DS9: Tacking into the Wind

[bronnt]

That was the other thing I wanted to mention, thanks for reminding me. Jadzia would have never stated the truth bomb like that because she was too involved (possibly a little infatuated) with the empire. Ezri, on the other hand, has all the knowledge of the empire that Curzon and Jadzia had but doesn't actually feel intimate with it and so is in a unique position to actually criticize it. So it's basically a perfect use of Ezri's character there really could have been more of.

I think she's a little too harsh, but that's fair enough since it's her own unique perspective. The past 10+ years of writing the Klingon Empire had turned it into a caricature. Klingons were simply space vikings, except they were the culturally inaccurate view of space Vikings that pretended they had no agriculture or economy of their own. But that's the failure of the writing, which is usually trying to portray Klingons as awesome but doesn't seem to realize that the truly awesome Klingons are more atypical, like Martok. So Ezri's criticism of the Empire ignores how much more depth Klingons are capable of.

It's just such a shame that so often the writing lent itself better to cliches than to nuance. I'll always remember that scene in Redemption: Part 2, where Worf is trying to tally up all the damage to their ship that needs to be repaired, and Kurn is like, "Who fucking cares if the ship works? We're warriors, let's get drunk!" As if there's room for warriors to actual address all the important stuff first and make sure their weapons work before they get drunk.

But I think a much, much better example of Klingon writing is one of Kahless' parables. "A great storm was heading for the story of Quin'lat. Everyone took protection within the city walls, except for one man who remained outside. I went to the man and asked what he was doing. 'I am not afraid,' the main said. 'I will not hide behind mortar and stone. I will face the wind and make it respect me.' I respected his decision and went inside. The storm came the next day, and the man was killed. The wind does not respect a fool." I always loved that this parable points out how courage that accomplishes nothing is just stupid.

[Wargriffin]

the problem was Gene liked that over simplification of the Klingons as Space Vikings

If the Klingons were more like a stable Imperial Japan as presented in The Undiscovered Country they'd be more believable

Ultimately Martok being made leader is a step in the right direction... but you still basically need a violent social upheavel to make a permanent change for the better

Changing the Leaders means nothing... if you have the same apathetic populace that put them there

[rickgriffin]

Even Klingons As Space Vikings doesn't really fit. The real Vikings pillaged because it was profitable. Eventually, though, stable trading became more profitable than pillaging, so, they stopped being a thing.

The Klingons, on the other hand, keep being raiders because they are compelled to be, even (and especially) when it's an impractical way to live.

[Naldiin]

Even Klingons As Space Vikings doesn't really fit. The real Vikings pillaged because it was profitable. Eventually, though, stable trading became more profitable than pillaging, so, they stopped being a thing.

The Klingons, on the other hand, keep being raiders because they are compelled to be, even (and especially) when it's an impractical way to live.

This won't be popular, but I think Ron Moore probably also deserves some of the blame. Because none of the incarnations of the Klingons after TOS and the first 6 movies were 'stable' - none of them made sense as a society. And the problem was the Federation.

Specifically, the need for the Klingons and the Federation to be 'friends' in the TNG era made it functionally impossible to create a Klingon Empire that made the slightest bit of sense. Now, the eventual friendship between the federation and the Klingons was not a late development in Star Trek's production - it was hinted at in the very first Klingon episode (TOS: Errand of Mercy). It was (I think?) part of the Phase II plan, and it was introduced early in Season 1 TNG. It was the logical completion of Star Trek's embracing, ecumenical message.

But it was a terrible idea.

The TOS-era Klingon Empire made sense. It was a vast, exploitative tributary empire, run on slave labor. The best description of their empire that we get is probably from Errand of Mercy. Kirk claims to "have seen what the Klingons do to planets like yours. They are organized into vast slave labor camps...hostages taken, killed. Your leaders, confined." We can't dismiss this as federation propaganda because when Kor shows up, he begins doing exactly that.

That's an empire that makes sense. How do you have a society were death and battle are elevated above everything else? By making other people do everything else.

But we can't use that explanation in TNG and beyond, because the Klingons have, inexplicably become the good guys - or at least the 'alright' guys. And having the Federation's key ally be a massive slaver-empire would be intolerable. It might have been possible to re-write the Klingons into having a full, complex society that might have responded to the Praxis incident by changing course - maybe granting conquerored peoples self-rule within the Empire. But that's not the route the writers chose.

Instead, we spend the entire series focusing exclusively on the upper-class. Consider: Martok is the only non-noble Klingon we meet. Worf and Kurn are both from the House of Mogh, which we're told was old and noble. So too the House of Duras and presumably the House of Gowron. We never meet the Klingon commoners. Just the warrior-aristocrats riding high. That way, we (and the writers) need never trouble ourselves about what it's like to be a commoner, or a non-Klingon in this empire. My bet is that it's pretty awful - warrior-aristocracies that value military-virtue above everything do not tend to view their own non-combatants highly. Or treat them well.

Originally, remember, the Klingons weren't samurai or vikings - they were Russians, the USSR stand-in. We never see Klingon Eastern Europe and Central Asia, but Kirk assures us they exist (we do see a Klingon Gulag camp, of course, in Star Trek VI). The mistreatment of the commons was pretty much assumed - Kirk merely tells us that the 'commons' are, for the most part, apparently non-Klingon. And that kind of system - exploitative and brutal - can be functional, even if it is abhorrent. But to be the Federation's friends, the Klingons had to change.

