Multiple versions of the same story

[Idran]

That's reason enough for me to bring up the question of Sisko being a Bajoran. His home was located on Bajor, so naturally he would be considered a Bajoran legally, wouldn't he? Or would he just be viewed as a Federation citizen?

Beyond Christopher's point about Star Trek's tendency to equate species and nationality, from a political perspective (once Bajor enters the Federation), I imagine it might be that he would be a citizen both of Bajor and of the Federation. Individual member nations of the Federation seem relatively independent, so citizenship of both are probably separately tracked. And from a purely logistical perspective, it makes sense to consider levels of citizenship below the most federated level, for ease of record-keeping, organization, etc. Like being a citizen of both the state you live in and the nation as a whole in, say, modern-day Germany or the US with regard to various government processes at both levels.

 

[Stevil2001]

Not necessarily. The same title can be used by the leaders of different political entities -- for instance, President of the United States vs. President of the United Federation of Planets. The German "Kaiser" and Russian "Czar" were both derived from "Caesar," the Roman title for an emperor.

I doubt Quark would call him "the first Grand Nagus," then, anymore than a Russian serf would call Julius Caesar "the first czar." Heck, no one would even call Peyton Randolph "the first President."

 

[Christopher]

I doubt Quark would call him "the first Grand Nagus," then, anymore than a Russian serf would call Julius Caesar "the first czar."

But the title "czar" (or "tsar") was first used by Simeon I of Bulgaria in 893 CE, and was a title for rulers in the First and Second Bulgarian Empires and the Serbian Empire before it started to be used in Russia. In fact, the last Bulgarian czar (and the last czar to date) was more recent than the last Russian czar. And before it had czars, Bulgaria had khans, a title that originated way over in Mongolia. So Bulgaria proves twice over that it's possible for the first user of a title to rule a different political entity than the current user.

 

[Enterprise1701]

I doubt Quark would call him "the first Grand Nagus," then, anymore than a Russian serf would call Julius Caesar "the first czar." Heck, no one would even call Peyton Randolph "the first President."

In fact, historically-knowledgeable Russians probably would say some version of that. After all, the Russian Empire was founded in part on the notion of being a third Rome. First, the Roman Empire. Second, the Byzantine Empire. Finally, them.

 

[WebLurker]

Not necessarily. The same title can be used by the leaders of different political entities -- for instance, President of the United States vs. President of the United Federation of Planets. The German "Kaiser" and Russian "Czar" were both derived from "Caesar," the Roman title for an emperor.

I disagree because of the following points.

- The first grand nagus, Gint, set down the Rules of Acquisition. That's the cornerstone for modern Ferengi culture. While I will concede that we don't know exactly when the Ferengi Alliance was founded in regards to that, there's clearly cultural continuity from that point on to the present.

- We have no reason to assume that Nagus Gint wasn't the first nagus as the title means on DS9 proper, unless we're trying to reinterpret the episode.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I have no problem with the tech being obvious. I have a problem with it being so crude-looking, so big and clumsy and sloppily grafted onto the flesh. It's got to be the most simplistic, backward way possible to interpret the idea of a cyborg. I mean, look at how much sleeker and more streamlined technology gets as it advances. Compare a big, bulky 1980s mobile phone to a modern smartphone. The latter is still obviously a technological device, but it's much simpler-looking, more minimalist, with fewer moving parts. The Borg are supposed to be an enormously advanced civilization, far superior in technology to the Federation. From FC onward, they've been presumed to be based on nanotech. Either way, the "big clunky pieces randomly stuck onto the body" design looks far too primitive for the level of advancement the Borg are supposed to have.

The Borg are also aliens who steal all their tech from other people and then blend said tech, designs, etc. together. They also seem to create ships by simply stealing other ships and then refitting and building onto them.

Who's to say what the end result would look like? The Bog Queen looks more intergrated than the drones. We know from flashbacks that the TNG and First Contact/VOY Borg co-existed rather than being an upgrade. We also don't know how the Borg looked in the past. All the Borg we've seen are 24th century drones.

Why would we even assume that Borg tech would follow the same trends as ours?

