(Also available from Starland mirror site)
First, some comments from previous columns . . .
JC Fernandez of Coral Springs, FL: Another video jacket nit. TNG's "Unification" two-parter was released in backwards order with Part 2 preceding Part 1 in the chronology. Which I somewhat expected since the episodes are being released according to production order, not air-date order. But it still wrecks havoc with my library... But more importantly, they got the pictures backwards. Photos for Part 2 are displayed on the box for Part 1 and vice versa.
JoAnna Renae Walsvik: In the first season TNG ep "Where No One Has Gone Before", when the Enterprise has been taken to a place over one million light-years away by the Traveler, (it's been a while since I saw the episode, I believe that's the basic plot) Picard states in his log that he has sent a subspace message to Earth but it'll take something like one hundred years to reach them and three hundred years for the Enterprise to get home. (Or something to that effect) There's no mention on Voyager if Captain Janeway ever employed this option and sent a subspace message to Starfleet Command. Assuming it takes Voyager the full seventy years to return home, then the message would reach the AQ a lot sooner then Voyager herself.
Phil: This is where things start getting wacky in the Star Trek universe. The Tech Manual provides a perfectly logical explanation for subspace communications stating that repeaters are needed every twenty light years or so to re-transmit the signal. Unfortunately, you've got episodes like "Where No One Has Gone Before" and "Q Who" where the Enterprise sends a subspace signal from way out in the boonies and somehow the crew still expects it to reach Federation territory! So, obviously, either the writers didn't know about the whole subspace relay deal when they wrote their scripts or they chose to ignore it.
Wendy Graham: Dr Who had a virtual repertory theatre company of regular actors around the time of Tom Baker as the Doc - I know one of them, Michael Wisher, who was Davros, creator of the Daleks in one story and then all blue and a planetary official in the next, before being killed by the Master in another by being smothered by--I think--a child's doll which came to life. (Lots of outraged parents there.)
Zachary Vogt of St. Louis, MO: I'm taking a summer course here at the local community college in Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (which is just a fancy way of saying Physics III, but it sounds a whole lot cooler). Anyway what do I come across in chapter three, but the origins of the word "Vulcan". Here's the excerpt from my book:
"The first test of general relativity was based on the discovery made in 1859 that the planet Mercury does not move in the perfect, fixed ellipse predicted by Newtonian theory; instead, the orbit precesses in such a way that its axis rotates slowly (by 43 arcseconds per century). This anomalous motion had suggested to astronomers that Mercury's orbit was being disturbed by a hitherto undetected planet. This planet's existence was generally accepted as true by astronomers and was even given a name, 'Vulcan'. Vulcan appeared on astronomy charts of that era for decades. However, careful searches failed to find Vulcan, and it wasn't until some 50 years later, when he completed his general theory of relativity, that Einstein found that the theory predicted a slow precession of all planetary orbits. For Mercury the theory predicted a precession in almost perfect agreement with the observed 42.98 arcseconds per century."
Phil: Interesting! I hadn't heard that! Now, taking the term back a bit farther . . . wasn't Vulcan a god in Roman Mythology? I don't have time to look it up but I'm thinking he had something to do with fire or heat. Our word "vulcanize" refers to processing raw rubber to give it useful qualities (elasticity and strength). I believe the process originally used heat to accomplish this. Hence, the word. (I think it's currently done with chemicals.)
Shane Tourtellotte: From the Oxford English Dictionary:
Feringhee[An oriental adaption on FRANK, with Arab. ethnic suffix -i; in Arab. faranji, in Pers. farangi] formerly, the ordinary Indian term for a European; in 19th c. applied esp. to the Indian-born Portuguese, and contemptuously to other Europeans.
So 'Ferengi' is Arabic -- and Persian, and Indian, and by extension with the Franks, western European. That word certainly gets around.
Jody Seim of Oakland, California: According to an 1894 dictionary of Malay published by the Government Printing Office in Taiping, Perak, "Feringgi" is/was a Malay word for European (secondary meaning: Christian). According to "A Dictionary of Standard Malay" published in 1945 by the Pacific Press Publishing Association, "Feringgi," meaning European in Malay, was Arabic in origin.
