Dating Issues b/w Earth and Minbar

[vacantlook]

I drudged up some old jms posts from his time back on GEnie about it. To read it directly from the source page, it's significantly near the bottom of the page starting with Category 18, Topic 30 Message 123 Fri Aug 19, 1994.

Click here to go to the source page.

Now, to jms's posts in question:

Minbari use base 11, not base 10, so twelve would be eleventy-first year, and so on.

Minbari base eleven includes fingers and head, from which the principle of mathematics comes.

You're also looking at this from a strictly English-speaking perspective; in German, for instance, 21 is "Ein und Zwanzig" (pardon any misspellings in there, it's been a while) which is exactly the same structure, albeit reversed, used for Minbari counting (and, in fact, is more or less what I based his "statement"on).

Eleventy-seven = Eighteen base ten.

 

[vacantlook]

I just realized the above quoted posts of jms are also on the Lurker's Guide page for "The Quality Of Mercy" under the jms speaks section and also include an additional post:

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven

Eleventy-one, eleventy-two, eleventy-three, eleventy-four, eleventy- five, eleventy-six, eleventy-seven, eleventy-eight, eleventy-nine, eleventy-ten, twelfy

Twelfty-one, twelfty-two, twelfy-three, twelfty-four, twelfty-five, twelfty-six, twelfty-seven, twelfty-eight, twelfty-nine, twelfty-ten.

And so on.

 

[Elenopa]

Thank you.

So 'Thousand and one' would become?

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

All of which proves conclusively that Hobbits are not Minbari. They don't use base eleven, they just talk funny.

(In the books Bilbo refers to his 111th birthday as his "eleventy-first". )

Regards,

Joe

 

[slider142]

1001 if already in base 11 would become 1*11^3 + 0*11^2 + 0*11^1 + 1*11^0 = 1332 in base 10.
1001 if already in base 10 would become 8*11^2 + 3*11^1 + 0*11^0 = 830 in base 11.

 

[grumbler]

I just realized the above quoted posts of jms are also on the Lurker's Guide page for "The Quality Of Mercy" under the jms speaks section and also include an additional post:

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven

Eleventy-one, eleventy-two, eleventy-three, eleventy-four, eleventy- five, eleventy-six, eleventy-seven, eleventy-eight, eleventy-nine, eleventy-ten, twelfy

Twelfty-one, twelfty-two, twelfy-three, twelfty-four, twelfty-five, twelfty-six, twelfty-seven, twelfty-eight, twelfty-nine, twelfty-ten.

And so on.

Actually, I think JMS is wrong here. When translating Minbari base-eleven into Enlish, there would be no "twelfty" just "twenty." And even MORE properly, it would be
One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven

firstteen, seconteen, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, tenteen, twenty

twenty-one, twenty-two, twenty-three, twenty-four, twenty-five, twenty-six, twenty-seven, twenty-eight, twenty-nine, twenty-ten, thirty (and so forth)

Now, if he wants to use "eleventy-whatever" instead of the English "-teen" for flavor, that's certainly within the realm... but I draw the line at "twelfty!"

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I'm not sure JMS figured base eleven correctly. If I remember my 20+ years past high school math correctly. (and I'm definitely not sure about this) counting by base eleven looks almost the same as counting by base ten, except an additional number is inserted for every ten...IOW,

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, x, 10...
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 1x, 20...

So there is no 'eleventy', 'twelfty', etc. There is just an additional integer inserted in every 'ten' that humans wouldn't recognize. Once the sequence reached Minbari 99 + 1 (that is, 9x or 109 as humans reckon), that's when the unknown integer would really kick in, adding a Minbari 'ten' (eleven) to subsequently reach 100.

Among Minbari, 100 is human 121...uh, I think.

Ok...now my head hurts...

V/R
John

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Hmm...now that I reread, I think I just said the same thing you did, Grumbler. Sorry about that.

V/R
John

 

[slider142]

Yep. Except the additional symbol is the symbol representing 10. For example, base 16 (hexadecimal) has 16 "ones place" symbols: 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E,F. The number after F (F representing the amount in base sixteen that in base ten is 15) in base sixteen would be denoted 10 or 1*16^1 + 0*16^0 in base 10.

