram Cochrane was born c. 1970.)

The earlier that TOS happens, the more likely it is that Zefram Cochrane was born in or before 1970 or even left Earth in or before 1970.

James Blish, author of the TOS episode adaptations, also wrote many science fiction stories and novels, including the Cities in Flight series. In that series the spindizzy, the bases for interstellar travel, is discovered by Earth twice and used by Earth people to colonize other star system twice. The first period of interstellar colonization was forgotten and the spindizzy was rediscovered entirely independently on Earth leading to a second period of interstellar colonization.

And it is perfectly possible that in Star Trek some group of Earth people secretly discovered a method of rapid interstellar travel (or were given it by aliens or time travelers) in the 20th century and used it to leave Earth and colonize the stars without the rest of Earth knowing about it. Later, in the 1990s, sleeper ships were used for interplanetary travel, and later, in 2018 space travel became much faster - that could be merely interplanetary travel or interstellar travel as well. Eventually the two sets of interstellar explorers and travelers from Earth discover each other, sometime before TOS. Zefrem Cochrane could have discovered the space warp and invented the warp drive in either the first or the second period.

 

[STEPhon IT]

There's too much Retcon, Kool-Aid drinking to see the obvious. Trying too hard to make the 23rd Century bullsh*t fit, and it won't. Space Seed discusses what happened to the Supermen in the 1990's, Singh awaken to ask Kirk a specific question and received the answer. The years in the 2200's is way off for TOS, what's accurate is the years in the 2100's. In Star Trek's history, not our own, interstellar space travel was a likelihood. I can accept such travel's in Star Trek's 1970's, 80's and 1990's.

 

[BillJ]

Trying too hard to make the 23rd Century bullsh*t fit, and it won't.

Then take it up with Paramount and Roddenberry. TMP pretty firmly places TOS in the 23rd century. Unless Voyager VI launched before the 1900's.

 

[Christopher]

Since my copies of the Blish adaptations are packed away, may I asked which ones put the date in the 3rd century?

The first case I'm aware of is in "Space Seed," which is odd, because Blish otherwise keeps the episode's date references intact.

Is there a direct statement in The Making of Star Trek that TOS is in the 23rd century?

Several that I can find on a quick skim. On the Roddenberry quote on p. 170, he says "My scientist acquaintances are pretty sure they'll have something like a phaser well before the 23rd century." In the Roddenberry passage about McCoy's "salt shaker" medical instruments (p. 176), Roddenberry mentions asking what medical equipment would look like "three hundred years from now." Later, on p. 209, there's a line saying that the show's character "are played essentially as 20th century men, rather than 23rd century men." Four pages later, the chapter ends with "Three hundred years from now, who knows?" And that's all in less than 50 pages, so there are probably more throughout.

 

[MAGolding]

Then take it up with Paramount and Roddenberry. TMP pretty firmly places TOS in the 23rd century. Unless Voyager VI launched before the 1900's.

Before TNG came along and I became convinced that Earth events were dated in different Earth calendars in different episodes, I believed - like most Star Trek fans still believe - that all dates are given in one calendar, the Gregorian calendar. Thus I believed that the historical date in "Wolf in the Fold":

2156. Heliopolis, Alpha Eridani Two. Ten women knifed to death.

Was the most recent historical date before TOS.

And the dialog in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" seemed important:

MITCHELL: My love has wings. Slender, feathered things with grace in upswept curve and tapered tip. The Nightingale Woman, written by Phineas Tarbolde on the Canopius planet back in 1996. It's funny you picked that one, Doctor.
DEHNER: Why?
MITCHELL: That's one of the most passionate love sonnets of the past couple of centuries. How do you feel, Doctor?

If something written during "the past couple of centuries" was written in 1996, the date of "Where No Man Has Gone Before" would have to be in the period 2096 to 2196. Since the five year mission could last about five years if the name was correct, the very latest TOS and TAS episodes could happen as late as 2101 to 2201.

