Snerk 
Star Trek: Countdown #1 early review - MASSIVE SPOILERS!
- Thread starter JD
- Start date
Spock also says that he had legally emmigrated to Romulus five years previously, which, if the 2387 date is correct, would place the relaxing of Romulan borders in 2382, or "next year" in the novel-verse.
Last edited:
Now that I've read it...
There's no reason why Spock's "forty years" means forty Earth years. If he considers Romulus his "home," then he would be counting in Romulus years, and there's no telling how long that might be.
There's no reason why Spock's "forty years" means forty Earth years. If he considers Romulus his "home," then he would be counting in Romulus years, and there's no telling how long that might be.
^^Yeah, but how often have ST writers ever used "year" to mean anything other than an Earth year?
I realize that's a popular argument for this type of situation, but it bears little logical weight. When has there ever been an instance when the writers have used a general "forty years," "five years," etc and not meant the standard year?
To assume it is anything else is simply a cop-out workaround.
Wow, Christopher beat me to it. *Fist bump?*
http://trekmovie.com/2009/01/28/preview-of-star-trek-countdown-2-countdown-1-sells-out/
Issue 2 preview - no spoilers if you've read issue 1.
Issue 2 preview - no spoilers if you've read issue 1.
Heh, I like the giant portrait of a cat behind Data's desk. Can't tell if it's meant to be Spot or just a generic cat, but a very Data touch.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
You raise a good point; Star Trek writers generally, if not invariably, use Earth norm for everything. And that's a failure that extends across all forty-five years of the franchise's history, in every media, from television and film to comics and novels, due in no small part that Star Trek doesn't have now (and never really ever had) a lit-sfnal audience that would have appreciated or understood years that aren't 365 days, days that aren't 24 hours, gravities that aren't Earth norm, etc. The length of the Bajoran day in Deep Space Nine is, as best I can recall, the first major instance where Earth measures weren't applicable in a Trekian context.
However, to say that my suggestion -- that Spock is speaking in Romulan terms -- "bears little logical weight" is nonsense. Because what does "forty years" mean to Spock? What matters to the story is what things mean to the characters. It is not a cop-out or a workaround to try and understand the perspective from which a character is approaching his world.
Now that I've read the issue, I am absolutely convinced that Spock means Romulan years. (Which also means that Spock's immigration to Romulus, if one Romulan year is roughly equal to six Earth months, is far more recent that supposed earlier in the thread.) The reason is that Spock's own narration makes clear the extent to which he identifies with the Romulan point of view. He tells Nero that, yes, he's half-Vulcan, but that he doesn't really feel Vulcan. There's obvious sympathy for Spock toward Romulus; he says he "immigrated," for instance. The use of Romulan measures fits the character and his viewpoint.
Fundamentally, however, we're arguing from two completely different perspectives. You're arguing from an out-of-the-box viewpoint, whereas I'm looking at things from inside-the-box.
I seem to remember that before the bankruptcy of Perpetual and the sale of Star Trek Online to Cryptic, the producer of Star Trek Online dropped hints about a 91 year old Federation Ambassador to Romulus. The hints pointed to Picard being the Federation ambassador to Romulus based on the age. No hints were given concerning Beverly Crusher or Picard Jr. I wonder if Picard Jr. is going to be named for his brother, or nephew, or both? René Robert Picard? Could work for both a boy or a girl. 
They also hinted that by the time of Star Trek Online there were many Klingons in Starfleet because other Klingons believed that Miral Paris was the kuvah'magh. This allowed them to have Klingon player characters in the game and continue to have the Klingon Empire as a separate political entity.
They also hinted that by the time of Star Trek Online there were many Klingons in Starfleet because other Klingons believed that Miral Paris was the kuvah'magh. This allowed them to have Klingon player characters in the game and continue to have the Klingon Empire as a separate political entity.
But the "out-of-the-box" viewpoint is the one that's relevant to the question on the table, which is, when did the writers of the comic intend it to be set? So it doesn't matter how you think Spock would've defined a year -- the question is, how are the writers defining a year? If it doesn't occur to the writers that a year can be anything other 365 Earth days, then they're not going to have one of their characters say "40 years" if they're thinking "20 years."
Anyway, it's pointless to debate it when we'll probably get more hard evidence one way or the other as the next three issues come out.
Though I believe now in the story the Federation and Klingon Empires are at war.
OK. I haven't been following Star Trek Online recently.
Hopefully, Geordi LaForge isn't stuck down in Engineering on the NCC-1701-E in Star Trek Countdown. Although I didn't particularly like "Timeless", I would like to see LaForge get command of the Galaxy-class U.S.S. Challenger NCC-71099.
Is it? Why would an alien be using Earth years to define a length of time? Riddle me that.
^^Again, the issue isn't what an alien would do, but what words a writer would put in an alien character's mouth. The vast majority of aliens in Star Trek, as in mass-media SF in general, do indeed speak in terms of Earth years as a matter of course -- or else live on planets whose year lengths are coincidentally similar to Earth years. Because they're being written about by authors who either don't bother to take different planetary orbital periods into account or who consciously choose to use Earth years so as not to confuse their audience.
Christopher (and JoeZhang) said it perfectly well enough, but since I'm the one Allyn was responding to, I feel compelled to chip in.
Spock's perspective? Seriously? Spock's perspective is whatever the writers want it to be. Allyn, it does not matter what you believe Spock thinks. What matters is what the writers were thinking, and what they meant by what Spock said. To any Trek writer, to any comic book writer, "forty years" is just that. Human years. Not Vulcan years. Not Romulan years. Not Q years. Not tribble years. Forty Earth years. Period. If they had meant otherwise, they would have said so.
The suggestion that the writers - who are writing for the masses, not for the "SF literati" - would be referring to Romulan years is, illogical, preposterous, and as JoeZhang said, downright silly. You can make whatever dissembling in-universe explanation about Spock's statement you like, but that doesn't change the fact that to every Trek writer in history "years" have been "years" unless otherwise explicitly qualified.
That's the logic -- the reality -- of the situation.
Spock's perspective? Seriously? Spock's perspective is whatever the writers want it to be. Allyn, it does not matter what you believe Spock thinks. What matters is what the writers were thinking, and what they meant by what Spock said. To any Trek writer, to any comic book writer, "forty years" is just that. Human years. Not Vulcan years. Not Romulan years. Not Q years. Not tribble years. Forty Earth years. Period. If they had meant otherwise, they would have said so.
The suggestion that the writers - who are writing for the masses, not for the "SF literati" - would be referring to Romulan years is, illogical, preposterous, and as JoeZhang said, downright silly. You can make whatever dissembling in-universe explanation about Spock's statement you like, but that doesn't change the fact that to every Trek writer in history "years" have been "years" unless otherwise explicitly qualified.
That's the logic -- the reality -- of the situation.
Last edited:
Agreed 100%. Let Geordi have moved on.
Fine.
I'm done with this conversation.
I don't have the time or energy to deal with this.
I'm done with this conversation.
I don't have the time or energy to deal with this.
^^Like I said, it's not a matter of ideology to debate over. The answer will probably become clear when the next issue comes out, so personal opinions are beside the point. No sense getting upset about or personally invested in a hypothesis -- on either side of the question -- that could be blown out of the water by actual data (pardon the expression) in a couple of weeks.
Similar threads