I hadn't actually _read_ last Friday's column until today, but it doesn't look to me as if you have multiple origins for Ferengi. The Hindi, Arabic, Chinese, and Malayan speaking-peoples were/are part of the most extensive trading network in history. I'm a historian, not a linguist, but it looks to me as if you have diffusion along that trade network of a term for people who suddenly appeared on the scene in the sixteenth century (i.e., the Europeans, who had been dependent on the Asian merchants before then and mainly stayed in the Mediterranean Ocean). Arabic traders had dominated large parts of the Indian ocean trade in particular until the Portuguese showed up; it doesn't seem surprising their word for the new competitors would be adopted by most of their trading partners.
The sixteenth-century Europeans make interesting partners for the twenty-fourth century Ferengi, to say the least. They certainly have the love of profit in common.
ML McMahon: Obviously it's the same Borg Queen. She hi-tailed it outta the cube midway between Wolf 359 and Earth along with their newly-assimilated captees that showed up on Voyager back in February.
Phil: I think that we're still thinking too "three dimensionally." (Snicker, snicker)
Scott Vogt, Cedar Rapids, IA: I also wondered about Harry being a senior officer. Perhaps that station's officer was killed in "Caretaker" and Harry was the only one left qualified to take his place. Maybe Janeway just took a chance on him.
Murray Leeder: There was the U.S.S. Gorkon in "Descent, Part I".
Phil: True! Named, of course, for the assassinated Klingon chancellor in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. Thanks to Urac Sigma for sending this information along as well!
Will Phillips of North Royalton: This is in response to the question of the Defiant still being an NX-class vessel and not NCC by now. I think the reason it's still an NX is because the Defiant-class ship isn't really an official, mass-production (if you will) ship. O'Brien said that they had to do something to the power systems to keep the Defiant from shaking itself apart. Plus, they pretty much pulled the ship out of mothballs (Where do they keep those old, unused ships, anyway?) from Wolf 359 and threw it at Sisko and the DS9 crew and said, here, have a ship. You have to repair it yourself. So, the NX class is for the fact that it is not a thoroughly tested ship. And with all the time the crew has wasted going on fun little trips to Noplace Important, it never will.
On to the questions . . .
Murray Leeder: Does anyone out there know what the motto of the Defiant is? We've seen the plaque before, but I couldn't make it out.
Phil: Rats! I was going to call my buddy Larry Nemecek this week about that and I forgot. He's more of an insider and knows stuff like this! I'll get in touch with him next week and find out if no one else comes up with an answer. Since it's never shown on the screen and I'm just the nitpicker . . . I have no idea!
ML McMahon: What would happen if, halfway through the Bajoran Wormhole, you made a 90-degree turn and went off in a different direction? Would you end up in a third Quadrant (Delta, perhaps) or just wander forever, lost in hyperspace?
Phil: Only the creators know for sure! One of the projects that I have in the back of my head is a big-arc, space-series/Earth-versus-it's-colonies multi-part story that uses artificial wormholes to get from place to place. In that series--which of course has no relationship to Star Trek--if you try to fly through the side of a wormhole, your ship ends up with pieces of it hundreds of light years apart . . . which is a bad thing. (I've got plenty of stories to tell I just need to get that first novel "out the door!" And, yes I already have the first book in that series in screen-play format because a buddy and I were going to do a comic book together. Unfortunately, that didn't pan out but I fell in love with the characters. It's sorta like Star Trek with an attitude.)
ML McMahon: I've seen questions before about Wesley's repulser beam in "The Naked Now" (to the effect of "doesn't the Enterprise already have something like that/Doesn't the regular tractor beam both push and pull, etc.") I think I've got a possible answer: Wesley's modifications reversed the polarity of the beam so that, instead of pushing the tractored object away from you, 'you' are being pushed away from 'it' while it stays still, the effect being identical to that of the Tsiolkovski's tractor beam pushing away the Enterprise.
Having said that, I've got a question about that part of the show: if a star fragment was that close to the Enterprise, wouldn't its immense gravitational attraction have at least caused the ship to quake about (i.e., camera jiggle) until they got away?
Phil: As far as the first part of your question goes, I'm not sure how "pushing it away" and " pushing away from it" can be different in space. With so little gravity as to be practically non-existant, wouldn't shoving an object cause both objects to move away from each other? As for "gravity jiggle," I've heard other nitpickers mention this but I haven't had a chance to talk with Mitzi about the phenomenon so I couldn't say for sure!