 

[grumbler]

No, JPH3 did it correctly. There is a single-digit number corresponding to our "ten" - JPH used X, I used ~ in the portion of my post that I cut.

The value of X is equal to ten. The value of "10" is equal to eleven (one eleven and no ones). JMS called "10" "eleven" and used the same system as is used in our base ten for numbers 11-19 for the series that starts with "10" and goes to "20." So far so good.

My objection is that "20" cannot be called "twelfty" because then you end up with a "twenty" that is in fact 100. And then where do you go? Twenty-one for 101? Twenty-onety-one for 111? Nope. 20 is "twenty" and 21 is "twenty one."

 

[slider142]

There is a single-digit number corresponding to our "ten" - JPH used X, I used ~ in the portion of my post that I cut.

Yep. I used A. I don't see where we disagree. The single-place digits for base 11 can be written 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A. It doesn't matter what symbols we use, as long as one symbol acts as the additive identity and there are 11 of them.

My objection is that "20" cannot be called "twelfty" because then you end up with a "twenty" that is in fact 100.

20 if written as base 11 is 2*11^1 = 22 in base 10. I concur that "Twelfty" doesn't make much sense as a word for this number in base 11 as it has nothing to do with twelve. (Similarly, twenty has nothing to do with eleven in base ten.) One must be careful though, as "twenty" is not the proper name for this number either. It only looks like "twenty" because we decided to use the same symbols we use in base ten. "Twenty" describes "two groups of ten" by etymology. The number 20 in base 11 is two groups of eleven and thus might have the English evolution from twegen+endleofan -> twenleven ? Given the etymology of endleofan (being centered on 10), one would expect a quite different root to be used for 11 where 11 was the central element.

 

[grumbler]

Sorry slider, I see now that we are all really on the same page. I just misunderstood the first time I read your phrase starting with "but." X does have a value of "ten" and 10 does have the value of "eleven."

 

[Nathan]

I apologize beforehand for the length of my response, but I do think it is justified based on some of the feedback. I have the following questions:

1.) Have any of you heard of Terry Jones, before reading my posts?
2.) How many of you have read the (now canceled) Babylon 5 magazine published by Titan Publishing in the U.K.?
3.) How many of you have actually read his introduction?

I ask these questions because if you had done any one of these three it would be obvious that jms (who is supposedly math stupid) has actually has indorsed Terry Jones' chronology and has actually used the chronology to answer fan questions over the Usenet. Moreover, Babylon 5 reference editor Fiona Avery has also indorsed the chronology! In addition, after reading the responses I must say I am surprised by the amount of what seems like straight from the hip unsupported skepticism shown by most of the comments. I am trying to be very straight foreword with in my data. I am referencing all of it. However, I do not understand the objections.

Maybe the best way to address some of the (un-typed) comments is to trace - the well documented - history of the work itself. The chronology, first mentioned in Vol. 2 Issue 17 of the magazine included an interview with Jones' about how his chronology became "the official reference" for the show. He and his wife started in 1996 and finished the first version in April 1997. It was then that [i}B5 Magazine[/i] Editor John Freeman persuaded Terry to send the work to then new Reference Editor Fiona Avery. At the time, she was in the process of compiling a style guide for writers, including a timeline. Jones then received a letter from Fiona indicating that they (including Joe) both were impressed enough with it at that stage to incorporate it into the reference material they were preparing. Jones then began developing it with Avery to fine-tune it for publication. The only proviso he says he worked under is that everything is subject to Joe's approval, which does not cause him any problems.

His work received publication from issues 18 to 24 (which was the last issue). Avery wrote an introduction to this work in issue 18, from which I will now take the liberty to quote some of the more relevant parts.

I was amazed at the accuracy of the research, but more amazed to find that the use of speculative dates or information was stated up front. The author would say, "This is speculation from the following information..." Broken down in those kinds of steps, anything that is speculation is then solidified as novels, comics, short stories, or articles written.
More importantly, the research and speculation is there, with a step by step analysis of how Terry came to those conclusions. So authors of new B5 fiction can easily trace back and agree with, or alter that speculative information as they see fit.

