Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid
One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers inside*
- Thread starter The Rock
- Start date
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid
And for what it's worth, I agree with you that neither Trelane nor Q were meant as god-substitutes for the very simple reason that the subtext in Gene Roddenberry's writing was as subtle as a mallet to the gonads, and there's nothing in "Squire" or "Encounter" that's that unsubtle.
I'm not "questioning" your assertion, Christopher. I'm telling you that your statement that Q's name came from the word "question" is factually incorrect.
And for what it's worth, I agree with you that neither Trelane nor Q were meant as god-substitutes for the very simple reason that the subtext in Gene Roddenberry's writing was as subtle as a mallet to the gonads, and there's nothing in "Squire" or "Encounter" that's that unsubtle.
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid
Christopher, I have defended you before. You're a good guy and you're not the asshole a lot of your detractors claim you to be. But this is the sort of post that comes across as being disrespectful to others who haven't even argued against your thesis. All he was doing was saying that Q was named after a real person and that there's no evidence that "Q" specifically means "Question;" your fundamental argument, that Q is humanity's inquisitor, is unchallenged.
As Allyn was correcting an issue of fact that is, as you noted, peripheral to your actual argument, I would like to suggest that it would probably go a long way towards establishing good will towards Allyn and your fellow posters if you wrote a post simply acknowledging a mistake and leaving the issue of your larger thesis to separate posts.
Christopher, I have defended you before. You're a good guy and you're not the asshole a lot of your detractors claim you to be. But this is the sort of post that comes across as being disrespectful to others who haven't even argued against your thesis. All he was doing was saying that Q was named after a real person and that there's no evidence that "Q" specifically means "Question;" your fundamental argument, that Q is humanity's inquisitor, is unchallenged.
As Allyn was correcting an issue of fact that is, as you noted, peripheral to your actual argument, I would like to suggest that it would probably go a long way towards establishing good will towards Allyn and your fellow posters if you wrote a post simply acknowledging a mistake and leaving the issue of your larger thesis to separate posts.
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid
About responsibility...
I read today that there is a trial in Germany: a student ran amok, killed several people with a gun, and then killed himself. His father is now on trial because it was his gun and he did not lock it up. The charge is negligent homicide of all the people his son killed.
So it's either "The Germans..." or Christopher's views on responsibility and guilt are a bit too idealized.
About responsibility...
I read today that there is a trial in Germany: a student ran amok, killed several people with a gun, and then killed himself. His father is now on trial because it was his gun and he did not lock it up. The charge is negligent homicide of all the people his son killed.
So it's either "The Germans..." or Christopher's views on responsibility and guilt are a bit too idealized.
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid
It's the Germans. A guy steals someone else's gun and uses it to commit murder and suicide, and they're going to hold the someone else responsible for the guy's murders? That's positively absurd and a cross miscarriage of justice.
The most the father can reasonably be charged with -- assuming this is even an actual crime under German jurisprudence -- is failure to secure his weapon.
It's the Germans. A guy steals someone else's gun and uses it to commit murder and suicide, and they're going to hold the someone else responsible for the guy's murders? That's positively absurd and a cross miscarriage of justice.
The most the father can reasonably be charged with -- assuming this is even an actual crime under German jurisprudence -- is failure to secure his weapon.
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid
Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that under German law, because the son is a minor his father is responsible for his son's actions because his failure to secure his weapon resulted in multiple homicides and a suicide.
But I agree, it's stupid, though the father is a moron for not securing his weapon.
Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that under German law, because the son is a minor his father is responsible for his son's actions because his failure to secure his weapon resulted in multiple homicides and a suicide.
But I agree, it's stupid, though the father is a moron for not securing his weapon.
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid
Okay, I hate dragging this further off-topic, but you can't know that. Just because you haven't heard that explanation before doesn't mean it's wrong. And just because the explanation you cited is correct, that doesn't mean it's impossible for there to be a second explanation as well. If you'd just said it's unproven, I'd accept that, but to call it "factually incorrect" is just plain obnoxious.
I can't recall my source, but I know I came upon that explanation for Q's name ages ago, and I'm pretty sure it came from someone involved in the production of TNG. I don't remember when I heard it, but I know it was more than 15 years ago, because I wrote something in 1995 that was based on that explanation (the basis of the similar scene in The Buried Age). I can't prove it was part of the real explanation, but I didn't pull it out of my hat.
