The curse(?) of small universe syndrome

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

"Small universe syndrome" has been discussed before many times, but what are the benefits/reasons and the drawbacks for doing so?

Positives:
* It gives an episode personal stakes which complicate the issue - having to choose between someone you know/like and what's right, needing to succeed so the person will live/win (this can be done directly ("my sister's in trouble out there!") or through comparison ("you're doing this/thinking this because it reminds you of what happened to your friend!"))
* It allows us to explore a character's family life without having to put it in a B-story that has nothing to do with the A story, or as the A-story itself (which I gather a lot of people also complain about)
* It creates conflict (though some think Humans should have moved beyond that by then)
* It keeps the world and its components from being a mile wide and an inch deep (worldbuilding)
* It greases the wheels (knowing someone who is an expert at _____ comes in handy, and if you already created such characters, why not use them again? - Create a new one and people will ask, "hey, why didn't they just ask so-and-so?")
* any particular discipline, organization, career choice, people group, etc. will naturally have a network of friends and acquaintances and families often do have multiple members in a particular field (military, medical, science, arts, etc.)

Negatives:
* It makes everything seem too good to be true (what are the odds that you frequently know/are someone who's personally affected by so many events, particularly in an entire universe of people, let alone a city, country, or Earth in non-Trek shows?)
* It limits possibilities for future stories, either in fact or in the minds of viewers and future writers.
* It complicates some issues needlessly, to the point of distraction or absurdity
* It makes the assumption that a great character has to come from a line of similarly influential people in the same or similar circles, and that people can't employ shared skills (leadership, compassion, debate, etc.) in different fields
* Characters turn into Swiss army knives, knowing and being able to do whatever the story calls for

I'm discussing this in reference to Trek in particular, but comparisons to other shows are welcome within reason.

 

[Firebird]

* It keeps the world and its components from being a mile wide and an inch deep (worldbuilding)

Becoming a mile wide and an inch deep is something Small Universe Syndrome causes. If everything is connected to everything else and everything is explained, there's little depth to the world.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

I meant that it isn't just "oh, Vulcan is where Spock is from, and Kronos is where Klingons live" and so on. Planets and peoples have religion, art, geography, animals, literature, etc; characters have family, friends, colleagues, enemies, and life experiences beyond their fellow main characters and the main plot of each story. They're not just names on a list.

 

[fireproof78]

So what makes a connection and not just setting?

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

Where does it cross the line from acceptable to unnecessary? I suppose it depends upon the show. A naturally smaller world (a specialized field, a particular agency, a small country/town, a family estate) is more closely/believably connected to a show's heroes than all sorts of people in a whole quadrant of the galaxy.

 

[Shawnster]

Earth is always the planet threatened. That might be an example. See V'GER and then the Whale Probe, then BOBW, then ST:FC, then DISCO season 1. At least the Doomsday Machine was somewhere out in the Final Frontier.

Of course, this gets the audience emotionally involved, even if it's their first Trek experience. They may not know or care much about Vulcan but they know Earth is their home.

Even Earth's role in the Federation is small world, at least for the viewer. Not only is it the Federation capital, it's also Sector 001. Starbase 1 is literally in Earth's backyard. It's depicted as being in the center of the Federation's territory.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

We just naturally assume we'd have a pivotal role in bringing everybody together. If broadcast-era (pre-DIS) Trek Earth had to join a fully-formed organization and carve out a niche for themselves instead of being one of the founding members, it might have led to some interesting episodes.

 

[Shawnster]

Sybock and Burnham are examples of small universe syndrome. Here we have 2 important characters very integral to the plot make sudden appearances and guess what, they both are closely connected to a beloved franchise character.

Likewise Sam Kirk. OK, sure, Jim Kirk has a brother. It just so happens he lives on Deneva, the same planet under attack by the flying fake vomit. Then we find out Sam served for years on the Enterprise, the same ship his brother will later command.

On the other hand, I don't feel Beto Ortegas fits this example. His appearance was not written in as coincidence. He is a documentary reporter who, doing a story about Starfleet, naturally sought do do it on the ship his sister is stationed on.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

So the difference lies in whether it's a coincidence or because of a conscious choice? Making the guest character choose to reconnect with a relative may feel less like everybody knows everybody - of course you know a relative you grew up with, and it's done in a situation where the relationship is part of the plot, not just an "oh, isn't this convenient" situation. And more than ever, you can mention the relationship beforehand in other episodes, through snippets of memories/correspondence, so it doesn't feel as though they appeared out of nowhere.