So, in TNG and DS9, we get Vikings, with no thralls and no raided monestaries (at least until DS9). We get samurai, with no peasantry or peasant soldiers (the ashigaru). Or, at least, we can never see them and never talk about them, because ever doing so would explode the moral justification for the Federations alliance. And without them, the societies make zero functional sense.

Ezri's comment isn't an indictment of the Klingons; it's an indictment of the writers who, in all of the episodes focusing on the Klingons, never really hashed out a society for them that could actually function. I tend to view it as a pretty severe failing in a show that prided itself on thinking about social issues.

[Madner Kami]

Lots of true stuff

If I could, I would +1 your post.

[Archanubis]

Lots of true stuff.

Of course, it all has it's roots in the fact that Gene was apparently dissatisfied with the way the Klingons had become the "black hats" of TOS and wanted to push the Ferengi as the new villains of TNG. The latter didn't work out, of course, which is why the writers brought back the Romulans (who I thought would have made far better allies of the Federation than the Klingons, especially in their TOS form) and developed the Borg and eventually the Cardassians.

[Draco Dracul]

I think the politics problem Chuck described is more a problem with first-past-the-post voting. If you don't want to elect a lizard then you need a voting system that doesn't penalize you for voting for a non-lizard.

But that's Catch-22. How are you going to change the voting system in a way that will be disadvantageous to the lizards, when the lizards run the legislature?

Generally speaking, you have to have social conditions arise where changing the system is the least-dangerous path for the lizards. They see it in their own best interest to change the voting system and do so, even if it costs them some power, because to refuse to reform the system opens them up to an increasing risk of losing even more.

Of course that's where the comparison to real world politics starts to break down as right now one party is trying to lessen the effect of first past the post.

Personally, I think one of the major problems with politics is the refusal to see it as a profession with it's own qualifications necessary expertise which often means that when people want to change the system rather than looking from someone well intentioned that knows the system they will instead look for a total outsider who will only serve to make the system more broken and dysfunctional.

[Madner Kami]

Lots of true stuff.

Of course, it all has it's roots in the fact that Gene was apparently dissatisfied with the way the Klingons had become the "black hats" of TOS and wanted to push the Ferengi as the new villains of TNG. The latter didn't work out, of course, which is why the writers brought back the Romulans (who I thought would have made far better allies of the Federation than the Klingons, especially in their TOS form) and developed the Borg and eventually the Cardassians.

Truth be told, the Romulans don't make much sense either and I tend to view their general portrayal as an "in-cannon PR feed", as their actions are quite at odds with their supposed goals or even their history. There are plenty of contradictory happenings in the known Romulan history that should flare up a lot of warning signs.
For example, they are isolationist, yet somehow are regarded as warlike. How is that supposed to work? Conquest and minding their own business don't go hand in hand, at all. And for a species that is warlike, they have a wierd tendency of staying out of wars themselves, rather seemingly scheming to get others to war each other. Then there's the historical contradiction of how the Romulans, "Those who march beneath the Raptor's Wings", somehow lost a civil-war against what boils down to being a bunch of vulcan hippies? What? How? How exactly does the warlike faction loose a war against a sect that doesn't want to even take up arms? This in turn directly leads to more questions about the Vulcan society, in particular how being peaceful and logical lead to the Vulcan High Command as depicted in Enterprise, the disdain for the Surak-Sect and the Cold War with the Andorians, but that is yet another theme, as there is clearly a metric arseload of white-washing and self-denial going on in Vulcan history. And not only do the warlike loose a war that their enemy is not even fighting, but they are also the ones, who flee the planet? What? And they do not even try to come back for what is at least several centuries? What? Then there's the whole emotional versus non-emotional dichotomy that is supposedly going on between Vulcans and Romulans. Has anyone ever met a Romulan who was not calm and emotionally controlled? No? One has to wonder why... Ok, Tomalak had a few moments of agressive posturing, but not even Vreenak, who had all reason to go ballistic on Sisko and was even in a private situation with Sisko and thus didn't need to keep a mask of calmness got anything worse out than "It's a Faaaake!". Then there's the portrayal of the romulan civil society in the TNG episodes with Spock on Romulus. Do these people strike anyone as warlike? They are curious, intelligent, but wierdly not in the slightest belligerent. Nono, their society of paranoia, plotting and scheming and underhanded dealings, strikes me as a society that developed as a result of a long period of being an oppressed minority and that is determined to not be underneath anyone's heel ever again.

Sorry for the rant.

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

A lot of the issues here come back to the issue of each alien culture only wearing one hat in the TNG era. TOS does has the advantage here, since Klingon (or Romulan) society was still shrouded in mystery, Day of the Dove makes it clear that there are a lot of rumors and projection swirling around about both sides. We pretty much only deal with the Klingon military.

The Klingon hat in TNG is honor, duty, and the whole warrior spiel. Chuck does a good job explaining the external vs. internal honor thing in various videos and the importance of keeping up appearances for Klingon politicians. That is all well and good and makes for some compelling drama in episodes like this, but the Klingons are still a one hat society. As Naldiin points out, we don't see a Klingon Empire that could ever actually function as a society.

To defend Ron Moore and some of the other good writers on late TNG and DS9, I think they were just making use of the hand they were dealt. DS9 had the chance to build the Bajoran and Cardassian cultures with a lot more nuance and sophistication. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a bit of self-critique by the writer going on with Ezri's statements.

[Admiral X]

Then there's the historical contradiction of how the Romulans, "Those who march beneath the Raptor's Wings", somehow lost a civil-war against what boils down to being a bunch of vulcan hippies? What? How? How exactly does the warlike faction loose a war against a sect that doesn't want to even take up arms?

Remember that weapon from "Gambit"?