Besides, you misquoted and misrepresented what I actually said. I didn't say it was self-evident that Roddenberry named Q to mean "question." I said that Q's role in "Farpoint" was to be the inquisitor, and that said role was self-evident in the character's name. A difference in emphasis, but a significant one. I'll grant that I was implying something I don't have positive proof for, but I wasn't making a bald assertion of fact on that particular point.
So can we just agree to call it "unproven" and drop it?
Okay, I hate dragging this further off-topic, but you can't know that. Just because you haven't heard that explanation before doesn't mean it's wrong. And just because the explanation you cited is correct, that doesn't mean it's impossible for there to be a second explanation as well. If you'd just said it's unproven, I'd accept that, but to call it "factually incorrect" is just plain obnoxious.
I can't recall my source, but I know I came upon that explanation for Q's name ages ago, and I'm pretty sure it came from someone involved in the production of TNG. I don't remember when I heard it, but I know it was more than 15 years ago, because I wrote something in 1995 that was based on that explanation (the basis of the similar scene in The Buried Age). I can't prove it was part of the real explanation, but I didn't pull it out of my hat.
Besides, you misquoted and misrepresented what I actually said. I didn't say it was self-evident that Roddenberry named Q to mean "question." I said that Q's role in "Farpoint" was to be the inquisitor, and that said role was self-evident in the character's name. A difference in emphasis, but a significant one. I'll grant that I was implying something I don't have positive proof for, but I wasn't making a bald assertion of fact on that particular point.
So can we just agree to call it "unproven" and drop it?
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid
Though this is not what you really wrote. You wrote:
Though this is not what you really wrote. You wrote:
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid
I have to say, when i first read "The Buried Age" It actually took something away from Q for me, reducing the letter to a pun.
It always seemed to me that Q was just an alien name (perhaps their species had a name, which was rendered easiest in English as Q)
But that was just my opinion.
I have to say, when i first read "The Buried Age" It actually took something away from Q for me, reducing the letter to a pun.
It always seemed to me that Q was just an alien name (perhaps their species had a name, which was rendered easiest in English as Q)
But that was just my opinion.
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid
That wasn't my intent. The pun was just an add-on, a gag I couldn't resist. The essence of it was that he chose Q because it symbolized the role he intended to play, the role of an inquisitor, a being who would question humanity's worth and require it to answer for itself. Which, as I said, was my understanding of the actual intent behind Q's name.
But that doesn't make much sense. Q is a typographical symbol. It doesn't even have its own unique sound in our language. And why would a near-godlike, incorporeal species have a name that could be rendered in anything resembling the phonetic speech or visual symbology of a tool-using mammalian race? Whatever designation they have for themselves would probably be some extremely complex concept that's beyond our ability to process, communicated through some means that we can't even perceive. At best, the name they gave to us would have to be a profound oversimplification. And since there'd be no way to literally translate that conceptual designation into a human-comprehensible sound, the only possible translation could be one of meaning. The name they chose to use in speaking to us would have to symbolize the meaning of their concept for themselves. So the answer has to lie somehow in the meaning of the letter Q. And of all the meanings that letter by itself can have, there's none that fits Q's role better than that of "question." (Although "the set of all rational numbers" is an interesting possibility too. Or maybe the queen in chess, though if that had been it, Q would've probably appeared as a woman.)
That wasn't my intent. The pun was just an add-on, a gag I couldn't resist. The essence of it was that he chose Q because it symbolized the role he intended to play, the role of an inquisitor, a being who would question humanity's worth and require it to answer for itself. Which, as I said, was my understanding of the actual intent behind Q's name.
But that doesn't make much sense. Q is a typographical symbol. It doesn't even have its own unique sound in our language. And why would a near-godlike, incorporeal species have a name that could be rendered in anything resembling the phonetic speech or visual symbology of a tool-using mammalian race? Whatever designation they have for themselves would probably be some extremely complex concept that's beyond our ability to process, communicated through some means that we can't even perceive. At best, the name they gave to us would have to be a profound oversimplification. And since there'd be no way to literally translate that conceptual designation into a human-comprehensible sound, the only possible translation could be one of meaning. The name they chose to use in speaking to us would have to symbolize the meaning of their concept for themselves. So the answer has to lie somehow in the meaning of the letter Q. And of all the meanings that letter by itself can have, there's none that fits Q's role better than that of "question." (Although "the set of all rational numbers" is an interesting possibility too. Or maybe the queen in chess, though if that had been it, Q would've probably appeared as a woman.)
kkozoriz1
Fleet Captain
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid
Of course, he never identified himself with the letter Q, simply with the name. Perhaps he pronounced it as Cue and everyone heard it as Q. This, of course, ignores the writers intent and only addresses the situation within the fictional world.
cue [kyoo]
noun, verb, cued, cu·ing.
