StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Is he the sanest person in Starfleet?
Let's look at the record, He:
A. Doesn't like to use the transporter, and
B. Uses the Holodeck excessively to fulfill his sexual fantasies.

Broccoli is the most awesome StarFleet officer ever.

But seriously, this topic is more than a little silly.

Hmmm... While my inclination is to lock this thread, I think I'd better let out PST mods make the final decision on this one.

Sorry, its called a 24 hour duty shift, given to me with 15 minutes notice. Must stay awake, Must stay awake.

If I remember, McCoy didn't like the transporter either.

And Barcaly was a hypocondriac.

Barclay is one of those characters that got picked on by the writers, like Harry Kim. He even got turned into a half spider in one episode didnt he?

The interesting question is how exactly did Barclay become a lieutenant. Just shows what sort of organization StarFleet is.

Gil Hamilton wrote:The interesting question is how exactly did Barclay become a lieutenant. Just shows what sort of organization StarFleet is.

Well he was good at the technical side of what he did just lacking in the social skills, his old captain gave him a glowing review so its possible he knew some people over there enough to allow him to function normally.

The writer’s idea behind Barclay was to create a socially inadequate geek whom the average Trek fan would identify with, given the high esteem many trek fans hold him in I would guess this has worked .

Barclay is:

1. Insubordinate. Disobeyed orders on numerous occasions because of personal neuroses.
2. Undisciplined. Repeatedly late for duty because he was busy wanking in the holodecks. Wank on your own time.
3. Stupid. Has a paralyzing fear of transporters, yet he voluntarily signed up for Starfleet, which uses transporters all the time.
4. Cowardly. Leaving aside his transport phobia, he has no backbone. He does not assert himself face to face, he is comically indecisive, and is utterly incapable of inspiring or leading anyone.

It really does make one wonder how he became an officer. Then again, the most respected officer in all of Starfleet once abandoned his damaged ship in space without destroying it, and thinks that the best response to enemy fire is to remain passive, so that we don't provoke them.

Darth Wong wrote:Barclay is:

1. Insubordinate. Disobeyed orders on numerous occasions because of personal neuroses.

Indeed. But insubordination (although for different reasons) has largely become a calling card for modern Trek. It's now the "in" thing to disregard your superiors in favor for what you think is right. It's a social commentary, albeit a rather over-used one. Broccoli isn’t the only one who's an example of this bad behavior.

[*]Undisciplined. Repeatedly late for duty because he was busy wanking in the holodecks. Wank on your own time.

Absolutely. But frankly, if there had never been anyone, anytime ever getting too involved in holodeck fantasy, I'm pretty sure someone would be slamming Star Trek for not "realistically" portraying human characters in a situation where you can *experience* any fantsy you can think of. Holo-addiction, although a pretty silly-sounding analogue for real-world addiction, rampant escapism, and perhaps even a bit of hedonism, was supposed to portray that part of humanity that's less than Star Trek's ideal, and (as I believe it was said earlier) made it easier to relate to a large portion of Trek's audience.

[*]Stupid. Has a paralyzing fear of transporters, yet he voluntarily signed up for Starfleet, which uses transporters all the time.

I'm not sure, but I think Broccoli actually developed the transporter psychosis thing-a-ma-jig ("multi-in-fart-dimentia" ) sometime after joining StarFleet. Although that seems to be a bit of a non sequitur in and of itself. One would think that if Broccoli had a pre-existing predilection to not liking transporters, he would have had an "episode" some time before he joined up on the Enterprise. Unless he was using a shuttle for every away mission (or just avoiding away missions, was that it?) up until then.

[*]Cowardly. Leaving aside his transport phobia, he has no backbone. He does not assert himself face to face, he is comically indecisive, and is utterly incapable of inspiring or leading anyone.[/list]

Exactly the point. He's a misfit. If he was just another StarFleet character running around holding up the banner of Rodenberry's idealisms and being all "enlightened" and everything, he wouldn't have added anything useful to the charactization maps of the crew.

It really does make one wonder how he became an officer.

I'd guess that Berman, Braga, or some random writer pitched the idea of a misfit officer, because of concerns that the crew of the Enterprise was too ideal. With little or no conflicts between persons, it made the crew seem distant, unrealistic--plastic even. Tossing in the misfit to cause tension and screw things up every once in awhile helped add depth to the rest of the characters on the show, as they had to deal with a circumstance that was not sterilized or would disappear in 1 episode. Broccoli would be a recurring issue. I would argue that it was a good idea.

Then again, the most respected officer in all of Starfleet once abandoned his damaged ship in space without destroying it, and thinks that the best response to enemy fire is to remain passive, so that we don't provoke them.