Murray Leeder: I just saw First Contact on video, and I noticed something I hadn't before. Are the creators trying to make Data out to be a Christ-like figure? When Data was strapped down by the Borg, his head was situated right over a bright mechanical device which looked by just like a Byzantine halo. Furthermore, his role in the plot is to be tempted by the embodiment of evil, but ultimately to refuse the gifts it offers. What do you think?
Phil: There's a fascinating book by Hilary Palencar called Confessions of a Trekoholic from The Borgo Press (ISBN 0-8095-0001-9). (While you may not agree with all her viewpoints, I think you would find that she has an interesting voice when it comes to analyzing Trek.) If I have interpreted her words correctly, her contention is that Data is the true hero of the show. He is the strongest, the most intelligent, the most self-denying. He is the one we are supposed to how learn to be human from. If you think about it for a few minutes, its amazing how many times the other characters come to some new revelation about humanity when faced with Data's dispassionate views. In this respect, he is a kind of messianic figure. Ironically, he can lead us nowhere--at least in the television series--because he has no emotions! He is an imitation--but an imitation, in some viewer's minds, that is better than the original.
Now, Hilary's book was written before Star Trek Generations so I'm not sure what she would say about his transformation in that movie but from my viewpoint I think Data's acquisition of emotion--in this context--was a kind of death for the hero. He is made the comic foil. He is made the betrayer. He is made the bumbler. At times, he can't function. At times, his behavior elicits odd stares from the crew. It is the crash of nobility, the Fall, the tasting of the forbidden fruit . . . and now? Do the creators intend for him to be tested to show himself worthy of becoming our plastic model once again?
Scott Vogt: As I was reading your upload plans for the week, I noticed your mention of the books you're writing. Now remember, you're our Chief, but do you realize how many people will go over your work with a fine-tooth comb looking for nits? I hope you have somebody "proof-nitting" (new vocab word?) for you!
Phil: Well, the first step is to actually get a fiction work published--which seems in itself a Herculean task (even though I've had two editors at this point say very nice things about the work)! But, presuming that "the Lord is willing, the devil don't hinder and the creek don't rise" (as they say in these Ozark hills) and I actually get a novel on the book store shelves and presuming that it sells more than two copies, I fully expect nitpickers to "give it a go." It's all part of the game and I am human just like everyone else and I will make mistakes. I do think, however, if you ever get a chance to read my work that you will agree that I have make every effort to do my homework! ;-)
Katrina Pipinis: While reading the paper this morning I came across some information that you may or may not know about. Rene Auberjenois (sp?) was in town (Adelaide) for a sci-fi convention, and let a few bits of info slip. Apparently Alexander Siddig and Nana Visitor are married! YAY! I was waiting for that. He also said, that Jennifer Lien would be leaving Voyager to make way for a Borg character. I've heard stories saying that she is leaving and that she isn't leaving, so here goes my question: do you know whether Jennifer Lien is or isn't leaving?
Phil: Yes, she is leaving (or maybe was asked to leave). In fact, there's a little blurb about it in my "Notes from the Chief" section in the July 1997 newsletter that will go out next week. It's too bad to because I thought she was one of the stronger characters (despite the velvet bunny suits). "Warlord" was just a pretty good show! She is being replace by Jeri Ryan (mostly recently known for her starring role as Juliette on Dark Skies). Ms. Ryan--according to the press release--will portray a "striking, young female Borg, 'Seven of Nine,' who is brought aboard the Federation starship when her ties to the Collective are severed." (Wanna guess what demographics the creators are going after with this character?) Lee Whiteside sent me a hysterical MST3K treatment by David Hines of the press release that I'm sure is making the rounds and I believe was posted to the news group "rec.arts.sf.tv". I would post it to NCIEO--after getting David's permission, of course--but it's a bit blue in spots! (So don't write and ask me to send it to you! ;-)
Scott Vogt, Cedar Rapids, IA: Does anyone know how many probes a starship carries? Is it easy to make more? Just curious for Voyager's sake.
Phil: The Tech Manual for the Enterprise-D talks about probes on page 115 but no mention is made of number. Your guess is as good as mind but I would guess the creators will be purposefully vague on that issue! Have a great weekend, everybody!
If you would like to submit a question or comment, send it to: chief@nitcentral.com with "Question" in the Subject line. (Remember the legalese: Everything you submit becomes mine and you grant me the right to use your name in any future publication by me.)
Copyright 1997 by Phil Farrand. All rights reserved.