Worf Vs. Mickey D In "The Royale"

[Silvercrest]

Possibly the plot of the book got a bit jumbled in the process, too: it's rather likely the aliens couldn't read, and might not be interested in learning. But Richey's mind would provide, even if with minor failings.

Now, the part I have difficulty visualizing is the one where Richey, flung in his spaceship across the galaxy to a fantastic new world, boards the exploratory shuttle in order to get down to that stormy planet - and, thinking there's nowhere near excitement, grabs his pulp novel and stashes it in the pocket of his spacesuit...

The part of THAT I have difficulty visualizing is how the aliens got the exact depiction of the hotel, casino, Texas drawl, tuxedo, and everything else out of Richey's brain — and totally missed Richey's disdain over the poor writing, shallow characters, clichés, etc. ... instead still assuming this was the humans' preferred way of living. That would qualify as either "can't see the forest for the slot machines", or just plain "selective blindness."

 

[Orphalesion]

But it need not be. Nobody in the episode actually says or otherwise suggests that the aliens read the novel. If the read Richey instead

But if that's the case, they could have created a world based on his memory. Which again, better story, probably.
Also if they "read Richey" they would have discovered that the Royale doesn't represent his "preferred lifestyle and social habits"

And it probably wouldn't be ca 1987 anyway, but more like "takes place at a nondescript US small if gambling-heavy and mob-run town at an ill defined time";

They sure look like soap opera characters from the 1980s.

Also this:

I awakened to find myself here in the Royale Hotel, precisely as described in the novel I found in my room. And for the last thirty-eight years I have survived here. I have come to understand that the alien contaminators created this place for me out of some sense of guilt, presuming that the novel we had on board the shuttle about the Hotel Royale was in fact a guide to our preferred lifestyle and social habits.

Can be interpreted as him not having read the novel beforehand. To me it sounds like Richey discovered the novel in his room and maybe vaguely remembered that it was on the shuttle beforehand (possibly in the possession of another astronaut) and then he was surprised that the hotel looked like the one described in the novel he found in the room he woke up in.

 

[Timo]

But if that's the case, they could have created a world based on his memory.

Which would be the Royale, as he had supposedly been reading the book (or at least he never indicates he didn't - he says he "found the book in the room", but then establishes it was familiar to him from the shuttle all along), and it left an impression. Not a positive one, but the aliens couldn't tell. And not a lasting one, but again the aliens couldn't tell and wouldn't care. They are gone now, after all: there's nobody creating paradises for Riker that look like a profound misunderstanding of his last holosession before the away mission.

Also if they "read Richey" they would have discovered that the Royale doesn't represent his "preferred lifestyle and social habits"

Why? It need not have been a particularly deep reading. Clearly the aliens weren't into conversation or lingering.

They sure look like soap opera characters from the 1980s.

Which need not be what Todd Matthews wrote, merely what Richey read... If Matthews writes "telephone", say, Richey's idea of an antiquated tabletop set would be the eighties even if Matthews intended the fifties. Significantly, nothing about the setup is era-specific in the sense of featuring a particular technology that wouldn't have been there yet in the old Bogart films: cars, revolvers, TV sets and cowboy boots could exist in any era between the 1950s (or even the 40s) and the 2000s, even if they looked distinct.

Can be interpreted as him not having read the novel beforehand. To me it sounds like Richey discovered the novel in his room and maybe vaguely remembered that it was on the shuttle beforehand (possibly in the possession of another astronaut) and then he was surprised that the hotel looked like the one described in the novel he found in the room he woke up in.

Or then he first points out that the one object in the hotel that wasn't fake, apart from him and his spacesuit, was the book from the shuttle, and then points out the connection between that object and his fate. Sure, it may have been somebody else's book, but as long as there is no explicit language about Richey first seeing The Croupier and then reading the description of The Croupier and being amazed that it matches... It's quite possible Richey read the book, among many others, possibly even during the hours-long dull descent of the shuttle towards the planet, and "the novel" was topmost in his mind (but additionally also on top of the hotel table).

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Orphalesion]

(snip for size)

The aliens seem to have taken care and time enough to create a whole world, I don't see why they shouldn't or wouldn't have dug a little deeper to get the best experience for Richey.

Plus, there's no indication that he had any more familiarity with the book than "a novel we had on the shuttle"

But yes, it also doesn't say that he hasn't written it, it sounds to me that way. But we are not going to agree on that.
I mean the true reason was that they had a very low budget and so it was easier to rely on something where they could use costumes and props that already existed instead of designing and creating new ones.

