JANET'S STAR TREK VOYAGER SITE

Use by source VC of the official Star Trek website synopses

and why I believe VC's decision to copy the official Star Trek website 1st version synopses was a mistake

As throughout the site, my opinions are of course wholly my own and are purely subjective.

PAGE ABBREVIATIONS
VCbook: The Voyager Companion by Paul Ruditis 1st edition
TOSTWthe official Star Trek website
1st version synopsesthe episode synopses written by TOSTW before TOSTW totally rewrote its synopses in its complete site make-over in spring 2003

PAGE CONTENTS
A. PRE-SUMMARY
B. NATURE OF VC'S CHANGES TO TOSTW'S 1ST VERSIONS SYNOPSES
C. COMPARATIVE SAMPLES - EPISODE SYNOPSIS [WARHEAD]
D. WHY I BELIEVE VC'S DECISION TO COPY TOSTW'S 1ST VERSION SYNOPSES WAS A MISTAKE
E. MY CORRECTION OF VC ERRORS AND OMISSIONS
F. WHERE TO FIND MY FULL REVIEW OF VC
G. MY OPINION OF REVIEWS OF VC BY ST MONTHLY AND TOSTW
H. JANAGRAM REVIEWS OF VC;-)

 

A. PRE-SUMMARY

With minor changes, VC repeats TOSTW's 1st version synopses verbatim. I do not know when the 1st version synopses were written. I downloaded them in October 2000 for Seasons 1-6 and in March-May 2001 for Season 7. By then they were already well-known for their numerous factual errors. I do not mind VC copying them (as VC and TOSTW are by/for Paramount Pictures), but I find fault with VC for failing to correct even the major errors that were already known about.

I wish to stress that TOSTW's 2nd version synopses (written for TOSTW's site make-over of spring 2003) do not have errors, judging from the sample synopses that I have read (read but not downloaded). They can also be distinguished from 1st version synopses as follows:
  • they are much shorter
  • they have much less detail
  • they contain links to character biographies
TOSTW deserves thanks and praise for replacing its 1st version synopses, even if the replacements are shorter and less detailed. It suggests they heeded feedback from fans (including myself). There is a sample of a 1st version synopsis in SHIP'S LOGS: EPISODE GUIDES: Collective, with the errors noted.

 

B. NATURE OF VC'S CHANGES TO TOSTW'S 1ST VERSIONS SYNOPSES

 