Total Rodenberry idealism right there. A few years ago, it might have been viewed as noble or "enlightened" (perhaps in his eyes). But today, we're more pessimistic (and with frickin good reason, too) so we look at it as foolish. Social commentary strikes again. Look at Enterprise "The Expanse" and the strokes of 9/11. Open hailing frequencies? No. Get new guns and "blow the hell out of these bastards once we find em." Star Trek changes to reflect society in whatever way that the writer and production staff thinks it should.

Broccoli's a misfit, and it's good. If you look at Trek as a universe unto itself and ignore its social connotations, then Broccoli is an idiot, an example of how less-than-par officers can make it through StarFleet. And then, if one wishes to indulge that line of thought, we can make inferences about how horrid and backwards and idiot StarFleet is, anyone can find a way or a reason to bash something if they want to. But what good comes from that? But if you don’t ignore the social connotations and look at the larger social/narrative picture, I think Broccoli did a good thing for Star Trek overall.

My 2 cents.

Gil Hamilton wrote:The interesting question is how exactly did Barclay become a lieutenant. Just shows what sort of organization StarFleet is.

You mean like the Catholic Church? Let anyone in your clergy and if they don't work out shift them around.

Would you people stop calling him Brocolli? Its sort of annoying. Plus, you dont do it to any other characters.

Jadeite wrote:Would you people stop calling him Brocolli? Its sort of annoying. Plus, you dont do it to any other characters.

They do like all of NCC 1701-D senior officers did,when Geordi and company showed how much they respected Barclay.

Jadeite wrote:Would you people stop calling him Brocolli? Its sort of annoying. Plus, you dont do it to any other characters.

To clarify on what Montcalm said, "Broccoli" was his nickname on the show.

PS. Xavier, you seem to be arguing that everything Barclay did was OK because Roddenberry wanted it that way. That's a circular argument; one would be hard-pressed to show that there was anything wrong with anything in Star Trek if we use that as our yardstick.

It would be harder to understand how Barclay became an officer, if not for the fact that Starfleet has the whole of one NCO. When you have to fill all those billets standards are gonna drop.

Darth Wong wrote:

Jadeite wrote:Would you people stop calling him Brocolli? Its sort of annoying. Plus, you dont do it to any other characters.

To clarify on what Montcalm said, "Broccoli" was his nickname on the show.

PS. Xavier, you seem to be arguing that everything Barclay did was OK because Roddenberry wanted it that way.

Oh, not at all, Mike. I'm just trying to illuminate Star Trek from a point of view of looking at it as a piece of fiction that is a social commentary, instead of an internally consistent universe unto itself with no contextual relation to the outside world. And then giving some comments on the positive impacts such a decision had on the show's literary and entertainment value. There are some negative aspects that come with this point of view as well, as I'm sure one of the denizens here can elaborate on if they so wish.

As I said, in the case that you ignore the narrative/social connotation, "then Broccoli is an idiot, an example of how less-than-par officers can make it through StarFleet" so I'm not arguing that everything is okay, just explaining how Barclay added more to "Star Trek" than he took away by forcing the characters around him to behave in more complex ways.

one would be hard-pressed to show that there was anything wrong with anything in Star Trek if we use that as our yardstick.

I said above that today we would look at Picard's passivism as "foolish" given our modern social context. Rodenberry may have loved it, but modern audiences have had their fill of utopian fantasy for now. By no means am I suggesting that we use "because Roddenberry wanted it that way" as a yardstick. I take issue with more than a few things that "Rodenberry wanted" but I think it's useful and insightful to scrutinize our two pet universes while taking into consideration things like "message" , "social context" , and "the creator's intent." Especially in a situation like this, where it shows an instance of the Star Trek writers doing something right.

Apples and Oranges.

Marc Xavier wrote:Oh, not at all, Mike. I'm just trying to illuminate Star Trek from a point of view of looking at it as a piece of fiction that is a social commentary, instead of an internally consistent universe unto itself with no contextual relation to the outside world.

So something which is stupid is no longer stupid if it is some kind of social commentary? If I wrote a story with stupid characters or plot devices and tried to defend them by saying that they're stupid but they comment on social issues, how would that change the fact that they're stupid?

And then giving some comments on the positive impacts such a decision had on the show's literary and entertainment value. There are some negative aspects that come with this point of view as well, as I'm sure one of the denizens here can elaborate on if they so wish.

As I said, in the case that you ignore the narrative/social connotation, "then Broccoli is an idiot, an example of how less-than-par officers can make it through StarFleet" so I'm not arguing that everything is okay, just explaining how Barclay added more to "Star Trek" than he took away by forcing the characters around him to behave in more complex ways.

And they couldn't have done this with one a civilian contractor working with the military, or at least an ensign rather than a full lieutenant?