More, it doesn't look integrated. The Borg, as conceived in "Q Who," were beings that had technology incorporated into their bodies almost from infancy. The divide between the organic and the technological should've been invisible; they should've been completely blended together to a degree that it's impossible to define where one ends and the other begins. And that doesn't mean they should've looked purely organic with the technology invisible; on the contrary, it means they should've looked like a complete integration of biology and technology, every body part having elements of both. (Which is what I tried to suggest with the far-future Zcham species in Watching the Clock.) Instead, we just got fleshy bits over here and metal and plastic bits over there. Even when it first appeared in the late '80s, I found it conceptually backward as a portrayal of cyborg life.

I'm reminded of a scene in a Doctor Who episode when someone comments how primitive his robotic dog looks, with the Doctor correcting him that it's a very advanced dog built in a time when retro designs were in fashion. Design has minimal influence on the actual advancement of the tech.

And, no offense, I feel like the underlying thing here isn't realism, but you wishing that the Borg looked more like the Vision from Marvel rather than more typical cyborgs.

 

[TalonCard]

Why would we even assume that Borg tech would follow the same trends as ours?

An excellent point. Part of the point of the Borg was that they were supposed to have a completely alien and (to a Federation/viewer's perspective) grotesque and frightening approach to technological integration, and this was reflected in the original design. The fusion of technological and organic is supposed to be frightening and visceral and illogical. The priorities of the Borg hive mind are not our own--judging an individual drone on its aesthetics is like yanking a part at random from a car and doing the same.

I agree that the TNG Borg were clunky and probably a little over done. Maybe it's not the most realistic portrayal of cyborgs, but the concept isn't a failure of design, imagination, or execution--the Borg are one of the most iconic elements of 24th century Trek, if not Trek in general. Patrick Steward in some kind of roiling nanotech suit wouldn't be nearly as visually interesting or frightening. It's the harsh contrast between the familiar flesh and the visible mechanical elements that really makes the Borg work.

TC

 

[Christopher]

- The first grand nagus, Gint, set down the Rules of Acquisition. That's the cornerstone for modern Ferengi culture. While I will concede that we don't know exactly when the Ferengi Alliance was founded in regards to that, there's clearly cultural continuity from that point on to the present.

I think you're ignoring the definition of the word "alliance." It means a partnership between different political entities. Those entities have to originate separately before they can become allies. So the first Nagus cannot possibly have been the head of a body called the Ferengi Alliance. He would've been the head of the nation that later formed the Ferengi Alliance by allying with other polities.

Cultural continuity is a given. I've never said anything that would suggest otherwise. My argument has been directly based in cultural continuity. As Enterprise1701 said, the whole reason the Russian rulers called themselves czars was in order to portray themselves as the continuation of the Roman and Byzantine Empires. The very name invokes the idea of cultural continuity. And that proves that there can be continuity between cultures that are politically and culturally distinct as well, because different cultures influence each other and draw on each other. The Bulgarians used "Khan" as a title for centuries because they were the westernmost part of one of the Khanates that had split off from the Mongol Empire founded by Genghis Khan. They weren't Mongols themselves, but they used a Mongol title because continuity can exist between different cultures.

The Borg are also aliens who steal all their tech from other people and then blend said tech, designs, etc. together. They also seem to create ships by simply stealing other ships and then refitting and building onto them.

Who's to say what the end result would look like? The Bog Queen looks more intergrated than the drones. We know from flashbacks that the TNG and First Contact/VOY Borg co-existed rather than being an upgrade. We also don't know how the Borg looked in the past. All the Borg we've seen are 24th century drones.

Why would we even assume that Borg tech would follow the same trends as ours?

We have a perennial difficulty communicating, because you always interpret my points in in-universe terms, as though all this were "real," when what I'm actually talking about are the creative decisions made by the real people who created Star Trek as a work of fiction. "Who's to say what the end result would look like?" is a disingenuous question, because we know who made that decision -- makeup designer Michael Westmore and costume designer Durinda Rice Wood, subject to the approval of executive producer Rick Berman. They're the ones who imagined what it would look like, and their decision was conceptually crude compared to other contemporary portrayals of cyborgs in written science fiction. Perhaps that's largely because it was subject to tight budgetary limits -- the Borg were originally conceived as an insectoid race but they couldn't afford that -- but it's a design that never impressed me.

