Is Troi nobility?

[Orphalesion]

So what? I find that a needlessly exclusionary attitude. It's all equally fictional -- it's not like there's a test we have to study for, or some "pure vision" we have to protect. If it's all equally fictional, and one apocryphal sources has established some info that the canon hasn't, why not accept that apocryphal information unless the canon contradicts it? Anything else is just exclusion for the sake of exclusion.

Of course its all equally fictional, but one is the show, the other is licensed fanfiction that frequently contradicts itself between different book series, goes out of print, is not as widely available as the show etc.. This is the life action forum, not the trkliterature forum. The names are, by your own admission all non-canon, so it's pointless to try to cite them to "prove" anything about the TV verse.

Judging from the TV show there is no reason to think that Vulcan is called anything else but Vulcan(except the native name one might assume) or if Vulcan colonies are united with their mother world under some form of polity or not. Not Vulcan Confederacy, not Logocracy of United Vulcan and not Vulcan Ecclesiasty.

*shrugs* Is it really so implausible that the Risians would have different ideas about hedonism than Humans? I don't see a problem with that.

You didn't read my post at all, did you? My argument was that humans would likely translate it differently to avoid the negative meaning hedonism has developed. Let alone that the name is just as stupid as "Trill Symbiosis"
And really, Andorian Empire?

What's Betazed? The United People's Telepathy of Beta Zeta?

 

[Ithekro]

Convinient translation into a human language for consumption by the audiance?


Or in a historical case, the Empire of Japan. (Dai Nippon Teikoku).

 

[Nerys Myk]

Of course its all equally fictional, but one is the show, the other is licensed fanfiction that frequently contradicts itself between different book series, goes out of print, is not as widely available as the show etc.

The books are written by professionals who actually get paid and are published by an actual publishing company. So not "fanfiction"

 

[Orphalesion]

Okay that was a bit harsh of me. Though I'm not the only one who called it that on this very forum.

I'm not the biggest fan of using the Novel verse in argument because it is so vast and large parts of it are so difficult to get hold of that it removes the common reference pool we all have with the series.

 

[Shawnster]

So what? I find that a needlessly exclusionary attitude. It's all equally fictional -- it's not like there's a test we have to study for, or some "pure vision" we have to protect. If it's all equally fictional, and one apocryphal sources has established some info that the canon hasn't, why not accept that apocryphal information unless the canon contradicts it? Anything else is just exclusion for the sake of exclusion.

Of course its all equally fictional, but one is the show, the other is licensed fanfiction that frequently contradicts itself between different book series, goes out of print, is not as widely available as the show etc.. This is the life action forum, not the trkliterature forum. The names are, by your own admission all non-canon, so it's pointless to try to cite them to "prove" anything about the TV verse.

I was going to point that out as well. Yes, it's all fiction but somebody is out there choosing or telling the fans which fiction is correct and which fiction should be ignored. Further, what makes the published fiction more valid than my own fan fiction? Does the fact it's published give more weight over not being published? If that's the case, then does what appears on screen get more importance than what is in print? Do Pocket Books have more validity over Bantam or Ballantine?

I mean, somebody's making these rules up.

 

[Nerys Myk]

So what? I find that a needlessly exclusionary attitude. It's all equally fictional -- it's not like there's a test we have to study for, or some "pure vision" we have to protect. If it's all equally fictional, and one apocryphal sources has established some info that the canon hasn't, why not accept that apocryphal information unless the canon contradicts it? Anything else is just exclusion for the sake of exclusion.

Of course its all equally fictional, but one is the show, the other is licensed fanfiction that frequently contradicts itself between different book series, goes out of print, is not as widely available as the show etc.. This is the life action forum, not the trkliterature forum. The names are, by your own admission all non-canon, so it's pointless to try to cite them to "prove" anything about the TV verse.