So combining those two sets of data gives a possible date range of 2156 to 2201 for TOS and TAS. That is the period where I set my early Star Trek chronology, and that is the only possible date range for TOS and TAS for people who still think that all dates are given in the Gregorian calendar.

According to "Where No Man Has Gone Before" the Valiant was lost over two hundred years earlier, and thus in or before the period of 1956 to 1996 that would be exactly 200 years before "Where No Man Has Gone Before". So Earth had warp drive or some other form of faster than light travel by the period of 1956 to 1996.

But "Space Seed" shows that Earth doesn't have faster than light travel in the 1990s:

MARLA: Captain, it's a sleeper ship.
KIRK: Suspended animation.
MARLA: I've seen old photographs of this. Necessary because of the time involved in space travel until about the year 2018. It took years just to travel from one planet to another.

Therefore, Earth had a form of FTL interstellar travel before the 1990s, but didn't during the 1990s, and discovered the same or a different form of FTL interstellar travel in about the year 2018, or possibly much later than 2018.

Thus in TOS, as in James Blish's Cities in Flight, Earth discovers FTL interstellar travel and begins exploring and colonizing other stars independently twice. It is possible that aliens or time travelers gave the knowledge of FTL space travel to a group of Earth people who kept it secret from the rest of humanity and eventually left Earth and never returned until after being contacted by the second group of explorers from Earth. So the first secret group could have sent out a series of voyager probes before 1900 and left Earth before the 1990s.

And that is the type of chronology you get if you assume that all dates are given in the Gregorian calendar.

 

[BillJ]

And that is the type of chronology you get if you assume that all dates are given in the Gregorian calendar.

Or, you do what they did realizing the mid-22nd century was too early, moving things back a century.

If you only look at TOS, then yeah, a case can be made for the mid-22nd century. Though I think it is shaky based on things like the Valiant.

 

[BillJ]

Therefore, Earth had a form of FTL interstellar travel before the 1990s, but didn't during the 1990s, and discovered the same or a different form of FTL interstellar travel in about the year 2018, or possibly much later than 2018.

For me, that is too messy.

If we go by "Space Seed", and a 2018 creation date for warp drive, the Valiant's launching roughly two centuries earlier in "Where No Man...", and Zefram Cochrane's 150 year relationship with the Companion from "Metamorphosis". I think you could make a case for somewhere between 2168 and 2218. Though that means the Valiant left pretty much immediately after the creation of warp drive and somehow made it to the edge of the galaxy in a very short period of time.

Though that compresses things down to a very narrow window of time.

 

[Tallguy]

Where No Man is a fun one because it's one of the few places that give us possibly conflicting time frames in the same episode!

 

[Christopher]

If something written during "the past couple of centuries" was written in 1996, the date of "Where No Man Has Gone Before" would have to be in the period 2096 to 2196.

Except "a couple of" is a vernacular term that's often used quite loosely. Literally, it means two, but people sometimes use it interchangeably with "a few," to mean an unspecified small number. Not to mention that anything up to 249 years could be rounded down to 200 -- and heck, sometimes people would even round numbers well into the upper 200s down to 200, because not everybody remembers rounding rules from math class. So it's entirely credible that someone speaking informally could say "a couple of centuries" for anything up to 300 years.

And that is the type of chronology you get if you assume that all dates are given in the Gregorian calendar.

No, it's the kind you get if you take every spoken word literally and assume nobody ever speaks inaccurately or makes a mistake. Real people get things wrong all the time, so fictional characters should too.

 

[MAGolding]

Except "a couple of" is a vernacular term that's often used quite loosely. Literally, it means two, but people sometimes use it interchangeably with "a few," to mean an unspecified small number. Not to mention that anything up to 249 years could be rounded down to 200 -- and heck, sometimes people would even round numbers well into the upper 200s down to 200, because not everybody remembers rounding rules from math class. So it's entirely credible that someone speaking informally could say "a couple of centuries" for anything up to 300 years.