And, no offense, I feel like the underlying thing here isn't realism, but you wishing that the Borg looked more like the Vision from Marvel rather than more typical cyborgs.

Hardly. When the Borg were introduced in 1989, I'm not sure I'd even heard of the Vision. I'd only started reading comics a few years earlier, and it was mainly Star Trek and Batman. I had a friend who was into Marvel and told me all about the X-Men and such, but I don't recall him talking about the Avengers much. And for your information, there is immensely more to science fiction than just TV, movies, and comic books. Those barely scratch the surface of the genre. Science fiction is a genre that originated in prose, and that's still where all the best, most diverse, most original and imaginative ideas can be found. What shows up on the screen and in comics is usually a very narrow, simplified cross-section of those ideas and generally a decade or two behind the curve.

And if anything, the "typical" cyborg in pop culture at the time was something like Steve Austin or Jaime Sommers -- someone who looked entirely human, whose cybernetic parts were disguised as flesh. Or alternatively something like RoboCop, more machine than man but still well-designed rather than just kludged together. A lot of prose-SF cyborgs have smaller-scale enhancements, not entire artificial limbs but implanted augmentations to muscles, bones, sense organs, and the like. This was an influence on the Emerald Blair character that I created in 1988 and eventually featured in my novel Only Superhuman -- so at the time the Borg were introduced, I'd already been doing a lot of thinking about cyborg technology and the various ways a human body could be enhanced, which is probably why the design of the Borg struck me as so crude in comparison.

An excellent point. Part of the point of the Borg was that they were supposed to have a completely alien and (to a Federation/viewer's perspective) grotesque and frightening approach to technological integration, and this was reflected in the original design. The fusion of technological and organic is supposed to be frightening and visceral and illogical.

And that's where it failed, at least in the original TNG design. It didn't look frightening and visceral to me, and it didn't look like any kind of fusion. It just looked like a bunch of salvaged junk stuck onto a actor. The mechanical limbs were so comically huge that they were obviously just slid over the actor's forearms rather than replacing them. The later redesign did a somewhat better job conveying the idea, but the initial design was just done under too many budget limitations to be convincing (for instance, not being able to afford smaller motors for the mechanized parts).

 

[WebLurker]

I think you're ignoring the definition of the word "alliance." It means a partnership between different political entities. Those entities have to originate separately before they can become allies. So the first Nagus cannot possibly have been the head of a body called the Ferengi Alliance. He would've been the head of the nation that later formed the Ferengi Alliance by allying with other polities.

Cultural continuity is a given. I've never said anything that would suggest otherwise. My argument has been directly based in cultural continuity. As Enterprise1701 said, the whole reason the Russian rulers called themselves czars was in order to portray themselves as the continuation of the Roman and Byzantine Empires. The very name invokes the idea of cultural continuity. And that proves that there can be continuity between cultures that are politically and culturally distinct as well, because different cultures influence each other and draw on each other. The Bulgarians used "Khan" as a title for centuries because they were the westernmost part of one of the Khanates that had split off from the Mongol Empire founded by Genghis Khan. They weren't Mongols themselves, but they used a Mongol title because continuity can exist between different cultures.

I'm not really sure that makes sense with the way the TV show presents it (given that the Ferengi Alliance has pretty much been treated as a single political entity), but I will concede that we have very little information about their early history to make educated guesses either way (although there's no evidence that "grand nagus" came from a pre-existing culture).

We have a perennial difficulty communicating, because you always interpret my points in in-universe terms, as though all this were "real," when what I'm actually talking about are the creative decisions made by the real people who created Star Trek as a work of fiction. "Who's to say what the end result would look like?" is a disingenuous question, because we know who made that decision -- makeup designer Michael Westmore and costume designer Durinda Rice Wood, subject to the approval of executive producer Rick Berman. They're the ones who imagined what it would look like, and their decision was conceptually crude compared to other contemporary portrayals of cyborgs in written science fiction. Perhaps that's largely because it was subject to tight budgetary limits -- the Borg were originally conceived as an insectoid race but they couldn't afford that -- but it's a design that never impressed me.

Sorry. From my perspective, once you pull the "it's just a movie/TV show" card, most of the discussion is over and all that's left is subjective opinion. IMHO, it's far more interesting to discuss the in-universe implications of what we see. (I will admit have trouble understanding your dislike of the TNG Borg, given that I thought they looked cool, albeit made on a smaller budget.)