I was going to point that out as well. Yes, it's all fiction but somebody is out there choosing or telling the fans which fiction is correct and which fiction should be ignored. Further, what makes the published fiction more valid than my own fan fiction? Does the fact it's published give more weight over not being published? If that's the case, then does what appears on screen get more importance than what is in print? Do Pocket Books have more validity over Bantam or Ballantine?

I mean, somebody's making these rules up.

CBS Entertainment. Prior to that Paramount

 

[Sci]

^I think you are trying to convince me that I am making hay out of nothing,

No. I'm honestly thinking that we misunderstood what the other was trying to say.

If I am understand you correctly now, you seem to be under the impression that I was trying to say that "China" and "Zhōngguó" are etymologically related (as in the comparison you made between Munich/München). I was not. All that I was trying to say was that "Zhōngguó" is the Mandarin term for the country known in English as "China."

In doing so, I was implicitly attempting to support what I took to be your earlier point that the term used for a nation in one language may be wholly unrelated to the term that nation uses for itself in its own language. I did not make this clear; I apologize.

It did not occur to me that you were trying to disabuse anyone of the notion that "China" is not a translated endonym for "Zhōngguó."

So what? I find that a needlessly exclusionary attitude. It's all equally fictional -- it's not like there's a test we have to study for, or some "pure vision" we have to protect. If it's all equally fictional, and one apocryphal sources has established some info that the canon hasn't, why not accept that apocryphal information unless the canon contradicts it? Anything else is just exclusion for the sake of exclusion.

Of course its all equally fictional, but one is the show, the other is licensed fanfiction that frequently contradicts itself between different book series,

Yes. So what? Fans of different books can bring their preferred terms to the table instead.

My intent in bringing the books' names for Federation Members up was not to definitively say, "These are their One True Names and all other names are false!" The intent was, "Hey, listen. This is one source; it's apocryphal; this is what they use. I think they're usually pretty fun. Use them if you like."

Not every question has to have a single correct answer.

The names are, by your own admission all non-canon, so it's pointless to try to cite them to "prove" anything about the TV verse.

Who was trying to "prove" anything? I brought the names up because they're a fun piece of info!

*shrugs* Is it really so implausible that the Risians would have different ideas about hedonism than Humans? I don't see a problem with that.

You didn't read my post at all, did you? My argument was that humans would likely translate it differently to avoid the negative meaning hedonism has developed.

Yes, I understand your argument. I just don't agree with the premise that Humans would translate it differently, because I think that invoking the idea of hedonism was Mandel's creative intent. If you have an alien culture that believes in hedonism as a philosophy, why not have that reflected in the name? Why assume that Humans of the 24th Century would be so Victorian in their attitudes, or so intolerant of differing philosophies, as to try to paper over the overt celebration of hedonism as a philosophy by using a different name "without the aftertaste?"

Let alone that the name is just as stupid as "Trill Symbiosis"

Yeah, that one's stupid. Good thing none of the novels have used it.

And really, Andorian Empire?

That one is almost canonical. It's kind of hard to have an Andorian Imperial Guard if there's no Andorian Empire -- "imperial" being the adjectival form of "empire" and all. Even the canon-only Memory Alpha uses "Andorian Empire."

What's Betazed? The United People's Telepathy of Beta Zeta?

I don't have my copy, so I'm not sure. I want to say that Mandel had them listed as "Fifth House of Betazed," but I'm not certain. So far as I know, none of the novels have used that name or any other full formal name for Betazed's polity.

Okay that was a bit harsh of me.

It was also factually inaccurate. Fan fiction is by definition unlicensed (and, technically, illegal, as it constitutes a violation of trademark and copyright). The Star Trek novels are licensed by CBS Studios, the owners of Star Trek, and each novel is read and approved for publication by them.

I'm not the biggest fan of using the Novel verse in argument because it is so vast and large parts of it are so difficult to get hold of

Every Star Trek novel published for at least the past ten years has been available as an e-book, and I'm fairly certain most of the backlog has been made available as an e-book as well. None of the books are more than a click away.