–noun
1. anything said or done, on or off stage, that is followed by a specific line or action: An off-stage door slam was his cue to enter.
2. anything that excites to action; stimulus.
3. a hint; intimation; guiding suggestion.
4. the part a person is to play; a prescribed or necessary course of action.
5. a sensory signal used to identify experiences, facilitate memory, or organize responses.
6. Archaic . frame of mind; mood.
#3 sounds like an interesting way of looking at the character, seeing as he seemed to be dropping hints.
Of course, he never identified himself with the letter Q, simply with the name. Perhaps he pronounced it as Cue and everyone heard it as Q. This, of course, ignores the writers intent and only addresses the situation within the fictional world.
cue [kyoo]
noun, verb, cued, cu·ing.
–noun
1. anything said or done, on or off stage, that is followed by a specific line or action: An off-stage door slam was his cue to enter.
2. anything that excites to action; stimulus.
3. a hint; intimation; guiding suggestion.
4. the part a person is to play; a prescribed or necessary course of action.
5. a sensory signal used to identify experiences, facilitate memory, or organize responses.
6. Archaic . frame of mind; mood.
#3 sounds like an interesting way of looking at the character, seeing as he seemed to be dropping hints.
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid
But that's the best thing about it -- the very fact that it doesn't make sense is what makes it work. The concept of omnipotent god-aliens is itself fairly nonsensical, so why not give them an utterly nonsensical name?
Not everything in the universe has to make sense, y'know.
Why? Is there any particular reason that infinitely intelligent, infinitely powerful beings have to use a complex designation for themselves? Is there any particular reason an infinitely intelligent and infinitely powerful species can't just call itself something simple?
No. No no no no no. I completely disagree. The Q should never be equated with anything so dry and unemotional and rational as math. Vulcans are math. The Borg are math. Q is the Coyote.
But that's the best thing about it -- the very fact that it doesn't make sense is what makes it work. The concept of omnipotent god-aliens is itself fairly nonsensical, so why not give them an utterly nonsensical name?
Not everything in the universe has to make sense, y'know.
Why? Is there any particular reason that infinitely intelligent, infinitely powerful beings have to use a complex designation for themselves? Is there any particular reason an infinitely intelligent and infinitely powerful species can't just call itself something simple?
No. No no no no no. I completely disagree. The Q should never be equated with anything so dry and unemotional and rational as math. Vulcans are math. The Borg are math. Q is the Coyote.
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid
Because Q is a stupid enough idea to begin with, and anything that can bring some coherent sense to it on any level is an improvement. Honestly, why Roddenberry, who cared a lot about making his work plausible and grounded, would be okay with including such an out-and-out fantasy character in his universe is beyond me.
Their idea of "simple" would still probably be beyond our comprehension. And it certainly wouldn't be something that was in any way analogous phonetically to the letter Q, since they probably don't have mouths to produce phonetic sounds in their natural form, and since the letter Q has no phonetic value of its own anyway! Honestly, it's bad enough to give non-speaking aliens impossibly phonetic names like "Horta" or "Calamarain" without reducing it to a letter that doesn't even have its own sound.
Mathematics is the fundamental language of the universe. And I'm sure there are plenty of mathematicians who would argue that it contains great passion and beauty. Pythagoras explored the connections between mathematics and music; the very idea of "the music of the spheres" is rooted in Pythagorean numerology and the idea that the movements of celestial bodies formed numerical harmonies that had simultaneous mathematical, musical, and religious significance. Nothing dry or unemotional about that.
Although Q's use of mathematics would probably translate to jazz or heavy metal...
Because Q is a stupid enough idea to begin with, and anything that can bring some coherent sense to it on any level is an improvement. Honestly, why Roddenberry, who cared a lot about making his work plausible and grounded, would be okay with including such an out-and-out fantasy character in his universe is beyond me.
