Lives of Dax - Trill-Vulcan 1st Contact

[foravalon]

I suppose I see this as a moment in which playing "the let's reconcile this with canon game" seems a bit silly... T'Pau's appearance in the novel was later contradicted by canon, like so many other things in Trek. Since Rusch presumably had no clue they'd be showing T'Pau in Enterprise a few years later, it seems clear to me that this is what the author's intent was.

Attempting to reconcile different works with canon isn't silly at all, it's a fun and interesting exercise and I daresay it's one of the ways that many of the authors contributing to these threads make a living.

Anyone who feels the need to dismiss the practice is just being arbitrary and silly.

Keep it up, sussing out new and interesting ways to make the odd corners of our Trek universe more copacetic using reason is the bread and butter of these forums.

 

[tranya]

I suppose I see this as a moment in which playing "the let's reconcile this with canon game" seems a bit silly... T'Pau's appearance in the novel was later contradicted by canon, like so many other things in Trek. Since Rusch presumably had no clue they'd be showing T'Pau in Enterprise a few years later, it seems clear to me that this is what the author's intent was.

Attempting to reconcile different works with canon isn't silly at all, it's a fun and interesting exercise and I daresay it's one of the ways that many of the authors contributing to these threads make a living.

Anyone who feels the need to dismiss the practice is just being arbitrary and silly.

Keep it up, sussing out new and interesting ways to make the odd corners of our Trek universe more copacetic using reason is the bread and butter of these forums.

Tsk, tsk, please reread my posts. I didn't dismiss the practice in general -- who in their right mind would ever propose something like that on a Star Trek message board? Isn't that like 90% of what people talk about on these boards? -- I dismissed this particular case as being one which seems silly to debate.

Sure, Christopher's completely right, it makes a lot of sense that there are a bunch of Vulcan women named T'Pau. I find that explanation less fun to talk about (and, I suppose, "inelegant"), while others don't. It's not a big deal, so let's lay off the name-calling, shall we?

This begs the question, then, of what criteria (explicit or implicit) people have for judging the quality of a fan explanation like this. I honestly don't know -- my "inelegant" comment was a gut reaction. I'm trying to understand why I didn't find it as interesting or useful as, say, why John Watson's middle name is "Hamish" (one of my favorite fan explanations for a canon discrepancy). We have reasons for preferring some explanations to others, and I'm curious if we can suss out what they are.

 

[Timo]

For myself, I tend to favor the sort of explanations that initially take me by surprise, but make sense after I think it over. If there are two possibilities, the less likely of them thus probably takes the cake.

However, I have a special disliking for explanations that result in a "small universe". If there is a starship Constellation mentioned in three timepoints of Trek pseudohistory, it would be surprising to hear that they are all the same ship, perhaps preserved as a museum piece, perhaps traveling through time. But that explanation, while intriguing, would be inferior in removing up to two possible further pawns (the "other two" starships Constellation) from the Trek board. Thus, I very much delight in the idea that one of the three T'Paus sprinkled across the time continuum is a different person from the other two.

As a distant third, I like explanations that have historical precedent, however obscure. Many of the idiosyncracies of Starfleet and its ways come under this. But it it is possible to explain a phenomenon in a manner that brings a futuristic scifi twist, that is preferable - especially if said twist can be reapplied to explain away another discrepancy later on. I try not to reapply such twists when they don't really fit, though, not in place of a simpler explanation, even if reapplying would create enjoyable "continuity" by itself. Onscreen material always trumps all previous rationalizations, and often brings down very elaborate and beautiful houses of cards...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[foravalon]

It's not a big deal, so let's lay off the name-calling, shall we?

Name-calling?

This begs the question, then, of what criteria (explicit or implicit) people have for judging the quality of a fan explanation like this. I honestly don't know -- my "inelegant" comment was a gut reaction. I'm trying to understand why I didn't find it as interesting or useful as, say, why John Watson's middle name is "Hamish" (one of my favorite fan explanations for a canon discrepancy). We have reasons for preferring some explanations to others, and I'm curious if we can suss out what they are.

I still like the idea of Nikolai Rozhenko's middle name being Simon, but that's neither here nor there.

I'm mostly of a like mind with Timo when it comes to these sorts of things, but when it comes to "elegance" in the hypothetical setting it really is a difficult thing to quantify or even qualify for that matter.

I tend towards to simplest solution to any given situation. But the simplest solution is often the most boring one and given that we're speaking of literary fiction, boring often doesn't fly too well. But make it too "interesting" and it can all too easily become convoluted and implausible. (See: the case of Darth Vader vs. Luke, Lea, Obiwan, C3P0 & R2D2).