There is all so one last interview with Terry in the last issue that I think has some more illumination on the authority and methodology of the chronology.

The basic rule I used was if Sheridan said that something happened to him 25 years ago in 2260 (season three) then I pegged that event as 2235. Whenever one of the alien characters, Delenn for instance, said something happened on Minbar in the same season and was a thousand years ago I would date that event at 1260 and so on. While this may not be strictly accurate with time on alien worlds, I had to decide to do everything in Earth Standard Time, and on the whole it worked.

As stated in Terry's introduction posted at isnnews.net Terry has since reconsidered his stance on dating conventions since the interview, but he has (as stated in Fiona’s introduction) fully documented his reasons for doing so and furthermore exercised restraint on where he applies it. As you will notice in the exact same introduction (speaking of Terry’s introduction at isnnews.net), he lists his sources as the following:

Three sources of information were used to construct the Database:-
Primary Source: The television episodes and movies, these were the foundation of the Database.
Secondary Source: Data received whilst consulting with Fiona Avery and Joe Straczynski, much of it previously unknown regarding the history of the B5/Crusade universe. Some of the data was later incorporated into tv episodes and books.
Tertiary Source: The Official Guide to Babylon 5 CD Rom, Books, short stories and comics. Joe’s original idea for these was to tell stories tied directly into the arc, so becoming part of the official cannon rather than tie ins merely featuring characters and situations. However, much of the information in the first eight novels and some of the comics have been superceded by data from tv episodes and as such, has not been included. The exeption to this is the Anna Sheridan/ Z’ha’dum plot line from"The Shadow Within" by Jeanne Cavelos because in the outlines for the techno-mage trilogy mention is made of it by Joe. From the comics, I have included data from the following: "In Darkness Find Me" "Treason", "In Harm’s Way", "The Price Of Peace", "Shadows, Past And Present" and "In Valen’s Name".
Recently Joe has had writers commissioned to pen stories based on outlines supplied by him, which have been acknowledged as part of the official history and as such are included in the database. These are "To Dream In The City Of Sorrows" by Kathryn Drennan, "Dark Genesis: The Birth Of The Psi Corps", "Deadly Relations: Bester Ascendant" and "Final Reckoning: The Fate Of Bester" by J.Gregory Keyes. "Legions Of Fire: The Long Night Of Centauri Prime", "Legions Of Fire: Armies Of Light And Dark" and "Legions Of Fire: Out Of The Darkness" by Peter David. "Passing Of The Techno-mages: Casting Shadows" "Passing Of The Techno-mages: Summoning Light" and Passing Of The Techno-mages: Invoking Darkness" by Jeanne Cavelos.
Regarding the short stories recently penned, set in the Babylon 5 universe for Amazing Stories magazine and the Official Babylon 5 magazine, as these were penned by Joe, Fiona and J. Gregory Keyes and authorised by Joe, I am treating them as canon and part of the official history.

I want to call your attention to Terry’s “Secondary Source” being information obtained privately from Fiona and Joe. It is quite possible that the three came to some sort of understanding about “cycles” and Minbari years and so on.
The interview continues with reference to jms,

As Joe said to me recently, he kept a lot of it in his head so he was more than pleased that it all hung together when written down.

If any of you are interested in seeing the latest version it is available here. I have tried to inquire from Sandra if Terry will continue updating his work on the web (as you will notice it only goes up to the end of 2259), but have not received any response. If any readers are still skeptical about if jms really uses this chronology on 01/31/2003 (or 31/01/2003 for our friends who live in England and elsewhere) he posted the following:

>What are the dates of the Morden/Anna trip?

Per the B5 Chronology by Terry Jones:

2256:

"Thursday December 3rd. Before the Icarus departs Station Prime on it's 6 month scientific and archaeological expedition to the Rim, Anna Sheridan transmits a full mission inventory to her husband John. The Icarus departs Station Prime to begin it's journey in hyperspace."