 

[Roundabout]

I was watching my favorite TNG episode "The Royale" earlier (don't judge me, I love it) and I know it's probably not wise to think TOO much about the plot

Baby needs a new pair of shoes.

I, too, loved it. The episode is not my favorite, but I enjoyed it anyway. The story was hokey, which made it that much more entertaining. The scene at the craps table was fun and exciting.

Plus there is enough mystery surrounding the whole set-up involving Richey, which adds intrigue to the story. I was fine with the episode leaving something to the imagination of the viewer.

I was always under the impression that the story looped, but you're right: nothing refers to that.

Personally, I never thought it made any sense that "concluding the story will let us leave". That hotel wasn't set up as a puzzle or challenge for Col. Richey to solve. It was set up for him as a permanent place to live, no other options, period. If he'd found a loophole of his own and exited, then he'd have died on the surface of the planet. I'm tempted to make the comparison that "animals in a zoo aren't allowed to leave if they solve a puzzle or challenge", but that doesn't work since this wasn't really a zoo.

I'll grant that such a solution is conceivable — but for the characters to simply assume it was true, on no available evidence, is sloppy.

I assumed that the scenario does loop, but it could accommodate external interference, to a certain degree (Worf couldn't cut through the walls with his phaser), with the story and then it reverts back to its default story.

Who knows how many times Richey might have tried to changed things with the story, but eventually the program finds a way to revert to its default. And then it starts over again. I suppose Richey might have been able to avoid living through the story of the novel, at any particular point in time, if he stayed in his room, while the story continues to play out down on the casino floor.

 

[NCC-73515]

the aliens seem to have made Richey the manager of the hotel

I never got that impression. MA says Mickey is the owner, but I don't remember that being even suggested in the episode.

I don't even want to imagine his horror if he had SOMEHOW made it out of the hotel after YEARS of trying only to discover that the only way for him to was back inside. I love the dark undertone of the Richey part of the episode, it's one big reason why it's my favorite.)

That's what I thought happened over and over. He tried to find a way out, and the few times it worked, he was just stuck in the eye of an eternal storm. So the only place to go was back inside. I was pretty traumatized by the corpse as a kid (it was my first TV/movie corpse), and the story with its implications was incredibly tragic. But then silly and funny just a few min later. I love its range.

The book is "told by" Mickey D, as Data puts it

Makes you wonder if Todd Matthews was a bad person, since books are usually told by the hero, and if he saw Mickey as a hero... ugh XD

 

[Orphalesion]

It
Makes you wonder if Todd Matthews was a bad person, since books are usually told by the hero, and if he saw Mickey as a hero... ugh XD

Not nearly. There's enough books who are narrated by or feature villain protagonists or just un-heroic protagonists.

Judging by his work, Mr. Matthews' motivations for making Micky D. the narrator were probably more akin to "Dude, old style gangsters are so cool, I'm gonna write a book with one of them as narrator and he'll be all badass and do cool gangster stuff."

 

[trekshark]

Jean-Luc leaves out some of the less important plot elements when he tells Riker that the book's ending = "a bad love affair ends in a bloody shootout, the hotel gets bought out and life goes on, such as it is". (I mean he's so annoyed by all the terrible dialogue, he probably didn't catch half of what was happening, haha.)

I always get a laugh out of Picard's disgust as I always pictured the Dixon Hill stuff as probably being exactly like the royale just set in an earlier decade.

I also like the episode.

 

[Alexander Corrino]

Well, hat off to you. I could have never done that. I don't claim that I'm a master writer, but I just wouldn't have been able to write something like Mickey D :-P
Like, when I was like 12 or something I tried writing Charmed fanfiction, and I just couldn't, because as I tried to stay true to the show (and Charmed was a preeeeeety bad show, even if I didn't realize it back then) it became too shallow for me, so I abandoned it pretty quickly.

I'll confess I skipped the "told by Mickey D" part - it was simply not possible to write the story from Mickey D's point of view - because how can he know exact dialogue and things that happen in the hotel when he is never even there? You can't have a story written from one character's perspective and then have him not right there. It's a massive plot hole when it really comes down to writing the story, so I skipped that one but kept all the rest of the elements and scenes. (I really haaaate Jean-Luc for tuning out the dialogue in that one scene where he talks to Troi, I was like NOOO NOW I HAVE TO MAKE UP MORE CHEESY LINES, WHAT FRESH HELL IS THIS, haha.) It was the most challenging thing I've ever done as a fic writer but hey, I love myself a challenge, and since I kept hitting people over the head with my love for the episode and my endless "but how does that novel plot even work" ideas, I felt it was time for me to just write it myself because obviously no one else was going to.