For me, elegance is a fine and reasonable balance between wacky absurdity and simplistic mundanity. Is it a coincidence that 2 characters named Worf happen to be related? Sure. Is it an instance of the small world syndrome? Sure. Is it plausible and elegant? Given the circumstances, IMO definitely , and if you've read Art of the Impossible it's also good writing when it's in the right hands.

Is it plausible and elegant that crewman Dax from STVI and the symbiont Dax are related? Given the circumstances, I would say no. What are the differences between the two situations?

Given the circumstances surrounding T'Pau, is it more plausible or elegant for it to be a completely random separate person, or for there to be some manner of connection between the two? It's a judgment call.

What about real life? Is it plausible and likely that John Addams and John Quincy Addams are connected? Sure. How about Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt? Look a little closer at Eleanor, you might be surprised.

 

[Christopher]

Is it a coincidence that 2 characters named Worf happen to be related? Sure.

No, it isn't. Something is only a coincidence if it isn't intentional. Is it a coincidence that Ed Begley's son is named Ed Begley, Jr.? Obviously not. Nor is it a coincidence that I have the same middle name as my grandfather and uncle.

It is a coincidence that the two Worfs have the exact same face and voice. It's a coincidence (and small universe syndrome) that both Worfs became involved with captains of ships named Enterprise. But it's not a coincidence that the later Worf was named in honor of his ancestor, any more than it's a coincidence that the Enterprise-D was named in honor of an ancestral member of its "family."

What about real life? Is it plausible and likely that John Addams and John Quincy Addams are connected? Sure. How about Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt? Look a little closer at Eleanor, you might be surprised.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. John Quincy Adams was John Adams's son; Franklin Roosevelt was Teddy Roosevelt's fifth cousin. So they were both shared family names. Unless you mean to imply that it's a coincidence that two fifth cousins would both become president. And as for Eleanor, are you referring to the fact that she was another fifth cousin of Franklin and had the same surname even before she married him? Not sure that counts as a coincidence, since it's not implausible that two people in the same extended family would meet and spend time together.

With Vulcan names, it's hard to say. We know that Vulcans have both given names and family names, but the family names seem to be rarely used (and in at least one case are unpronounceable by humans). So a name like T'Pau is more likely to be a given name than a family name. Therefore, analogies to the Adams and Roosevelt surnames are perhaps inappropriate. It could be that they're T'Pau Smith I and T'Pau Smith II, but they could just as easily be T'Pau Smith and T'Pau Jones, not related at all.

 

[tranya]

Is it just me or are these kinds of discussions become more and more nonsensical lately? I have no clue what's being argued by Timo or foravalon.

 

[JD]

I don't really think they're anymore nonsensical than usual.

 

[William Leisner]

Is it just me or are these kinds of discussions become more and more nonsensical lately? I have no clue what's being argued by Timo or foravalon.

I banana they tongue depresser aren't chainsaw.

 

[JD]

You cup dog hill?

 

[tranya]

Ia, purple monkey dishwasher... Ni var katra lematya dif-tor heh smusma midichlorian winnebago.

 

[Trent Roman]

I don't really think they're anymore nonsensical than usual.

Maybe not nonsensical, but we do seem to be flintier than usual, and I apologize for my part in that.

I blame winter.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[foravalon]

Is it just me or are these kinds of discussions become more and more nonsensical lately?

I don't really think they're anymore nonsensical than usual.

Here here! Truer words are rarely spoken.

I have no clue what's being argued by Timo or foravalon.

Timo and I are both just responding to your question about the criteria that people (namely us), have for judging the quality of these kinds of reconciliations and the reasons we have for preferring some explanations to others.

Timo's basically saying he prefers explanations that make sense, are surprising, and those which might have the best story potential. He also appreciates the use of explanations which have an historical precedent in Trek, as long as the precedent situation being cited is a good fit for the current situation trying to be explained.

I'm saying that I basically agree with that.

Offer an explanation that's tidy, reasonable, and interesting and I'm all for it.
Too wacky, I won't buy it: "Worf and Worf are the same person. How? Worf's on a secret Section 31 mission involving time travel!"
Too dull and simplistic and I literally won't buy it, ho hum: "Worf is a common Klingon name. They're just 2 totally unconnected guys".

Both explanations are reasonable and are perfectly valid choices. Do I think that either are good? No, I think they're both lame. I'd prefer to find an explanation that's somewhere in between. I think that's good writing.

I'm also saying that often, in reality, things which might seem off the wall or unbelievable are in fact true. So one would be ill advised to dismiss an odd explanation right off the bat just because it might seem unlikely. The truth is often more interesting than we'd ever commonly believe.