Their idea of "simple" would still probably be beyond our comprehension. And it certainly wouldn't be something that was in any way analogous phonetically to the letter Q, since they probably don't have mouths to produce phonetic sounds in their natural form, and since the letter Q has no phonetic value of its own anyway! Honestly, it's bad enough to give non-speaking aliens impossibly phonetic names like "Horta" or "Calamarain" without reducing it to a letter that doesn't even have its own sound.
Mathematics is the fundamental language of the universe. And I'm sure there are plenty of mathematicians who would argue that it contains great passion and beauty. Pythagoras explored the connections between mathematics and music; the very idea of "the music of the spheres" is rooted in Pythagorean numerology and the idea that the movements of celestial bodies formed numerical harmonies that had simultaneous mathematical, musical, and religious significance. Nothing dry or unemotional about that.
Although Q's use of mathematics would probably translate to jazz or heavy metal...
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid
Only if you want it to make sense.
If you just accept the Q as a narrative conceit, as an embodiment of an un-Realistic/Naturalistic archetype, then there's really nothing to worry about and no need to impose "sense" on the character.
Presumably because he did not care about such strict lines between "science fiction" and "fantasy" as you would prefer. It's just a matter of individual taste.
Not necessarily. A simple concept like "us" and "them" would still be a very basic presence in any sapient species' mind, even an incredibly intelligent one. There's no particular reason that their concept of themselves couldn't be something as simple as "Us" or "We-Who-Make-Things-Happen-With-Bright-Shiny-Lights."
Assuming, of course, that you want it to make sense.
Only if you want it to make sense.
If you just accept the Q as a narrative conceit, as an embodiment of an un-Realistic/Naturalistic archetype, then there's really nothing to worry about and no need to impose "sense" on the character.
Presumably because he did not care about such strict lines between "science fiction" and "fantasy" as you would prefer. It's just a matter of individual taste.
Not necessarily. A simple concept like "us" and "them" would still be a very basic presence in any sapient species' mind, even an incredibly intelligent one. There's no particular reason that their concept of themselves couldn't be something as simple as "Us" or "We-Who-Make-Things-Happen-With-Bright-Shiny-Lights."
Assuming, of course, that you want it to make sense.
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid
I think I've made it clear that I do. I don't see how that's a bad thing. Even a fantasy story should make sense by its own internal logic.
No, you're not listening. Gene Roddenberry did care about those lines. He said over and over again that he wanted to tell science fiction stories that were plausible and grounded. He was one of the very few SFTV producers who made any real effort to bring scientific credibility to his work. The Trek seasons and films that he produced always had a stronger scientific grounding than the ones produced by others, and the first few seasons of TNG were as scientifically plausible as Star Trek ever got (thanks to Sternbach and Okuda). So I'm not talking about my tastes here. I'm talking about the incongruity between Roddenberry's own professed and demonstrated interest in credibility and his willingness to include such a fanciful character.
I think I've made it clear that I do. I don't see how that's a bad thing. Even a fantasy story should make sense by its own internal logic.
No, you're not listening. Gene Roddenberry did care about those lines. He said over and over again that he wanted to tell science fiction stories that were plausible and grounded. He was one of the very few SFTV producers who made any real effort to bring scientific credibility to his work. The Trek seasons and films that he produced always had a stronger scientific grounding than the ones produced by others, and the first few seasons of TNG were as scientifically plausible as Star Trek ever got (thanks to Sternbach and Okuda). So I'm not talking about my tastes here. I'm talking about the incongruity between Roddenberry's own professed and demonstrated interest in credibility and his willingness to include such a fanciful character.
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid
It's not, in general. But I think there does come a point where one should accept non-realistic conceits as they are without trying to impose realism on them.
Yes, Christopher, I am listening, I just disagree with you.
Yes, Gene Roddenberry cared about keeping things grounded and plausible; in short, he cared about realism/naturalism. And he made stronger efforts in that direction than other writers.
Yet the fact remains that he also chose to create one of the most blatantly non-realistic/naturalistic characters in all of Star Trek in Q.
Logically, therefore, he must not have cared as much about a strict delineation between science fiction and fantasy as you would prefer. Apparently, he cared about a strict delineation in the vast majority of cases, but, in this one case, allowed a character of absolute fantasy in utter defiance of realistic/naturalistic conventions into his fictional world. In other words, he wanted a strict delineation between science fiction and fantasy, but not one as strict as you would prefer, because, as you've noted, a character like Q does not belong in a strict science fiction context.