Hardly. When the Borg were introduced in 1989, I'm not sure I'd even heard of the Vision. I'd only started reading comics a few years earlier, and it was mainly Star Trek and Batman. I had a friend who was into Marvel and told me all about the X-Men and such, but I don't recall him talking about the Avengers much. And for your information, there is immensely more to science fiction than just TV, movies, and comic books. Those barely scratch the surface of the genre. Science fiction is a genre that originated in prose, and that's still where all the best, most diverse, most original and imaginative ideas can be found. What shows up on the screen and in comics is usually a very narrow, simplified cross-section of those ideas and generally a decade or two behind the curve.

Sorry. The Vision was the first thing that came to mind that sounded like what you were describing. It was only an analogy.

And if anything, the "typical" cyborg in pop culture at the time was something like Steve Austin or Jaime Sommers -- someone who looked entirely human, whose cybernetic parts were disguised as flesh. Or alternatively something like RoboCop, more machine than man but still well-designed rather than just kludged together. A lot of prose-SF cyborgs have smaller-scale enhancements, not entire artificial limbs but implanted augmentations to muscles, bones, sense organs, and the like. This was an influence on the Emerald Blair character that I created in 1988 and eventually featured in my novel Only Superhuman -- so at the time the Borg were introduced, I'd already been doing a lot of thinking about cyborg technology and the various ways a human body could be enhanced, which is probably why the design of the Borg struck me as so crude in comparison.

Well, such cyborgs are less visually interesting. I think there's also the narrative thing. Most of the characters you describe are supposed to be human characters that we relate to, so they look more like us. The Borg are supposed to be creepy aliens, so by the rules of visual storytelling, making them look like patchwork zombies makes sense.

And that's where it failed, at least in the original TNG design. It didn't look frightening and visceral to me, and it didn't look like any kind of fusion. It just looked like a bunch of salvaged junk stuck onto a actor. The mechanical limbs were so comically huge that they were obviously just slid over the actor's forearms rather than replacing them. The later redesign did a somewhat better job conveying the idea, but the initial design was just done under too many budget limitations to be convincing (for instance, not being able to afford smaller motors for the mechanized parts).

If you didn't like them, fair enough. I think I like stuff about the later Borg better, too, but I was never that bothered by the original designs, personally.

 

[Christopher]

I'm not really sure that makes sense with the way the TV show presents it (given that the Ferengi Alliance has pretty much been treated as a single political entity)

A single political entity can be formed by the merger of multiple separate ones. For instance, maybe you've heard of a country called the United States of America. It started out as 13 separate, sovereign nations (which is what the word "state" actually means) that agreed to unite into a single federal body. You can't call something an "Alliance" unless it's formed by a group of allies. That's simply what the word means. Using "Alliance" to refer to something that was never more than a single polity is as nonsensical as using the word "River" in the name of an ocean. You just don't get to do that. These terms aren't arbitrary.

Sorry. From my perspective, once you pull the "it's just a movie/TV show" card, most of the discussion is over and all that's left is subjective opinion.

I don't understand that, because it dismisses the entire concept of literary or artistic criticism. How can we talk meaningfully about a work of fiction if we're forbidden to acknowledge the reality that it is a work of fiction, if we have to treat the real live people who created it and the real-world ideas and circumstances that shaped them as nonexistent and pretend that only the imaginary world within the story is "real"? How can we ever analyze or critique the creative process if we can't even admit that there was a creative process? Creating fiction is an activity undertaken by real people. We have to be able to discuss and comment on that activity, just as we comment on the performance of athletes or dancers or singers or politicians. It's not just about what they do, it's about how and why they did it, what aspects they did well and what mistakes they made, and how they can learn from those mistakes and do better in the future. That's not just opinion, it's analysis. And it's giving credit to the creators instead of pretending they don't exist. I think that the people who work to create something deserve recognition for their work, even if that recognition includes criticism. It's better than pretending they don't exist.

Well, such cyborgs are less visually interesting.

I wasn't citing it as an example of what I specifically wanted. I was just refuting the assertion that the Borg were "typical cyborgs" by the standards of the day. Maybe some comic-book characters like Cyborg and Deathlok were along similar lines, but that was hardly the only way that cyborgs were portrayed in the media of the day, and certainly not in prose SF, which is where the most imaginative and sophisticated exploration of any SF concept can pretty much always be found.