I understand that, but I'm just on the complete opposite end of the spectrum.When I watch star trek I don't want anything except the 24th century, I don't want any Noir stories set in the 1940s, I don't want any sleazy Las Vegas bars with smarmy lounge singers, I don't want any story about a minority writer struggling in the 1950s, no matter how profound or well told, I don't want Picard prancing around as Robin Hood. I want scifi in all it's many variations, because that's what I chose to watch when I turned on Star Trek

I hate the Robin Hood episode as well, but that's more because I can't stand Vash-Means-Cow-In-French. I love weird genre mixes. The weirder, the better, and my love for anything 80s makes me adore the whole Royale setting by default. It's a win-win for me. But I understand how one tends to want sci-fi when thinking of Star Trek. It's the DNA of the franchise. (Which is another reason why I'm not exactly much of a Trekkie. But if they do genre mix episodes? I'm totally in. They did a few of those on ENT as well - I absolutely LOVE "Carbon Creek" and the Vulcan zombie episode. It's a theme for me, lol.) Or "wtf-is-this-plot" episodes. I mean "The Royale" is definitely one of those even though it doesn't have a COMPLETELY wtf plot like, say, "Masks" (another of my absolute favorites).

Judging by his work, Mr. Matthews' motivations for making Micky D. the narrator were probably more akin to "Dude, old style gangsters are so cool, I'm gonna write a book with one of them as narrator and he'll be all badass and do cool gangster stuff."

Or he just wanted to make a few bucks so he slapped some words on paper and found someone who published it (I always wonder if the novel was successful in its time tho - I mean yeah, Richey didn't think much of it, but who knows, sometimes cheesy stuff is a huge success). But I agree that "whoa, gangsters are cool" most likely played a bit part in Matthew's motiviation, lol.

I always get a laugh out of Picard's disgust as I always pictured the Dixon Hill stuff as probably being exactly like the royale just set in an earlier decade.

Hahaha! Yes. Accurate. It makes me laugh as well - the "UGH THIS IS SOOOO BAAAAD" way he pouts when Troi leaves and he has to listen to more of it, lmao. I'd have called him out on his whole attitude like "Honey, your Dixon Hill novels are the exact same thing, the dialogue is as terrible and the characters are just as cliché - you just have a soft spot for it because you like to cosplay on the holodeck." He'd probably have MURDERED me on the spot, but hey... worth it.

 

[Timo]

I'll confess I skipped the "told by Mickey D" part - it was simply not possible to write the story from Mickey D's point of view - because how can he know exact dialogue and things that happen in the hotel when he is never even there?

Why should he? Him narrating it doesn't mean it's from his physical point of view - those are two entirely different things.

For all we know, every chapter started out with a little "Captain's Log" or the written equivalent of a film noir voice-over where Mickey D spilled some of his streetwise wisdom on what was happening in his world, after which we could read how it happened - and perhaps easily see how Mickey is biased or downright delusional about what is really going on. That's a neat thing to do on your anti-hero in general, giving you moral high ground as the writer whilst offering you the freedom of exploring the lowlife philosophical point of view.

Hahaha! Yes. Accurate. It makes me laugh as well - the "UGH THIS IS SOOOO BAAAAD" way he pouts when Troi leaves and he has to listen to more of it, lmao. I'd have called him out on his whole attitude like "Honey, your Dixon Hill novels are the exact same thing, the dialogue is as terrible and the characters are just as cliché - you just have a soft spot for it because you like to cosplay on the holodeck." He'd probably have MURDERED me on the spot, but hey... worth it.

I gather Picard just felt he had something to hide there. Methinks the gumshoe doth protest too much, and all that...

Makes me wonder how he really felt about kids. Or, say, capitalism or religion.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Orphalesion]

Makes me wonder how he really felt about kids. Or, say, capitalism or religion.

Only Troi knows. That's how she gets away with wearing whatever the hell she likes on-duty(and why her hair is so big) she knows all his dirty secrets.

I'll confess I skipped the "told by Mickey D" part - it was simply not possible to write the story from Mickey D's point of view - because how can he know exact dialogue and things that happen in the hotel when he is never even there? You can't have a story written from one character's perspective and then have him not right there.

There's novels with narrators who weren't there for parts/most/all of the story and instead get it told by someone, or read it in a letter. Maybe the novel's framing device features an aged Michael D visiting the vacant Royale and reminiscing about what it was like during its heyday.

 

[Timo]

Only Troi knows. That's how she gets away with wearing whatever the hell she likes on-duty(and why her hair is so big) she knows all his dirty secrets.

Which makes Picard look all the more desperate when he postures about how awful this crime novel is - in front of Troi.