 

[Christopher]

To me, Small Universe Syndrome is more about worldbuilding than characters. It's something like having every new thing a starship encounters be connected to something from a past episode, or having the only historical starships and captains anyone ever mentions be ones the audience knows from the shows, or having any two alien species with vaguely similar attributes be connected. It's when people try to connect V'Ger to the Borg even though they have far more differences than similarities. It's when people in future centuries are obsessed with Kirk and Spock and never mention any of the dozens of other captains that didn't get their own TV show. It's the failure to sell the idea that the shows we see are just a tiny glimpse into a far vaster universe.

TOS was pretty good at avoiding this. When they made references to things from our time, they combined them with references hinting at an intervening future history -- "Genghis Khan, Hitler, Ferris, Maltuvis" or "the Nobel and Zee-Magnees Prizes." The modern shows, not so much, like the Discovery episode where Saru looked up a list of accomplished captains and it didn't have a single name we didn't already know. (It didn't even include Garth of Izar, even though canonically he should have been admired at the time as one of Starfleet's greatest, his downfall still more than a decade in the future.)

On the other hand, sometimes Trek errs too far in the other direction, like the way each new production has invented new alien species rather than fleshing out the background aliens established in earlier shows or films. There's a healthy middle ground between too much continuity and too little.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

When they made references to things from our time, they combined them with references hinting at an intervening future history -- "Genghis Khan, Hitler, Ferris, Maltuvis" or "the Nobel and Zee-Magnees Prizes."

Also Kazanga and Sitar https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/2026-novel-releases.319493/page-12#post-15293158

Inventing new name-dropped unseen species every episode makes space seem bigger and full of many more unknowns.

MA is full of characters and species only mentioned in dialogue for throwaway lines - acquaintances mentioned in passing, visiting ambassadors to DS9 with odd alien requirements, historical figures.

 

[Christopher]

Inventing new name-dropped unseen species every episode makes space seem bigger and full of many more unknowns.

Yeah, but never reusing the old ones -- even when they're supposed to be Federation members, like the alien crewmembers in TAS and TMP -- makes the universe feel less real and consistent. There should be a mix of both -- expand the universe, but don't forget what's already been established.

 

[knightgrace]

The real problem was world building from the bottom up. Building the Enterprise first, then their Galaxy.

Should have built from the top down.


What do you want for the Galaxy at large?

Then 'what is the 'Federation'?'

How large? Why?

What about threats? Natural versus unnatural...(Klingons, Romulans, and, oh my!)

Then technology. With just how important is technology?

Let's go with the 'Star Trek: Maps'...

Once you have an idea about how to proceed, then you start to get down to high level gritty details, involving history, economy, education...

Now to Star Fleet. How large? In terms of personal numbers crewing the Fleet. Logistics in other words. All those people are going to need supplies.

Why a Heavy Cruiser? What exactly do the "lesser" ships do?

Just how much automation is involved. Two problems; the first is the 1960s view, the second is what is actually expected? Then multiply by one hundred. (The Tricorder exposes this. )

In terms of history the discovery of the space warp is a problem. Mankind gets to go to the stars... near interstellar space...something like twenty light years out, then about fifty years later, all early problems are solved. Improvements start taking longer. And are very minor in nature. The speed limits of the early technology start causing problems. Then, just before the first of the Constitution class are launched, the time barrier is broken...

Problems: many. This is where the stories for 'Star Trek' come from. Because of communication time delays, problems both minor and major start coming out of the closet of deep space. By the time of Kirk( or whosever name) reaches the Captain's rank, Star Fleet Officers are finally getting a hang of it "out" there.

This why Klingons shoot first. They learned. The hard way.

If the story revolves around a Constitution class and a D-7 class ship, unless surprise is attained, the battle should be on the order of twenty hours. And surprise should be almost impossible.

And going by Carl Sagan's comments in 'Cosmos', the Constitution class starship should win, almost every time.

Otherwise the Klingons would have rolled over the Federation. Dead Earth.

As to the the line that only about one in a million men( I take this to mean "humans") simply means that there are very few Starships available for people to use, and most aren't interested.

Colonies? Are controlled by a level six Star Frontiers computer, even if, at first, it is very over powered for a startup colony. Why? Because in the Role Playing Game Star Frontiers(1980), a level six is able to adapt, or learn. Not relying upon some genus human to have the right knowledge...

A minimal colony starts out with a minimum of something like 20,000 colonists. And every year another 20,000 people are added.

Galaxy building is very complex. It can't be done fast. Gene Roddenberry's attempt was down and dirty, hence the problems we see in 'Star Trek'.

 

[Firebird]

The real problem was world building from the bottom up. Building the Enterprise first, then their Galaxy.

Should have built from the top down.