And I'd hardly say that RoboCop wasn't visually interesting. That costume was a superb piece of design by Rob Bottin.

Most of the characters you describe are supposed to be human characters that we relate to, so they look more like us. The Borg are supposed to be creepy aliens, so by the rules of visual storytelling, making them look like patchwork zombies makes sense.

In theory, yes, obviously. What I'm saying is that the specific way it was executed was a clumsy and unconvincing way of achieving that goal. Part of the inspiration was H.R. Giger's artwork of "biomechanical" creatures, which blurred the line between the organic and the technological in a similar way to what I've been proposing. But TNG just didn't have the budget to do something that sophisticated and had to settle for the kludge we got. It wasn't until FC that they had the budget to work some Gigeresque elements into the design, but they were still saddled with elements of the original kludginess.

 

[WebLurker]

A single political entity can be formed by the merger of multiple separate ones. For instance, maybe you've heard of a country called the United States of America. It started out as 13 separate, sovereign nations (which is what the word "state" actually means) that agreed to unite into a single federal body. You can't call something an "Alliance" unless it's formed by a group of allies. That's simply what the word means. Using "Alliance" to refer to something that was never more than a single polity is as nonsensical as using the word "River" in the name of an ocean. You just don't get to do that. These terms aren't arbitrary.

Fair enough, however canon gives zero information on how the Ferengi Alliance was formed, so it's hard to make an accurate guess what "alliance" means in this case (it could refer to corporations in Ferengi terrtory).

I don't understand that, because it dismisses the entire concept of literary or artistic criticism. How can we talk meaningfully about a work of fiction if we're forbidden to acknowledge the reality that it is a work of fiction, if we have to treat the real live people who created it and the real-world ideas and circumstances that shaped them as nonexistent and pretend that only the imaginary world within the story is "real"? How can we ever analyze or critique the creative process if we can't even admit that there was a creative process? Creating fiction is an activity undertaken by real people. We have to be able to discuss and comment on that activity, just as we comment on the performance of athletes or dancers or singers or politicians. It's not just about what they do, it's about how and why they did it, what aspects they did well and what mistakes they made, and how they can learn from those mistakes and do better in the future. That's not just opinion, it's analysis. And it's giving credit to the creators instead of pretending they don't exist. I think that the people who work to create something deserve recognition for their work, even if that recognition includes criticism. It's better than pretending they don't exist.

I wasn't citing it as an example of what I specifically wanted. I was just refuting the assertion that the Borg were "typical cyborgs" by the standards of the day. Maybe some comic-book characters like Cyborg and Deathlok were along similar lines, but that was hardly the only way that cyborgs were portrayed in the media of the day, and certainly not in prose SF, which is where the most imaginative and sophisticated exploration of any SF concept can pretty much always be found.

Sorry, I misunderstood what you were talking about.

And I'd hardly say that RoboCop wasn't visually interesting. That costume was a superb piece of design by Rob Bottin.

I'll take your word for it.

In theory, yes, obviously. What I'm saying is that the specific way it was executed was a clumsy and unconvincing way of achieving that goal. Part of the inspiration was H.R. Giger's artwork of "biomechanical" creatures, which blurred the line between the organic and the technological in a similar way to what I've been proposing. But TNG just didn't have the budget to do something that sophisticated and had to settle for the kludge we got.

Okay.

It wasn't until FC that they had the budget to work some Gigeresque elements into the design, but they were still saddled with elements of the original kludginess.

Well, the original "kludginess" was part of the Borg look, so move too far away from that and they start to look like something completely different. While I gathered that the movie was approaching the costuming with the idea to reimagine the Borg, keeping it in the same visual family was probably for the best.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The thrust of the gist is this: The Borg looked the way they did in TNG because that's what people expect cyborgs to look like. And also because that's the best they could have done with special effects budgets of the time.

Now that we have CGI, it's easier to get all high-and-mighty about scientific accuracy in alien physiology and all that crap. But back in the day, this was the best they could do.