2257

"Sunday January 3rd. The Icarus lands on Z'ha'dum and the survey teams which include Anna Sheridan, Morden and Justin, begin to explore. Unknown to those on Earth, some of the survey team are captured by those Shadows already out of hibernation and given the choice of serving them or death. Morden is manipulated by the Shadows into becoming a willing emissary and receives a cranial implant to facilitate communication between him and the Shadows. Anna
doesn't agree with what they are doing, so she is merged with Shadow technology along with other team members. The Icarus is set on automatic and the engines overloaded to blow as it reaches orbit.

"Revelations, In The Shadow Of Z'ha'dum, Knives, The Shadow Within and Z'ha'dum outline what happened to the survey team and the Icarus. The Passing Of The Techno-mages:Summoning Light reveals Morden has an implant in his skull.

Probes set up by the Vorlons to monitor Z'ha'dum record the events on the planet's surface and the information is transmitted to Ambassador Kosh's ship en route to Babylon 5."


jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)

I now will refute (or attempt to refute) the following claims made by JPH3 to discredit this venture,

Joe's answers to age questions in his forum posts were always nebulous and varied depending on when he was asked...but I don't think he ever indicated that the B5-era Delenn was as far along as her eighties.

However, he has! In an Usenet posting dated 06/27/1995 (or 27/06/1995) jms had the following to say on Delenn’s age:

She is between 60 and 70, which in Minbari terms is a very young
woman.

(amend that, not *very* young, as 18, but equal to a human female
in her 30s)

jms

From this statement, we can draw some conclusions (which also are maybe the same ones Terry drew):

1.) Years on Minbar are not the same as Earth years.
2.) She would be considered older in Earth years than Minbari years
3.) Even thought with Terry’s conclusions jms would be wrong about how old Delenn would be comparably to a human female (Delenn’s actual range to a human female would be 46 – 53 Earth years) that does not invalidate points 1 and 2.

I do however concede to JPH3 that jms other chances to clear this matter up are “nebulous”, as long as he concedes that this matter may have already been settled between Joe, Fiona, and Terry in one their past corresponds with one another and thus the change on the issue of dating conventions may be part of the B5 cannon. The importance of the concession on JPH3’s part would be that he seems either directly or indirectly to imply that he knows (in advance) that any attempt to work out Babylon 5 in this level of detail would be futile. Is this the result of experience, or of assuming a priouri that it is impossible? Futhermore, it seems that jms has indeed given his stamp of approval on the matter of being able to work out B5 on a chronology.

I would also like to bring up another one of JPH3’s points:

DoFS was a hastily-written episode thrown into the breach created when S5 was picked up and SiL had to be moved. For that reason, I wouldn't take any numbers thrown around in that episode at much more than face value.

First, I already know (and I am sure Terry does as well) the story behind how this episode came about. Second, where do you want to draw the line on which numbers (and I would include the on-screen dates) in this episode are true and which ones are not. How would you know unless jms told you, “you know every date in that episode, scrap it”? To my knowledge, he has not, and since Terry’s final approval is jms I doubt he sees a problem with what Terry has done based on that episode. I do not know this, but I am more than willing to bet Terry has, than Terry has not. Lastly, jms did say during his S4 commentary on the episode in question:

Again, part of the fun of the B5 universe is I had worked out the future a 1000 years in detail...either direction. And then One Million years beyond that...so could hint to things that haven't happened yet. But, I know what they are.

The period we are talking about would be well within the scope of “…the future a 1000 years in detail… either direction” and I know jms has put similar wording in print to fans. Based on these comments (and others about how much writing time is required) I do not believe that jms had to do as much (if any) panic control when it came to actually telling the separate stories as your comments suggest. Of course, this is as much section as what you have put forward so unless you have some sources to help your position I think we are at an in pass. Although, I think my case stands up to examination a bit better than your position.

I will say, however, that Londo does commit a math blunder in the movie ‘In the Beginning’ when he says that the war began 35 Earth years ago. He should have said 33 Earth years ago! I point this out because it is a clear-cut example of a math mistake.

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Hi Nathan

I had to think about this for a while before I responded, simply because I'm not really sure what I'm responding to. You state, by inference, that I'm showing 'straight from the hip unsupported skepticism', presumably regarding the Terry Jones timeline. I'm not really sure why you state that I'm out to refute it, since I don't mention it in a single post and few people have access to the source material you use (the actual magazines). Frankly, I believe you're reading way more into what I said than I intended.