You remarked that you did not understand why Roddenberry would bring a fantasy character into a science fiction context. Yes, there is an incongruity -- no one is disputing that. The issue is that you professed not to understand the motivations behind the incongruity. I have suggested an explanation: That he simply did not care about the incongruity, because his idea of how strict the delineation between science fiction and fantasy needed to be is not the same as yours.
That doesn't make your creative impulses or his creative impulses superior or inferior. (Personally, I think you're a better writer by far than Roddenberry ever was, but that's because I think you're better at creating three-dimensional characters than he was.) It just makes your respective creative impulses different. Roddenberry wanted strong scientific grounding... except when it came to Q. That's just all there is to it.
It's not, in general. But I think there does come a point where one should accept non-realistic conceits as they are without trying to impose realism on them.
Yes, Christopher, I am listening, I just disagree with you.
Yes, Gene Roddenberry cared about keeping things grounded and plausible; in short, he cared about realism/naturalism. And he made stronger efforts in that direction than other writers.
Yet the fact remains that he also chose to create one of the most blatantly non-realistic/naturalistic characters in all of Star Trek in Q.
Logically, therefore, he must not have cared as much about a strict delineation between science fiction and fantasy as you would prefer. Apparently, he cared about a strict delineation in the vast majority of cases, but, in this one case, allowed a character of absolute fantasy in utter defiance of realistic/naturalistic conventions into his fictional world. In other words, he wanted a strict delineation between science fiction and fantasy, but not one as strict as you would prefer, because, as you've noted, a character like Q does not belong in a strict science fiction context.
You remarked that you did not understand why Roddenberry would bring a fantasy character into a science fiction context. Yes, there is an incongruity -- no one is disputing that. The issue is that you professed not to understand the motivations behind the incongruity. I have suggested an explanation: That he simply did not care about the incongruity, because his idea of how strict the delineation between science fiction and fantasy needed to be is not the same as yours.
That doesn't make your creative impulses or his creative impulses superior or inferior. (Personally, I think you're a better writer by far than Roddenberry ever was, but that's because I think you're better at creating three-dimensional characters than he was.) It just makes your respective creative impulses different. Roddenberry wanted strong scientific grounding... except when it came to Q. That's just all there is to it.
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid
You could just as easily argue that he chose it to describe "who" and "what" he is because those words start with Q in multiple human languages (quem, qui, qua, que, and so forth), or choose some other arbitrary word(s) in some other language(s) spoken by one or more of the characters he encounters, whose meaning you could somehow tie into the way Q presents himself...
...but that's all just a bunch of useless imposition of order on a character/concept that (as Sci points out) doesn't really need to be explained or simplified this way.
I'm just going to go with Q's own explanation from Star Trek: Borg:
"I imagine you've heard of me, though. Q? It's short for Q."
Wow, that's a really Anglocentric way of looking at it.
You could just as easily argue that he chose it to describe "who" and "what" he is because those words start with Q in multiple human languages (quem, qui, qua, que, and so forth), or choose some other arbitrary word(s) in some other language(s) spoken by one or more of the characters he encounters, whose meaning you could somehow tie into the way Q presents himself...
...but that's all just a bunch of useless imposition of order on a character/concept that (as Sci points out) doesn't really need to be explained or simplified this way.
I'm just going to go with Q's own explanation from Star Trek: Borg:
"I imagine you've heard of me, though. Q? It's short for Q."
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid
Love it.
It's like a debate we had on the Doctor Who board a while ago. Most posters like the idea that the interior and exterior of the TARDIS exist in different dimensions, and that this accounts for why the interior has a larger volume than the exterior. Even the show has given that explanation once or twice.
I, and a few others, on the other hand, prefer to just say it's bigger on the inside than the outside and that's all there is to it.
I'm just going to go with Q's own explanation from Star Trek: Borg:
"I imagine you've heard of me, though. Q? It's short for Q."
Love it.
It's like a debate we had on the Doctor Who board a while ago. Most posters like the idea that the interior and exterior of the TARDIS exist in different dimensions, and that this accounts for why the interior has a larger volume than the exterior. Even the show has given that explanation once or twice.
I, and a few others, on the other hand, prefer to just say it's bigger on the inside than the outside and that's all there is to it.