I said above that today we would look at Picard's passivism as "foolish" given our modern social context. Rodenberry may have loved it, but modern audiences have had their fill of utopian fantasy for now.

Yes, and you invoked 9/11 for that. But I've been saying that Picard's passivity was foolish for years before 9/11, and so have a lot of other people. His behaviour is and was foolish in its own context, irrespective of what was going on in the real world at the time.

By no means am I suggesting that we use "because Roddenberry wanted it that way" as a yardstick. I take issue with more than a few things that "Rodenberry wanted" but I think it's useful and insightful to scrutinize our two pet universes while taking into consideration things like "message" , "social context" , and "the creator's intent." Especially in a situation like this, where it shows an instance of the Star Trek writers doing something right.

Apples and Oranges.

I don't see how this is an example of Trek writers doing something right. I think that at best, it is an example of them doing something wrong for the right reasons, and at worst, it's simply an example of them being idiots, working under the assumption that only lonely geeks watch Star Trek so they have to create a character they can identify with.

1. Picard's unwillingness to fire back AFTER he was fired on was stupid, even before 9/11. Nothing has changed because of that. The fact that it was seen as idealism does not make it less than stupid.

2. In a satire I'm writing now of the American school system, I sometimes make social commentary by using characters who are stupid. They are MEANT to be stupid, and by their incompetence they display some of the social commentary I'm attempting to generate. Other characters generate social commentary with intelligence, courage, etc., but I'm not depicting them as stupid simply because I need to get a social commentary going. You should be able to create a social commentary with either a smart of a stupid character, but as a writer you REALLY need to be able to recognize the difference between a smart person and a stupid one.

When viewed as a social commentary, a piece of entertainment which reflects or explains some facet of society at that time, Broccoli as a character has merit.

From a characterization standpoint, Broccoli provided an opportunity to add depth to the people around him. There may have been better ways to achieve this function, and your suggestion to add "a civilian contractor working with the military, or at least an ensign rather than a full lieutenant?" has merit. In fact, it probably would have been a better decision, overall. The decision to use Broccoli was still a good one, not the best, but good.

I brought up the point of September 11th in relation to the Enterprise episode "The Expanse," noting the parallels between the real-world event and the fictional-world event as an example of Star Trek reflecting things that happen in reality:

Marc Xavier wrote:Look at Enterprise "The Expanse" and the strokes of 9/11. Open hailing frequencies? No. Get new guns and "blow the hell out of these bastards once we find em." Star Trek changes to reflect society in whatever way that the writer and production staff thinks it should.

Regarding the merits of Picard's behavior, that's the Rodenberry Idealism. As I said, "a few years ago, it might have been viewed as noble or 'enlightened' (perhaps in his [Rodenberry’s] eyes). But today, we're more pessimistic (and with frickin good reason, too) so we look at it as foolish." 9/11 is only the most recent of a string of events which has perpetuated a social trend toward losing interest in utopian fantasy and looking more toward a dystopian world.

And I, like you, am not immune to this social trend. I would like to see a StarFleet with a sharper outlook on space, and a captain more willing to use a little more force when necessary instead of talking everyone to death. I would also like to see a Star Trek where the villains were more potent, more intelligent, and wanted to do more than “blow up urth because it’s obviously the center of the universe.”

The only reason Picard didn’t end up dead is because the Trek universe is patroned by an idealism fostered by Rodenberry. One that I do not think is accurate and would like to see changed. Largely, I don't think Picard's actions were foolish at the time inside of Star Trek because the nature of Star Trek in this sense wasn’t so much a reflection of reality as much as it was a reflection of what Rodenberry hoped reality would someday be. Most of the time, the aliens would eventually come around to talking and "see reason," rarely did we end up with an episode where the Enterprise just had to blow the hell out of someone because they were inexplicably hostile/dangerous and wouldn’t negotiate (the notable exception would be the "TNG" Borg, which people loved). Rodenberry’s idealistic form of social commentary was “twisting the mirror” a bit to show society not where it was, but where Rodenberry believed it could go, and in a world like that Picard was in little danger. But as soon as that "safety net" was removed, in situations like "The Best of Both Worlds" or "Chain of Command" what happened to Picard? He got jammed up and no amount of diplomacy was about to get him out. In less-than-utopian situations, his Modus operandi is much more likely to be a burden than a benefit, and in that sense, he is foolish.

With the new spate of Star Trek, they seem to be breaking out of the idealistic mold (at least a little) and hopefully will form into something a little more relatable to 21st century audiences instead of a 60’s hippy love-fest.