First - yes, I have heard of Terry Jones and I am familiar with the chronology he prepared (the online version, not the glossy). I said that I didn't think the Babylonian chronology would ever be worked out to everyone's satisfaction...and that includes Terry's timeline. Evidently you're not completely satisfied with it, or else you wouldn't have posted this thread and invited comments from other fans. Why did you ask if you didn't really want to hear what we had to say? I think you were looking for validation of what you already believe, not other opinions.

Now, am I skeptical of the timeline? A little, because I know the difference between 'canon' and 'speculation'. Terry's timeline is fantastic, but it contains a lot of speculation, and even the Fiona Avery quote you put up acknowledges that a lot of the information is subject to being altered. If an entry has 'conjecture' or 'speculation' by a date/event, then it is subject to revision or interpretation. Terry's timeline is a great product but it isn't set in stone. I think he knew that, or else he wouldn't have gone to the trouble to note the areas where he speculated.

I also said that (I don't know JMS so it has to be IMO) math wasn't one of JMS's strengths. I did not say he was 'math stupid' - a statement you seem to want to attribute to me for some reason, nor did I imply that I had any sort of special knowledge. My comment wasn't an attack on JMS, nor was I attacking you. With that said, Joe didn't write Terry's timeline and it's unclear how much direct input he had into it, so any math involved probably wasn't his.

Now, as for what I did say. I said that nothing I'd seen indicated Delenn was in her eighties during the B5 time period. Which part of what JMS said or the timeline does my observation conflict with? Per Terry, Delenn was 60 in 2262...not 80 (conjecture which is unsupported by either episode Terry cites as his source material for her birth year, BTW). Per Joe, Delenn is either between 60 and 70 (a post you cited) or late 40's - early 50's, an age range I find more logical given the aspects of her background we know (JMS, Compuserve, 06/03/96). Most of the rest of my comments were involved in figuring out base eleven. While this shows my own math weakness, it's hardly what I'd call skeptical. Nor did I ever say Minbari years were shorter than Earth years. Where are you getting this?

As for DoFS, I went back and researched it. On this point, my statement about the episode being hastily written probably was off the cuff and poorly worded, as it was supposed to be 501. I did not use the term 'panic control' nor did I imply that DoFS was a 'bad' episode.

My comments, usually prefaced with 'I think...' generally serve as an indicator that you're getting my opinion, which may or may not be right. As for refuting your position - why would I want to? I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything and your logic seems as good as anything else I've heard, whether I completely agree with it or not.

V/R
John

 

[Nathan]

You state, by inference, that I'm showing 'straight from the hip unsupported skepticism', presumably regarding the Terry Jones timeline. I'm not really sure why you state that I'm out to refute it, since I don't mention it in a single post. I believe you're reading way more into what I said than I intended.

Thank you very much for your response. My 'straight from the hip ...' comment came because of the vague and ambiguous responses (not just from yourself). I do not like vague and ambiguous statements (I would not make a good politician, if that means settling with anything less). I admit that my words were harsh, but only because they were meant to provoke a response. I did not (and still do not) know how many people on this board have read the B5 magazine while it was in print if somebody had not read the magazine they very likely would not know Mr. Terry Jones or his chronology. Nobody before your message weighed in either way. I though that the lack of clear responses was due to nobody knowing who Jones was. Thus, my response was what you saw. Apparently, I was (delightfully) wrong in my assessment.

Evidently you're not completely satisfied with it, or else you wouldn't have posted this thread and invited comments from other fans. Why did you ask if you didn't really want to hear what we had to say? I think you were looking for validation of what you already believe, not other opinions.

I have not really seen any deficiencies with the chronology. As to my level of satisfaction with the discussion, that really would depend on what my intent was. I wanted to talk about the chronology, only to be met with statements about jms math ability (this is only a generalization, not what was actually said) - not really the same thing. I did not want a pat on the back, just a simple discussion on the chronology. The reasons for posting were three-fold:

1.) I wanted to focus on Doctor Gonzo’s statement about Minbari vs. Earth dating. I really did (and still do) see this as a separate topic than the topic it was originally placed under, 'Subtle Foretelling'.