There's novels with narrators who weren't there for parts/most/all of the story and instead get it told by someone, or read it in a letter. Maybe the novel's framing device features an aged Michael D visiting the vacant Royale and reminiscing about what it was like during its heyday.

...And perhaps learning how it all really happened when sharing a drink with the old receptionist: how they all laughed behind his back, cheated fifty thousand a year off him, scratched his Lincoln, and sold his life to the papers, the cops, and this Matthews fellah.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Thomas Elliot]

This is a great thread, especially with all the deconstructing of the plot.
There’s a lot that doesn’t make sense but this was one of the earliest TNG episodes I saw and even though it wasn’t exciting like TOS, it had this slow-burn, Twilight Zone-eeriness to it.

And yes, it pains me to see the hypocrisy and over exaggerated disgust of Picard towards the Royale novel. But...but...you love Dixon Hill novels?

I always thought the hotel was supposed to take place in the 40s or 50s. But yeah, nothing in there looks too specific time-wise. Mickey D is definitely a 40s/50s era gangster. To me, now, everything else feels like the 70s, yet all the hair styles and clothing is probably just 1987.

 

[Alexander Corrino]

I always thought the hotel was supposed to take place in the 40s or 50s. But yeah, nothing in there looks too specific time-wise. Mickey D is definitely a 40s/50s era gangster. To me, now, everything else feels like the 70s, yet all the hair styles and clothing is probably just 1987.

I've also always wondered about the specific time frame setting. Everything looks 80s, but the entire "plot" is just so 40s/50s gangster. (Which, for me, only adds to the fascination. It's yet ANOTHER genre mix within a genre mix episode.)

There's novels with narrators who weren't there for parts/most/all of the story and instead get it told by someone, or read it in a letter. Maybe the novel's framing device features an aged Michael D visiting the vacant Royale and reminiscing about what it was like during its heyday.

I like this idea! If I should ever decide to tackle the novel in another fic, I'll definitely use the "older Mickey D" approach. It just didn't work for the fic I was writing - I had enough stress with making the plot line up with what little we see of it in the episode, I didn't need the added complications of having Mickey D tell it all, in whichever way. I just liked the "different scenes told from different perspectives" idea better than "come up with a way of having the one character who only appears once in the entire story tell it all".

I wish they had picked a real novel and used some of its plot for the episode. I get that this would probably have led to a LOT of money having to be paid to the author, but it would have been awesome IMO.

 

[Leviathan]

...ummm...going by Worf history....

Mickey D would fold, spindle, and toss him accross the room.

Cases in point:

 

[Alexander Corrino]

^ I would have LOVED to see Mickey D throwing Worf around.

 

[NCC-73515]

I always get a laugh out of Picard's disgust as I always pictured the Dixon Hill stuff as probably being exactly like the royale just set in an earlier decade.

I also like the episode.

He just doesn't like the competition. It's like Trekkies vs. Warries
...or actually like OldTrekkies vs. NewTrekkies! Oh Disco and PIC are soooo bad, but Allamaraine, Spock's Brain and Threshold were brilliant! XD

 

[JirinPanthosa]

We see from the attempt to get the Texan to take him to his car that the storyline stubbornly resists any changes. Mickey D's strength might have been scaled up to stop the interference.

 

[Timo]

Or then just his general untouchability would have. The walls aren't suddenly made of adamantium, they just inexplicably and unapologetically refuse to yield to phasers. Similarly, Mickey D might not have super-strength, it's just that Worf's best punches and kicks would have no visible effect.

I'm reminded of "Man Trap" and the scene where Spock applies his whole strength into punching "Nancy Crater". The "woman" initially isn't superstrong, she just flat out refuses to acknowledge the impacts in any way. Yet deep down, "Nancy" is an actual biological creature with needs and weaknesses, and ultimately applies superstrength to fling Spock across the room so that it can proceed with those needs. Mickey D would have no needs, and could keep up the posturing and the bad dialogue regardless of whether Worf kept kicking him in the head, setting him on fire, or asking pretty please.

"Nancy" is an illusion, not a physically shapeshifting lifeform: she looks different depending on who is looking, fooling at least three different people with three different looks simultaneously in her introductory scene. Is Mickey D an illusion or just an animated lump of fake meat? Data's tricorder suggests the latter, but is that an illusion, too?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Trekker4747]

I've also always wondered about the specific time frame setting. Everything looks 80s, but the entire "plot" is just so 40s/50s gangster. (Which, for me, only adds to the fascination. It's yet ANOTHER genre mix within a genre mix episode.)

The novel took place in, at least, 1991. The Texan gambler says he has a '91 Caddy in the parking lot.