I think Reg was made the way he was by the writers because nobody
on the show had any 'faults' Everybody always came through in the
nick of time, to save the day.
After awhile, people who saw every show would soon realize that there
were no 'faults' with anybody.
Then came Reg, who actually made mistakes, was late for work,
and actually found something 'wrong' with the squeaky clean TNG
world. (His fear of the transporter)
I liked the shows with Reg, and thought he was a good contrast
to the rest of the crew.
To me it seemed that Shultz was still playing H.M. Murdock,
his character on the old A Team series, whom I also liked.

Clearing up the "this thing won't be marked read" bug by posting in it.

Marc Xavier wrote: Indeed. But insubordination (although for different reasons) has largely become a calling card for modern Trek. It's now the "in" thing to disregard your superiors in favor for what you think is right. It's a social commentary, albeit a rather over-used one. Broccoli isn’t the only one who's an example of this bad behavior.

First, what is or isn't the "in" thing to do is irelevant. He's a fucking officer, and the amount of times he's diobeyed orders should get him a dishonorable discharge at least.

Absolutely. But frankly, if there had never been anyone, anytime ever getting too involved in holodeck fantasy, I'm pretty sure someone would be slamming Star Trek for not "realistically" portraying human characters in a situation where you can *experience* any fantsy you can think of. Holo-addiction, although a pretty silly-sounding analogue for real-world addiction, rampant escapism, and perhaps even a bit of hedonism, was supposed to portray that part of humanity that's less than Star Trek's ideal, and (as I believe it was said earlier) made it easier to relate to a large portion of Trek's audience.

So? He made it to Lieutenant Sr. Grade IIRC. His holo-adiction should have gotten him conseling (real, not Troi's bullshit) or kicked out. If they wanted to potray it they should have chosen at worst a enlisted man.

I'm not sure, but I think Broccoli actually developed the transporter psychosis thing-a-ma-jig ("multi-in-fart-dimentia" ) sometime after joining StarFleet. Although that seems to be a bit of a non sequitur in and of itself. One would think that if Broccoli had a pre-existing predilection to not liking transporters, he would have had an "episode" some time before he joined up on the Enterprise. Unless he was using a shuttle for every away mission (or just avoiding away missions, was that it?) up until then.

No, he thought he had it. He hated transporters way before that and STILL joined SF.

[quote

Exactly the point. He's a misfit. If he was just another StarFleet character running around holding up the banner of Rodenberry's idealisms and being all "enlightened" and everything, he wouldn't have added anything useful to the charactization maps of the crew.[/quote]

He's still terrible.

I'd guess that Berman, Braga, or some random writer pitched the idea of a misfit officer, because of concerns that the crew of the Enterprise was too ideal. With little or no conflicts between persons, it made the crew seem distant, unrealistic--plastic even. Tossing in the misfit to cause tension and screw things up every once in awhile helped add depth to the rest of the characters on the show, as they had to deal with a circumstance that was not sterilized or would disappear in 1 episode. Broccoli would be a recurring issue. I would argue that it was a good idea.

There's WAY more ways to add tension without making a moron a Lt.

Total Rodenberry idealism right there. A few years ago, it might have been viewed as noble or "enlightened" (perhaps in his eyes). But today, we're more pessimistic (and with frickin good reason, too) so we look at it as foolish. Social commentary strikes again. Look at Enterprise "The Expanse" and the strokes of 9/11. Open hailing frequencies? No. Get new guns and "blow the hell out of these bastards once we find em." Star Trek changes to reflect society in whatever way that the writer and production staff thinks it should.

SDB.

Broccoli's a misfit, and it's good. If you look at Trek as a universe unto itself and ignore its social connotations, then Broccoli is an idiot, an example of how less-than-par officers can make it through StarFleet. And then, if one wishes to indulge that line of thought, we can make inferences about how horrid and backwards and idiot StarFleet is, anyone can find a way or a reason to bash something if they want to. But what good comes from that? But if you don’t ignore the social connotations and look at the larger social/narrative picture, I think Broccoli did a good thing for Star Trek overall.

My 2 cents.

SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF. We are treating it as if Broccoli is real. Social connotations are irrelevant.

consequences wrote:Is he the sanest person in Starfleet?
Let's look at the record, He:
A. Doesn't like to use the transporter,

But joined Starfleet. So he's an idiot.

and
B. Uses the Holodeck excessively to fulfill his sexual fantasies.

His sexual fantasies mainly involving beating up men!

But joined Starfleet. So he's an idiot.

He is hardly the only Starfleet officer on that count, McCoy and Pulaski didn't like it either.

TheDarkling wrote:He is hardly the only Starfleet officer on that count, McCoy and Pulaski didn't like it either.

And yet they weren't constantly late for duty because they were busy having a wankfest in a holodeck with the visages of their superior officer as characters including in a sexual manner.