C. COMPARATIVE SAMPLES - EPISODE [WARHEAD]
1st version synopsis by TOSTW, including paragraph breaks, written before October 2000. VC's Synopsis of [Warhead], written in 2003. VC presents it all as one paragraph; I have broken it into several paragraphs to make it easier to compare with TOSTW. I have not corrected his grammatical error.
Answering a distress call, the away team finds a device embedded in a rock that proves to be a form of artificial intelligence. It has bio-neural circuitry and, with the help of the Doctor's translating, reveals it is suffering from a technical form of amnesia. The machine thinks it is an organic being, but once it is beamed to Voyager, the Doctor explains what has happened. Scanning the planet's surface, Janeway finds a crater filled with radiogenic decay and realizes they have beamed aboard a weapon of mass destruction. Answering a distress call Kim - in the command of his first away team - finds an artificial intelligence lifeform. The machine has bio-neural circuitry and, with the help of the Doctor's translating, reveals it is suffering from a technical form of amnesia. The machine thinks it is an organic being, but once it is beamed to Voyager the Doctor explains the truth. As they search for the machine's "partner," Voyager scans a planet's surface and finds a crater filled with radiogenic decay, leading the crew to realise they have beamed aboard a weapon of mass destruction.
In sickbay, Torres attempts to separate its bio-neural circuitry from the explosive, and download its synaptic patterns into a holographic matrix. Suddenly, the weapon arms itself, and Torres is forced to use an EM pulse to short it out. She and Kim soon discover the machine has commandeered the Doctor's program. It now recalls it is a long-range tactical armor unit, which was deployed at a target it never reached. The machine, speaking through the Doctor's body, tells Janeway that she will help him find his target, or her ship and crew will be destroyed. In sickbay, Torres attempts to separate the bio-neural circuitry from the explosive and download its synaptic patterns into a holographic matrix. Suddenly, the weapon arms itself, and Torres is forced to use an EM pulse to short it out. She and Kim soon discover the machine has commandeered the Doctor's program and now recalls that it is a long-range tactical armor unit, which was deployed at a target it never reached. The machine, speaking through the Doctor's body, he tells Janeway that she will help him find his target, or her ship and crew will be destroyed.
After Janeway is given new coordinates to follow, Neelix locates a merchant who may be familiar with the weapon. He offers to disarm it with his transporter's dampening field in exchange for full access to salvaging its parts for sale. Wary of handing the weapon over to a stranger, Janeway refuses. When the merchant's ship tries to get a transporter lock on the machine, it sends an antimatter surge back through the beam and blows up the ship. Meanwhile, Seven realizes her nanoprobes can be adapted to disable the weapon's circuitry. After Janeway is given new coordinates to follow, Neelix locates a merchant who may be familiar with the weapon. He offers to disarm it in exchange for full access to salvaging its parts. Wary of handing the weapon over to a stranger, Janeway refuses. When the merchant's ship tries to get a transporter lock on the machine, it sends an antimatter surge back through the beam and blows up the alien ship. Meanwhile, Seven realizes her nanoprobes can be adapted to disable the weapon's circuitry.
Paris plans to make the machine believe they are navigating a minefield. When Seven is brought into sickbay pretending to suffer from burns, Tuvok will disrupt the Doctor's program. This will give Seven enough time to inject her nanoprobes into the weapon and disable it. Meanwhile, Kim and Torres retrieve lost data from the weapon's memory files, which reveal its launch was a mistake. He thinks they are deceiving him and refuses to abort. The plan fails, and Voyager is suddenly surrounded by 32 self-guided weapons. The crew plans to make the machine believe they are navigating a minefield. When Seven is brought into sickbay pretending to suffer from bums, Tuvok will disrupt the Doctor's program. This will give Seven enough time to inject her nanoprobes into the weapon and disable it. Meanwhile, Kim and Torres retrieve lost data from the weapon's memory files, which reveal its launch was a mistake. The weapon refuses to believe this new information and soon realizes the crew's plan to deactivate it, incapacitating Seven. Shortly after, the crew finds thirty-two additional weapons have joined them in search of their "friend."
The machine is ordered to transport off Voyager to the target, but Kim persuades him to look for his people's confirmation code in the rest of his memory files. When he confirms the order to cease his mission was valid, he tells the other weapons to stand down. They cannot be diverted, so the weapon reconfigures his bio-neural matrix and joins the others. Once he leads them to a safe distance, he detonates and destroys them all. The new weapons order the warhead to transport off Voyager and continue onto the target, but Kim persuades it to look for its people's confirmation code in the rest of his memory files. When it confirms the order to cease its mission was valid, the weapon tells the others to stand down. They cannot be diverted, so the weapon reconfigures its bio-neural matrix and joins the others. Once it leads them to a safe distance, the weapon detonates, destroying the others and itself in the process.

 

D. WHY I BELIEVE VC'S DECISION TO COPY TOSTW'S 1ST VERSION SYNOPSES WAS A MISTAKE

The 1st version synopses were widely known for their large number of errors, a fact which possibly explains why the official site totally rewrote its synopses (not just amending them) for its complete site make-over of spring 2003. Because VC copies those 1st version synopses, he also copies the errors. As a major canon source/authority he should have corrected the errors. I would not consider it mistaken judgement by VC to use the 1st version synopses if VC had corrected the errors in them.

So far I have found only one instance where VC corrected an error, but VC corrected it wrongly (see PERSONAL LOG entry for [#109 and #110 Dark Frontier] for details). However, so far I have found umpteen errors from TOSTW's 1st version synopses which VC has not corrected with some being so obvious that I find it hard to believe VC did not notice them.

I am not criticising the principle of re-using text - after all, TOSTW and VC are both projects by/officially for/approved by Paramount Pictures. What I criticise is VC's failure to correct those errors when for years it had been widely known that the errors existed. Whether that failure is down to Mr Ruditis personally I do not know, but as he is named as VC's author the errors in it (not just in his synopses) are ultimately his responsibility.

VC's numerous errors and omissions makes life harder for fans such as myself who look to rely on major canon sources. I welcome VC and generally find it useful, and recommend its purchase, but I urge fellow-fans to treat it with caution. Many fans know more [Star Trek Voyager] far better than me and there are fans who know it less well so inevitably VC's errors and omissions will lead to people believing incorrect information.