No, it's the kind you get if you take every spoken word literally and assume nobody ever speaks inaccurately or makes a mistake. Real people get things wrong all the time, so fictional characters should too.

"Real people get things wrong all the time, so fictional characters should too."

Suppose you were reading or watching a space opera with FTL interstellar travel and character A mentions that a possible war with the Zarks would probably be as relatively devastating, but on a much vaster scale, as World War Two on Earth was. And character B says something like: "World War Two? That was about three hundred to five hundred years ago. Earth is lucky not to have had something worse for you to compare a Zark War with in all the centuries since then."

Most readers or viewers would assume that the date would be about AD 2239 to 2445, and possibly within about 50 years before or after those limits, based on what character B said, if that was the only evidence of the date.

And if, possibly years later in your time, after the bloody Zark War is fought and peace returns, a later novel or episode shows that the current year is equivalent to AD 3541, you would probably be shocked. But you might think that since character B is still alive and interacting with other characters, his vast chronological error might have been intended to foreshadow that character B is bad with math or history or is careless with facts. But if the series ends without character B being wrong about anything else, or being accused of being incorrect, you might feel cheated and think that since character B's statement about the time since WWII was not foreshadowing it was a big goof or disrespectful to the viewers/readers.

Fictional characters don't speak the same way that real people speak. Have any of your fictional characters spoken as poorly as real people do?

And when establishing the facts about a fictional setting fictional characters have to tell the exact literal truth, because the reader or viewer will have so few facts about the fictional setting as compared to the real world that every bit of information he gets has to be literally correct. Even more so when the fictional setting is science fiction or fantasy.

And the only exception is when a character's statements turn out to be lies or mistakes and the fact that particular character lies or is mistaken about that subject is important to the plot.

So I say that when a fictional character says a specific event was within the last couple of centuries that event has to have happened more than one hundred and less than two hundred years earlier.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

heck, sometimes people would even round numbers well into the upper 200s down to 200, because not everybody remembers rounding rules from math class

There's also no rule that says one should round instead of truncate; more to the point, there's no rule that says one should refer to a number of years that is more than two hundred but less than three hundred by three centuries, no matter how close it is to three, since it would in fact be false to say that it had the full capacity of three, though it always has at least the capacity of two.

 

[Christopher]

Most readers or viewers would assume that the date would be about AD 2239 to 2445, and possibly within about 50 years before or after those limits, based on what character B said, if that was the only evidence of the date.

But we're not talking about a situation where it's the only evidence. We're talking about a situation where some date references in early TOS contradict the chronology that was firmly established later in the franchise. And the easiest way to reconcile that contradiction is to assume the characters in the earlier instances were speaking imprecisely. Simple fix, no fuss, no drama.

But if the series ends without character B being wrong about anything else, or being accused of being incorrect, you might feel cheated

Not if you had any sense of perspective. "Cheated" over a trivial detail like that? That's a massive overreaction. You haven't been "cheated" if an ongoing series contains the occasional minor error or inconsistency. It's irrational to expect any human creation to be absolutely perfect. Hell, in early Marvel Comics, Stan Lee kept forgetting his own characters' names! (Peter Palmer and Bob Banner, anyone?) But those errors didn't fatally cripple audiences' ability to enjoy the series.

 

[BillJ]

And when establishing the facts about a fictional setting fictional characters have to tell the exact literal truth, because the reader or viewer will have so few facts about the fictional setting as compared to the real world that every bit of information he gets has to be literally correct. Even more so when the fictional setting is science fiction or fantasy.

Most people aren't into the details of the story as we are. So creators are fairly fast and loose with those details.

 

[GNDN18]

Call me “Slim.”

 

[Phaser Two]

You guys are all really smart, eloquent, and present your well-sourced arguments well. But I personally find this debate extremely tedious.

 

[Maurice]

You guys are all really smart, eloquent, and present your well-sourced arguments well. But I personally find this debate extremely tedious.

Also, this is getting WAY off topic.