Talk:The Squire of Gothos

Parodied

in Futurama. Add it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.127.116 (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Trelane as a Q

Doesn't it seem more plausible for speculation that the Metrons from the episode "Arena" could have been an early version of the Q rather than Trelane? Sure Trelane shares the mischief factor that Q has but the Metron shows more powers and curiousity in humans that the Q seem to have had.--Skeev 17:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested in a Star Trek novel called Q-Squared, which covers this topic. It's a pretty good book. Koweja 19:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

During a Q&A session at Timecon in 1989, John de Lancie said Q was Trelane's father. This is WP:OR, however, so can't be mentioned in the article. FeralDruid (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

That is not how WP:OR works. WP:OR is in regards to wiki authors claiming things that have "no reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." (sic) A comment by John de Lancie in Q&A session at Timecon in 1989 would check off two the three required boxes. The only thing that would be debatable is if such a comment checked the "reliable" box.--174.99.238.22 (talk) 06:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Dystheism

While it is a known fact that GENE was an athiest, "I think men have outgrown our need for gods," he made it a point, included in both the Non-Interference Directive and the Vulcan IDIC in NOT trying to convert anyone. Nimoy, Shatner, and Koenig, and probably others were and still are Jews, with Nimoy being extremely devout. Not once in (now 40 years) have I read that GENE was anti-god, Christian or otherwise. I defy anyone to contact Majel and ask her to prove me wrong.

Young people who were not around in the 1960s are misinterpreting what GENE intended. Star Trek was a reflection of the time, but it was also a fiction show competing with other fiction shows at the same time.

One instrument of DRAMA is to make the hero bigger by pitting him against big villains. Kirk was such a hero. Kirk was a modern Hercules or Perseus fighting DEMIGODS to serve the DRAMA. Hercules was assigned impossible tasks and Perseus cut the head off Medusa. The fiction shows at the time had monsters in rubber suits and malfunctioning robots as the villains, Trek aspired to be better than that, and the proof that they succeeded is that Trek is still shown while Lost in Space and other shows are not. Yes there are still rubber suit monsters (Salt Vampire) and malfunctioning robots (M5 supercomputer) but the writing was incredibly better. Plus, using "gods" in human form was CHEAPER and GENE was a notorious tightwad, always squeezing pennies until they screamed. Where No Man has Gone Before is an excellent example.

The name "Kirk" is Scottish for "Church" and if one is to read too deeply into things as some people are want to do, they can easily read Kirk as the Christian Church striking down false (Pagan) gods, but those people tend to be very narrow minded, seeing only what they want to see (atheist propaganda in a children's TV show). To quote Sam Kinison, "How do they get that from this?" referring to people finding strange messages in simple places.

OR a viewer can simply watch the show and enjoy it as a good yarn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.26.49 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Either way, sounds like a bunch of original research and thus not allowed. Lots42 (talk) 09:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

DeSalle and Jaeger

I think it should be noted, somehow, DeSalle and Jaeger get some nice, fun interaction with Trelane...and live too. Lots42 (talk) 09:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Set in the 28th century

Some comment should be made of the fact that this episode set Star Trek in the 28th century:

KIRK: Ahead warp factor three, Mister Sulu. Colony Beta Six wants their supplies. Let's get across this void in a hurry.

MCCOY: Void, star desert. The word conjures up pictures of dunes, oases, mirages.

KIRK: Sunlight, palm trees. We're nine hundred light years from that kind of desert, Bones.

[...]

TRELANE: Ah, yes. I've been looking in on the doings on your lively little Earth.

KIRK: Then you've been looking in on the doings nine hundred years past.

[...]

TRELANE: A matched set. Just like the pair that slew your heroic Alexander Hamilton. And Captain, I never miss.

(Alexander Hamilton died in 1804)

This is mentioned in the Nitpicker's Guide for Classic Trekkers ("That would make the time frame for the Squire of Gothos about A.D. 2700-four centuries too late" - pg 67)--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Trelane does know about "The map Trap"'s salt vampires though - he keeps a stuffed one in his drawing room. What are we to make of this?137.205.183.31 (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

That one's easy. He may have been looking in on the Salt Vampires' planet at a time when there was a large population of them.

I would like to add several items to the main page but I'm not sure if I'm allowed.

I would like to add several items or change several items to the main page but I'm not sure if I'm allowed and I would feel more comfortable is if someone else made these changes.

Here are some of the items I'm talking about.

Item 1)

I would like to add that the alien, most likely a child Q, asked to be called by several titles and names such as, "General Trelane, retired", "Squire Trelane", "Squire" and "The Lonely Squire of Gothos".

Item 2)

I disagree with the sentence on the main page that states this: "Trelane invites everyone to stay as his guests on his world he calls Gothos and discuss his favorite subject: the military history of Earth." It it obvious that Trelane likes to talk about military history but when Squire Trelane is talking with Captain Kirk, Trelane specially states, "I can't tell you how delighted I am to have visitors from the very planet that I've made my hobby." So, Trelane does not say his favorite subject is Earth's military history, Trelane says his hobby is Earth. (Or the history, if you will, of Earth or as Trelane himself states "Ah yes, I've been looking in on the doings of your lively little Earth.")

Item 3)

I've read where Star Trek: The Original Series had a social message with almost every episode. When Trelane states, "Do you know you are one of the few predator species that preys even on itself", it is my opinion that Trelane is commenting, in a subtle way, that war is immoral.