It is disappointing that the generally very high standard of the major canon sources has been let down by VC, particularly as VC's errors and omissions need not have occurred if more care and attention had been given to its compilation. If Mr Ruditis was indeed the one who edited the 1st version synopses (why should he not be?), then I suspect he was in too much hurry (an editorial deadline?) to do it properly. I do not criticise the fact that in using the 1st version synopses he saved himself the time and effort of writing his own synopses from scratch. But I criticise the fact that he did not pay enough attention when watching episodes, otherwise he would have (should have) noticed and corrected the errors in the 1st version synopses.

Though I personally have no problem with it, there may be fans who, having downloaded the 1st version synopses, are not happy that they have paid approximately half the cost of VC for text they already have, for VC's synopses occupy about half the book's volume.

I believe VC's errors and omissions (plus minor errors) need to be corrected in an urgent second edition. I do not know when, or even if, a 2nd edition of VC is planned. However, as several regular correspondents have pointed out to me, the damage has already been done because not everyone can afford to buy the 2nd edition when they have already bought the 1st edition.

 

E. MY CORRECTION OF VC ERRORS AND OMISSIONS

I note some of VC's major errors and omissions on this site, where relevant and regarding all VC not just VC's episode synopses, though I do not note minor errors such as misspelling (except one, which is actually a major misspelling). Many of VC's errors are noted in PERSONAL LOG. At least three are noted in SHIP USS VOYAGER: Embarked Craft: Shuttlecraft Missions. The errors and omissions VC makes in Voyager's crew manifest are corrected in the one that appears on this site, occasionally with VC's errors specifically noted.

I am compiling a single list of VC's errors that I notice as I use it. Due to time constraints and other priorities (this website!), I do not plan to go through every page of VC from start to finish in order to find and note the errors. (VC has 482 numbered pages.) (For the same reasons as regards time and priorities, I have not noted on this site all the VC errors I have come upon. Likewise for errors in other sources.) Beam to VC Errors.

 

F. WHERE TO FIND MY FULL REVIEW OF VC
My detailed review of VC, and a summary, is in SOURCES & STANDARD ABBREVIATIONS. The above paragraphs dwell on VC's errors, but there are a lot of good features in VC which I note in my detailed review.

In general I welcome VC and find it very useful, but people really do need to be cautious and check/verify aspects.

 

G. MY OPINION OF REVIEWS OF VC BY ST MONTHLY AND TOSTW

ST Monthly and TOSTW gave short but effusive reviews of VC upon VC's publication. But they are not independent or impartial bodies. ST Monthly, TOSTW and VC are all projects by or for Paramount Pictures. Despite that, the reviewers could have been impartial if they had wished. If ST Monthly and TOSTW reviewers really did read VC in detail, since they know Star Trek very well (which one would expect!) they must have noticed the numerous errors and omissions. Because they do not mention them at all it turns their 'reviews' into sales adverts only.

To be fair to ST Monthly (generally an excellent magazine, whose purchase I recommend), it published a selection of fan letters about VC.....all of them criticised it. ST Monthly even gave one fan a nice gift or prize by way of consolation.

 

H. JANAGRAM REVIEWS OF VC;-)

In VC's entry for [#140 Good Shepherd] VC wrongly says that "Zero-G Is Fun" is an anagram. It is not. It is a mnemonic or aide-memoire, and also one that is a bit like an acronym in that each capital letter stands for a phrase: Zeta particle derivation, Gamma wave frequency, Ion distribution, Flow rate of subspace positrons. The following are anagrams (they are Janagrams - anagrams by Janet) (and bearing in mind the 55+ errors I have noted so far in VC):

'The Voyager Companion' by Paul Ruditis
= Sloppy amateur in voyage rich in doubt.
= I savage document or, no, happily bury it.
= Cool?!  I'm unhappy buying it as over-rated.
There are more frivolous Janagrams, which include [Star Trek Voyager] words, in PERSONAL LOG: [#140 Good Shepherd].

What is an anagram? It is a word or phrase formed by rearranging all the letters of another word or phrase without omitting or repeating any letters, preferably to make something meaningful e.g. I won an Anagrammy Award in Sept. 1999 for tam o'shanter = one smart hat (I am proud of that Award as that particular anagram I did entirely by eye). An exception is botanical Latin anagrammed genus names where the aim is to be wholly euphonious.

The above Janagrams refer to VC's 1st Edition. I hope the 2nd Edition will correct all the errors I have noted, plus any others which I have not noted or not yet noted.

 


TOP    BACK    SEARCH    SITE HELP    BRIDGE