I was going to point that out as well. Yes, it's all fiction but somebody is out there choosing or telling the fans which fiction is correct and which fiction should be ignored.

Don't be silly. No one's telling anyone which fiction should be ignored.

All that "canon" means is that it's the body of work upon which another body of work is based. In the case of Star Trek, that just means that works that aren't canon can't contradict the canon, but have the option of contradicting one-another if they so choose. That's it.

Seriously, there's no one out there saying that a given Trek book "doesn't count."

Further, what makes the published fiction more valid than my own fan fiction?

It's licensed and approved by the owners of Star Trek.

Do Pocket Books have more validity over Bantam or Ballantine?

Nope! Though I don't think any of the Ballantine books ever gave the Federation Members' official names.

But why shouldn't we bring up multiple interpretations of Star Trek? Why should there only be one "true" answer to these questions? Why not celebrate multiple interpretations?

I already brought up Franz Joseph's names for them in 1975's Star Fleet Technical Manual. So is it the Confederacy of Vulcan, the Confederacy of Surak, or the Planetary Confederacy of 40 Eridani? Or is it just Vulcan?

The real answer is -- whichever you want. But why not be aware of the apocryphal options for your personal use and enjoyment?

I mean, somebody's making these rules up.

The "rule" is only there to tell Star Trek authors that they have to be consistent with the canon. (Canon, of course, is always free to contradict whatever it wants, including other canon.) It's really a corporate thing that's only meaningful if you're writing for the book line.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

^Thank you. I wish I had understood your intentions earlier.

 

[T'Girl]

I mean, somebody's making these rules up.

The "rule" is only there to tell Star Trek authors that they have to be consistent with the canon

But the novels exist in a separate canon universe, with a separate history that has expanded away from the prime universe, a history that includes the Borg slaughtering a massive piece of the Federation's population.

A number of brand new characters, and brand new ships, that have no existence on the actual show. The crews many of us have grown to love split apart and sent to new assignments.

 

[Sci]

^Thank you. I wish I had understood your intentions earlier.

No worries!

I mean, somebody's making these rules up.

The "rule" is only there to tell Star Trek authors that they have to be consistent with the canon

But the novels exist in a separate canon universe, with a separate history that has expanded away from the prime universe, a history that includes the Borg slaughtering a massive piece of the Federation's population.

The novels have, indeed, developed a continuity and history that is non-canonical. It is only "separate" if you want it to be; their continuity remains entirely consistent with the canon.

Further -- not all the novels take place in that continuity! Novelists are free to make their books part of, or not part of, that continuity as they please. The development of that continuity is a choice, not a requirement. The only "rule," again, is that novels have to be consistent with the canon.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I already brought up Franz Joseph's names for them in 1975's Star Fleet Technical Manual. So is it the Confederacy of Vulcan, the Confederacy of Surak, or the Planetary Confederacy of 40 Eridani? Or is it just Vulcan?

I originally thought 'Confederacy of Surak' applied only to the Vulcans of the Abramsverse - i.e. the government that was established after Vulcan was destroyed, so it would comprise New Vulcan and the surviving colonies.

I actually had no idea that the term was used anywhere other than STID.

 

[MacLeod]

The problem with the EU system (and, indeed, with federalised systems in general) is that you either get a sitation where the most powerful/largest/economically powerful states have a much greater say than those in the sticks, and therefore put their own interests above (perhaps) more needy constituents; or else you get the exact reverse situation, where the smallest states have a power that is much too great for their apparent stature. As a fellow Aussie, Orphalesion will understand what I mean when I talk about Tasmania, which is a small state in terms of any kind of economic and societal measure (let alone geography ), but which punches far above its weight because the Australian central system means that its representatives in the senate (in the current case Jaquie Lambie, but previously Brian Harradine) are able to use their votes as a means of leveraging the central power to give special concessions to them, which other more prosperous states do not often get.

