"Who Are You?" and "What Do You Want?": The BABYLON 5 / STAR TREK Comparison T (1 Viewer)

[Paul McElligott]

I'm guessing Wolf 359 did a number on the availability of higher-ranking officers. I mean, Commander Sisko, was supposedly in charge of the Defiant project at Utopia Planitia. I would think an Admiral would normally be in charge of such an important concern (defense against another Borg incursion).

An admiral would be in charge of the over all operation, namely all weapons research related to the Borg. However, following real-life examples, it would not be unusual for a lower command grade officer like Sisko to be in change of a specific project.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Paul McElligott wrote (post #58):

I have a problem believing any of these situations is anything but temporary in the Star Fleet organization. That "mere commander" you speak of is elevated to "captain" within good time. No accident. I'd bet the "Lieutenant" is also, or he has been replaced by someone of captain's rank in more than due time. Will Riker doesn't go to the U.S.S. Titan as "Commander Riker", but as "Captain Riker" (Nemesis), a position he's been offered many times before (rather than being merely transferred at the same rank to head another crew).

 

[Paul McElligott]

I have a problem believing any of these situations is anything but temporary in the Star Fleet organization. That "mere commander" you speak of is elevated to "captain" within good time. No accident. I'd bet the "Lieutenant" is also, or he has been replaced by someone of captain's rank in more than due time.

It depends on the size of the command. Like I said, Commanders, Lt. Commanders and even Lieutenants commanded submarines during WWII. The Defiant is a small, single-purpose ship like a submarine. It's very likely that her command would be left to someone of Sisko's rank. It rings less true that he wouldn't be given a better ship or a second small vessel to command after he was promoted to Captain.

Was the Prometheus a smaller ship as well? I can't remember.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Mike Broadman wrote (post #59):

profane[/I]]Quote:

"Warrior caste clan"? Like I said, thoroughly unclear from context.

 

[David Williams]

The U.S.S. Prometheus is a Nebula-class ship, so smaller than Galaxy and Ambassador-class vessels, but larger than Intrepid and Sovereign-class.

 

[nolesrule]

Rex, I'll have to disagree with your analysis of clan and caste. Clans are exclusive to a single caste, and it is possible to switch clans if you are called to a differing caste. And here is my supporting evidence
From a Compuserve posting by JMS on 03 Mar 1997:

http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/find/C...s97-03/33.html
Yes, Mir is her family; you are generally born into a caste unless you at some point decide that the calling of your heart is elsewhere, at which point you enter training for that other caste (with the permission of your caste leaders) until such time as it's finalized that that's what you want, at which time you're assigned to a clan within that caste. If you choose to stay in the caste you're born into, you automatically are in your familiy's clan.
jms

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Joe Kauffman wrote (post #66):
[QUOTE=

 

[nolesrule]

You were applying how clan and caste systems work on Earth to how they work on Minbar. That's the analysis I was disagreeing with.

I was providing a counter-point to your disagreement with these two assersions:

Total confusion as to the concept, in my opinion.

I think you may be hung up on the concept as defined here on Earth. Minbar works differently, but "caste" and "clan" were the most similar English words that could be used to describe the situation.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Joe Kauffman wrote (post #68):


Quote:



. . . you can choose to believe these are quotes from JMS or not. That's your prerogative. . . . . I believe they are from JMS . . . .





I have no serious doubt that they are. However, since I have not read them for myself in their original context, I prefer not to take the attributions for granted, especially since I'm offering a criticism of him to whom they are attributed. (That's called "giving the benefit of the doubt".)

As to the topic at hand, . . . . .

From Webster's Third New International Dictionary (it's the nearest to hand) (only the general definitions relevant here):



Quote:



CLAN

1a. a social unit smaller than a tribe and larger than the family and claiming descent from a common ancestor . . . . . . .

1b. an exogamous tribal division that traces descent in either the male or the female line from a common real, totemic, or mythologic ancestor, that has a common name and often a common territory, and that constitutes the chief political, religious, and social unit of tribal society---used by some ethnologists of such a tribal division tracing descent in the female line only . . . .





I.e., a clan is a birth group. One is "assigned" there by birth.



Quote:



Besides, in the case of the three Minbari castes (Worker, Warrior, Religion), they are really more analagous to vocations.






Quote:



CASTE

3. a division or class of society comprise of persons within a separate and exclusive order based variously upon differences of wealth, inherited rank or privilege, profession, occupation [emphasis added]; . . . . the position conferred by caste standing . . . .

4. a system of social stratification more rigid than a class and characterized by hereditary status, endogamy, and social barriers rigidly sanctioned by custom, law, or religion.





I.e., a caste is social group partially defined by privileges and socio-economic function, as well as by rather rigid (i.e., nonvoluntary) adherence to group membership.



Quote:



Total confusion as to the concept, in my opinion.







Quote:



I think you may be hung up on the concept as defined here on Earth. Minbar works differently, but "caste" and "clan" were the most similar English words that could be used to describe the situation.





I'm hung up on the fact that English is my native language and I know what the words mean (or are supposed to mean) when I hear them used or read them on the page or screen, and, as such, I do not look kindly upon the desire of writers, particularly science fiction writers, to rewrite the rules as they see fit for the mere convenience of the story at hand.



Quote:



Since this is [JMS's] story, I have to believe that the way he uses clan and caste are correct to his story, and cannot be directly correlated to anything here on Earth.





Believe as you will, but the setting of a given story on distant worlds does NOT relieve the writers of the burden of presentational verisimilitude or relative consistency with known facts.

The Minbari, the Klingons, Vulcans, Centauri, et al. are all nothing except "masked" human groups. It is Hollywood's choice to portray aliens as "human under the skin". So be it! But if one take that course, then it is also incumbent upon one to "play by the rules". Human (and animal) behavior has rules (observed in various scientific and quasi-scientific disciplines such as anthropology, ethnology/ethnography, psychology, linguistics, ethology), just as does the physical realm, and Hollywood writers and producers have no more right to skirt them for convenience than they have in matters of "hard science" in narrative that purports to be "science fiction". They aren't allowed to just "make up" any old rules of humanoid behavior they feel like and ignore the statistical probabilities that are entailled in parallel biological and social development (see posts #38.4 and #41 above).

"Clans" and "castes" are different social units with different societal functions, ones which have been seriously muddied, if not compromised, in this instance (to the detriment of clear understanding the story, I might add), and no apologetics about writer's "artistic licence" can erase that fact. Using the "Earth terminology" for such similar beings, like it or not, brings with it the baggage of trying to get it right, for the sake of understanding the story, if nothing else. You may be satisfied to accept uncritically what they throw your way for the sake of dramatic enjoyment, but I am not. In singulis diabolus ('The devil is in the details').

 

[nolesrule]

To put them in context:
http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/find/C...s97-03/33.html
http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/find/C...s97-03/30.html
http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/find/G...3-12/1947.html
In an anthropological or historical context, the quotes from JMS would be considered "primary evidence". They aren't heresay. They are straight out of the mouth of the creator of the show. If you want to ignore them, fine, but then there is no point in continuing this line of the conversation.
I don't care what Webster's dictionary says, because it doesn't apply to the context of Babylon 5. Word meanings can be slightly adjusted to suit the needs of the story. This is especially true when there is no equivalent word in the English language.
So, in effect, we are talking past each other. I'm done.