 

[DimesDan]

high-and-mighty about scientific accuracy in alien physiology and all that crap

I would never say that scientific accuracy is crap at all.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

It is when certain people get pedantic about it in regards to storytelling. I agree, you would never do that though.

 

[DimesDan]

It is when certain people get pedantic about it in regards to storytelling.

You can say/type his name.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I don't want to summon the darkness!

 

[Christopher]

Fair enough, however canon gives zero information on how the Ferengi Alliance was formed, so it's hard to make an accurate guess what "alliance" means in this case (it could refer to corporations in Ferengi terrtory).

I'm not making any kind of a guess. I'm merely saying that we can't rule out the possibility that the title "Nagus" predated the modern Ferengi political body. We should be aware of all the possibilities, and I'm merely pointing out possibilities you seem to have overlooked.

Well, the original "kludginess" was part of the Borg look, so move too far away from that and they start to look like something completely different.

Yes, obviously. That's what I'm saying. They were stuck with the original design, and what I wish is that they'd come up with a better design from the start.

 

[TalonCard]

For instance, maybe you've heard of a country called the United States of America.

I think I've heard of it; it sounds vaguely familiar...wait, I know! It was one of the major powers on Omega IV before the war in "The Omega Glory" in TOS.

But TNG just didn't have the budget to do something that sophisticated and had to settle for the kludge we got. It wasn't until FC that they had the budget to work some Gigeresque elements into the design, but they were still saddled with elements of the original kludginess.

I'd look at it as refining the best elements of the original design, but to each their own. It's understandable if it didn't work for you personally, or if you would have made a different design choice. But if a design that fit the budget at hand and ultimately evolved into one of the most iconic parts of the franchise, immediately recognizable as a major element of at least two of its most popular installments (one of which is often cited as classic, game-changing television) is a failure in design, then I hope I fail at least that badly once in my life.

TC

 

[WebLurker]

I'm not making any kind of a guess. I'm merely saying that we can't rule out the possibility that the title "Nagus" predated the modern Ferengi political body. We should be aware of all the possibilities, and I'm merely pointing out possibilities you seem to have overlooked.

Okay, that makes sense.

Yes, obviously. That's what I'm saying. They were stuck with the original design, and what I wish is that they'd come up with a better design from the start.

Okay. I loved it, but fair enough if you didn't.

I hate the Into Darkness redesign of the Klingons -- although the hats were cool -- and I gather that that's not a popular opinion, so IDIC has to come into play somewhere along the line.

I see I missed something in your previous comment:

I don't understand that, because it dismisses the entire concept of literary or artistic criticism. How can we talk meaningfully about a work of fiction if we're forbidden to acknowledge the reality that it is a work of fiction, if we have to treat the real live people who created it and the real-world ideas and circumstances that shaped them as nonexistent and pretend that only the imaginary world within the story is "real"? How can we ever analyze or critique the creative process if we can't even admit that there was a creative process? Creating fiction is an activity undertaken by real people. We have to be able to discuss and comment on that activity, just as we comment on the performance of athletes or dancers or singers or politicians. It's not just about what they do, it's about how and why they did it, what aspects they did well and what mistakes they made, and how they can learn from those mistakes and do better in the future. That's not just opinion, it's analysis. And it's giving credit to the creators instead of pretending they don't exist. I think that the people who work to create something deserve recognition for their work, even if that recognition includes criticism. It's better than pretending they don't exist.

I guess I missed the cue that you were moving from the in-universe to the real life stuff. I think those are fair points you're making, however, I tend to look at that stuff when I'm not playing "Baker Street Irregular." To me part of the fun of fiction is the imaginary world it creates, so sometimes I'd rather not break the suspension of disbelief when talking about it. Sorry for the hassle.

 

[Christopher]

I guess I missed the cue that you were moving from the in-universe to the real life stuff. I think those are fair points you're making, however, I tend to look at that stuff when I'm not playing "Baker Street Irregular." To me part of the fun of fiction is the imaginary world it creates, so sometimes I'd rather not break the suspension of disbelief when talking about it. Sorry for the hassle.

I guess that since explaining things in-universe is my day job, I prefer a more real-world level of analysis in online discussions.

 

[WebLurker]

I guess that since explaining things in-universe is my day job, I prefer a more real-world level of analysis in online discussions.

I can understand that. I'll try to keep that in mind for future reference.