The EU is flawed on the same kind of level (but grander). Each of the country-states has got a certain autonomy, but that leads to the likes of Greece being able to, in effect, hold Brussels to ransom, because the only alternative is to set them adrift from the union, which of course Brussels doesn't want to do. So, you end up with the situation where an economically dire country does not feel the need to boost their own economy, because they can just sit on their hands and ask for a pay check any time they need it... and they'll get it every time.

I guess the analogy to the Federation would be that a small rock on the very edge of explored space, upon becoming a UFP member, would have as much clout as powerhouses like Earth, Vulcan or Andoria. Which looks nice and utopian on paper, but which doesn't make a bean of sense in the way any real union could work. Our current world proves that.

With regards to Greece and the EU, the problem is not so much the EU but rather as a member of the Eurozone, Greece has no means to weather finacial storms. For example the UK being a member of the EU but not of the eurozone can adjust interest rates. Greece being part of the Eurozone has to go with the interest rate which is the best for the Eurozone as a whole. And as you highlight this can cause issues given the ongoing Greek Crisis, the Greeks aren't happy about the measures that creditors nations want, and some in the creditor nations are saying why are we paying our taxes to fund the Greeks.

But to answer the OP's question, I'd be tempted to go with the theory that's it's an oboslete title that at one point had some meaning.

 

[Lance]

It's unfortunate. And one of the real dangers of centralisation. IMO a lot of the problems inherent in the current world financially can be traced to everything becoming centralised into a global economy, which includes not just the banking systems, but even things like free-trade agreements. I think more places need the flexibility of being able to exercise true autonomy, even if they are also a part of a much bigger fish. Because it isn't good for the whole when one 'member state' holds others back (dead wood), but neither is it good for the individual member state when they are tied contractually into some kind of global paradigm and therefore can't put into place measures to help themselves claw back out of the situation. At the end of the day, nobody wins.

 

[Sci]

It's unfortunate. And one of the real dangers of centralisation. IMO a lot of the problems inherent in the current world financially can be traced to everything becoming centralised into a global economy, which includes not just the banking systems, but even things like free-trade agreements. I think more places need the flexibility of being able to exercise true autonomy, even if they are also a part of a much bigger fish. Because it isn't good for the whole when one 'member state' holds others back (dead wood), but neither is it good for the individual member state when they are tied contractually into some kind of global paradigm and therefore can't put into place measures to help themselves claw back out of the situation. At the end of the day, nobody wins.

I mean, it's not really a matter of centralization, per se. Mississippi's role within the U.S. economy is similar to Greece's -- but because the U.S. is a federation, Mississippi is kept afloat by its integration into the national economy, while the E.U.'s lack of federal integration keeps its member states with weaker economies from being kept afloat.

It's a matter of the fact that the E.U. won't shit or get off the pot. If they were to decide either to become a fully federal state or to give up their control over member states' monetary policy, then Greece and the other affected E.U. states could weather the storm okay and recover. But of course they won't do that.

I don't see how Greece gets out of this without a Grexit. But that's just me.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

As far as I'm concerned, 'Canon' for a decades old series with multiple incarnations and a deceased original creator comes from a rough consensus of the fanbase, and not just whichever corporation currently owns the right to profit from the franchise.

 

[Nerys Myk]

As far as I'm concerned, 'Canon' for a decades old series with multiple incarnations and a deceased original creator comes from a rough consensus of the fanbase, and not just whichever corporation currently owns the right to profit from the franchise.

No

 

[BeatleJWOL]

Well it worked for the Bible.

 

[Lance]

"Fans" are never the best arbiters of the canon. We can't be trusted not to be too close to the material.

 

[Sci]

As far as I'm concerned, 'Canon' for a decades old series with multiple incarnations and a deceased original creator comes from a rough consensus of the fanbase, and not just whichever corporation currently owns the right to profit from the franchise.

False. The canon is defined by the owners of Star Trek, and the Star Trek canon only encompasses the live-action television shows and films. It is a matter of fact, not of opinion. But it is also only a matter of what comprises the source material versus the material based on the source material. It's not a statement of quality or validity.