What do you want for the Galaxy at large?

Then 'what is the 'Federation'?'

How large? Why?

What about threats? Natural versus unnatural...(Klingons, Romulans, and, oh my!)

Then technology. With just how important is technology?

Let's go with the 'Star Trek: Maps'...

Once you have an idea about how to proceed, then you start to get down to high level gritty details, involving history, economy, education...

Now to Star Fleet. How large? In terms of personal numbers crewing the Fleet. Logistics in other words. All those people are going to need supplies.

Why a Heavy Cruiser? What exactly do the "lesser" ships do?

Just how much automation is involved. Two problems; the first is the 1960s view, the second is what is actually expected? Then multiply by one hundred. (The Tricorder exposes this. )

In terms of history the discovery of the space warp is a problem. Mankind gets to go to the stars... near interstellar space...something like twenty light years out, then about fifty years later, all early problems are solved. Improvements start taking longer. And are very minor in nature. The speed limits of the early technology start causing problems. Then, just before the first of the Constitution class are launched, the time barrier is broken...

Problems: many. This is where the stories for 'Star Trek' come from. Because of communication time delays, problems both minor and major start coming out of the closet of deep space. By the time of Kirk( or whosever name) reaches the Captain's rank, Star Fleet Officers are finally getting a hang of it "out" there.

This why Klingons shoot first. They learned. The hard way.

If the story revolves around a Constitution class and a D-7 class ship, unless surprise is attained, the battle should be on the order of twenty hours. And surprise should be almost impossible.

And going by Carl Sagan's comments in 'Cosmos', the Constitution class starship should win, almost every time.

Otherwise the Klingons would have rolled over the Federation. Dead Earth.

As to the the line that only about one in a million men( I take this to mean "humans") simply means that there are very few Starships available for people to use, and most aren't interested.

Colonies? Are controlled by a level six Star Frontiers computer, even if, at first, it is very over powered for a startup colony. Why? Because in the Role Playing Game Star Frontiers(1980), a level six is able to adapt, or learn. Not relying upon some genus human to have the right knowledge...

A minimal colony starts out with a minimum of something like 20,000 colonists. And every year another 20,000 people are added.

Galaxy building is very complex. It can't be done fast. Gene Roddenberry's attempt was down and dirty, hence the problems we see in 'Star Trek'.

When you're a television show working with a mission of the week format, there's only so much script real estate you can spend on things that really only matter to the die-hard fans who obsess more over the minutiae than the episodes.

The "problems" you refer to aren't a problem for the general audience, whom the shows are aimed at.

 

[Christopher]

When you're a television show working with a mission of the week format, there's only so much script real estate you can spend on things that really only matter to the die-hard fans who obsess more over the minutiae than the episodes.

The "problems" you refer to aren't a problem for the general audience, whom the shows are aimed at.

Also, TV writing back then was largely freelancer-driven, so the creators probably didn't want to inhibit freelance writers' creativity by defining the universe in too much detail at the beginning.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

Most of the shows writers contributed to back then took place in real, pre-existing past and present Earth (westerns, crime dramas, etc.), so they could use the real world and culture, simply populating it with characters, special gimmicks (quirky comedy reliefs, heroes, super-powered people who still had to live in western society (witches, genies, aliens). Their surroundings were that of the audience (small towns, cities, offices, hospitals) or recognizable trappings of the show's historical era and/or setting (wild west town, medieval peasantry, Victorian England). You could simply add limited details of one non-Human culture to all of that, bit by bit as the show went on.

 

[BillJ]

I don’t mind small universe syndrome if it can contribute to a really good story and is used selectively.

CBS Trek has struck out on both counts, from my POV.

 

[Shawnster]

The small universe syndrome that broke my back was in the Star Wars universe "Jedi Search" by Kevin J. Anderson. The story involved yet another Death Star and an Imperial officer who was the former lover of Tarkin.

So the difference lies in whether it's a coincidence or because of a conscious choice?

I think I'd describe it as feeling organic vs forced. Honestly, I didn't have a problem with Sam Kirk in "Immunity Syndrome." Siblings are common enough and they spread out. Sam on Deneva felt fine. It felt natural. It was making him a Starfleet officer and including him as an Enterprise officer that made it small. Especially putting him on the Enterprise out of all the ships in the fleet.

Same goes for how often James T. Kirk shows up in SNW. He just happens to be in the neighborhood all the time?

 

[knightgrace]

Good background work leads to good scripts.

You have to give the writers something to go on.

Just look at how bad the 1978 version of Battlestar Galactica was.

In sufficient homework.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

"What a great ship! I'd sure like to captain her someday..." *hint, hint*