Item 4)

I think it would be nice, if it was stated in the very first paragraphs of this Wikipedia page, that Trelane is most likely a Q and a child Q, at that. Let me make my case. Trelane has a vast amount of knowledge about Earth's history from understanding job titles, countries, military conquests, general history, cultures and races, language (he speaks English, French and German, in front of the crew) and he even knows that Spock is half human. He actually has a understanding of morals and ethics (as stated in Item 3 above); however, he obviously does not feel morals or ethics applies to himself when dealing with lower beings, such as humans, because he simply wants to play games with his new playmates. (Trelane's mother calls humans "pets". She says, "If you cannot take proper care of your pets, you cannot have them at all." Trelane's father says, "They're beings, Trelane. They have spirit. They're superior." Trelane's mother then says, "You'll grow up, Trelane".) He also can make planets, just for fun, and he can transport people at his will, he transports himself from the planet to the Enterprise and back, easily makes people immobile, can vanish himself and even makes Lieutenant Uhura play a harpsichord, which she states that she has no knowledge of being able to play.

MikeWest (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Mike- Interesting notion regarding Q. It could well be that his character grew out of Trelane's. But a basic tenet of Wikipedia calls for references from published sources for such ideas. More info here: Wikipedia:No original research. Eric ^talk 02:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Trelane is not the only insanely powerful being Kirk and company meet, the energy beings of Organia immediately coming to mind. Also Voyager's "Q2" gives us some insight to how powerful young Q are and Trelane showed nothing in terms of that level of power.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

That was Barbara Babcock as Trelane's Mom. She appeared in a "Taste of Armageddon" as well as "Plato's Stepchildren". (John G. Lewis (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC))

Squire of Gothos timeline issue

Hello Bruce- That statement is in error, regardless of where it comes from. It demonstrates the author's lack of understanding of what a light-year is. The idea expressed in the beginning of that episode is that since Gothos is 900 light-years distant from Earth, an observer viewing Earth from Gothos is witnessing events on Earth that occurred 900 years ago (the time it takes light (images, radio, etc) to travel between the two planets. Eric ^talk 21:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it is you who don't understand. Farrand is totally correct regarding the issue. As I noted above (again citing Farrand) Alexander Hamilton died in 1804 and 1804+900 is 2704 and Strauss's "Roses of the South" would give us 2780 as a minimum year (but since we are not told this date this part is likely OR). Khan and Voyager 6 both come from the 1990s (Star Trek Chronology: The History of the Future for the later and yes Paramount canonized it as a reference). We are told that Khan has been asleep "Two centuries we estimate" and that Voyager 6 "was launched more than three hundred years ago." This puts Star Trek a minimum of 2190 for Space Seed with the comment about Voyager 6 plus Star Trek Chronology: The History of the Future putting it in 1999) pushing Star Trek in the 2300s. Last I checked 27xx-23xx would indeed be "four centuries too late". The only real gaff the author made was using the Star Trek Motion Picture reference rather then the Space Seed reference.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

You do not understand the concept being put forth in the episode. Please stop your disruptive editing, or I will bring your behavior to the attention of others, which I don't think will be a first for you. Eric ^talk 23:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I just want to jump in here about the timeline of The Original Series. At the time that it was being written, Gene Roddenberry specifically wanted to avoid any evidence in the series about when it was being set. This continued through The Animated Series, and the setting was only confirmed in The Wrath of Khan. So there's loads of contradictory information about the setting during the course of TOS and TAS, which was specifically to throw off the viewer's assumptions about how far in the future it was. Miyagawa (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

True, but even after The Wrath of Khan (1982) there was still contradictory information about when certain events happened. Encounter at Farpoint (1987) moved WWIII (which Space Seed had said occurred in the 1990s) to somewhere in the 21st century. It wasn't until Star Trek First Contact (1996) that it was clarified as being in the 2050s.

There were other continuity glitches. Data not knowing about the events in "Immunity Syndrome" but Work knowing vague Klingon legends that fitted all too well ("Where Silence has Lease") is one. DS9's "Equilibrium" created continuity problems with TNG "The Host" (1991) when it revealed that Torias Dax (who was before Curzon who Sisko knew) was a member of Starfleet. But Sisko had known Curzon Dax for 20 years meaning Torias had to have joined Starfleet before that. So the TNG crew should have known Trills were joined beings and why they couldn't use transporters.

Claiming that one doesn't understand a concept when as shown by the math they do doesn't come off well. Or are we saying that 1804+900 is 2704 some 400 years from when Star Trek the Motion picture was set in is not right? I should mention that Internet Archive has an library (open Library) where you can check out books electronically to read them. It has ebook version of The nitpicker's guide for classic trekkers so one can see just what it does and does not say.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that "The Squire of Gothos" Star Trek Sci Fi Channel Special Edition (1999), Farrand, Phil (2010) The Nitpicker's Guide for Classic Trekkers; Muir, John Kenneth (2005) Exploring Space: 1999 pg 17, and even the Kellam de Forest Research Company all note that based on the dialog Star Trek takes place in the 27th century.--2606:A000:7D44:100:195F:A1B2:B33A:BD0D (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

While it is true that Roddeberry wanted to keep Star Trek's century "vague" this is widely agreed to be the episode that deviates the farthest from the "sometime in the 23rd century" references in many other episodes. The deviation is great enough that it is widely considered to be a "continuity error" or at least a continuity issue. The recently added continuity section is well written and well cited, and in my opinion, should remain. Fish Man (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Clarification needed

I've added a "clarification needed" tag to the Continuity section, which is currently incoherent.

It states that Gothos is 900 light years from Earth and that this places events in the 27th Century at the earliest. However, it does not say why this is the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Newzild (talk • contribs)

Read through the previous section, and see if that helps explain it better. - BilCat (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)