2.) I have always been uneasy about the paragraph in 'Out of the Darkness', and since it does appear that Doctor Gonzo got his information from the book, I felt it would be an interesting question to discuss.

3.) As indicated in my first post, I did not understand the comparison that Terry made in his introduction. I was hoping someone else would and could explain it to me. Fortunately, my father understood it and thus my second post.

I was and continue to be satisfied/respect Terry's work and his changes. Since I now understand his reasons for revising, that level has increased. It was never a matter of belief for me, just understanding. Studies in chronology have always excided me as a way to better understand stories. To that end, I think Terry’s revisions have improved my own understanding of the story jms wanted to tell.

I think he knew that, or else he wouldn't have gone to the trouble to note the areas where he speculated.

I never meant 'cannon' in the sense of being unchangeable (that would be going against what Terry has said), but in the sense of being approved by the show's creator and the show's reference editor. It probably will be considered unchangeable once jms dies, because there will be no more official stories. I also like the fact that Terry labels events (or their timing) as “conjecture”, and furthermore do think that I have said nothing to the contrary.

Per Terry, Delenn was 60 in 2262...not 80 (conjecture which is unsupported by either episode Terry cites as his source material for her birth year, BTW).

Where does the 80 come into it? Terry settled on an age of 160 Earth years for Delenn in 2362 with respect to jms’ notes. I read Terry’s comment to mean that he is only establishing an upper limit based on the given 140 multiplied by 1.3.

Most of the rest of my comments were involved in figuring out base eleven.

I am not touching that one. My head already has to figure out base-2 and base-16 for the A+ exam. Besides when I started working out my response, the base-11 stuff had not entered the discussion. Sorry for any extra confusion this might have added.

I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything and your logic seems as good as anything else I've heard, whether I completely agree with it or not.

I would enjoy hearing more on what you have to say about the chronology, if you and others provide reasons for your position. I have provided my own reasons. What are yours? If I understand you correctly, you think a B5 chronology is impossible. Now, if that is truly what you think, (or if you think something else on the topic) I would be interested to know your reasons. I have friends that believe differently on other matters. I do not disrespect differences because they are merely different, but because I want to understand how they have arrived at those differences, but they persist on being vague.

 

[grumbler]

I did not (and still do not) know how many people on this board have read the B5 magazine while it was in print if somebody had not read the magazine they very likely would not know Mr. Terry Jones or his chronology. Nobody before your message weighed in either way. I though that the lack of clear responses was due to nobody knowing who Jones was.

I have never seen the magazine but Terry Jones' chronology has been on the web. I have seen it there and have seen it referenced many times. It has always struck me as being a work in progress rather than a final product, which is why so many elements of it seem so vague and ambiguous.

There are some hard spots in the chronology, such as Delenn's age in part 2 of DFS. It is clearly stated that Sheridan died "eighty years ago" in that future, which means that it is, as adevertised, 100 years after OAR. However, the academics are clearly startled that Delenn is alive, it being unlikely that she would still be alive "after 140 years." Jones went with 160 to tie in with JMS's comment that she was 60-70 years old in the series, and was wise to do so - but there still is that unexplained difference between 140 and 160.

But at what point had JMS actually decided that she was between 60 and 70? And why cannot JMS say something definative, like "Delenn was 62 years old in 2261?"

I think that these answers to these questions are probably pretty obvious - that JMS himself wasn't concern with a strict chronology when the wrote his "history" and many of his scripts. He only needed to band together the prophecies and their resolution and didn't need to worry about specific details like the birthdays of his charactors.

It was the fans that started to press the idea of an "official" chronology, from what I can tell. I think that this effort seems kinda fun, but that anyone who hopes for a definitive chronology which is internally consistent and considtent with everything in the scripts will be disappointed, because I think that contradictions already exist in the show as shown, and by definition what is in the show is canon and all the post-hoc rationalizations are just that.

Personally, I don't care, as the purpose of the chronology to me is amusement, and there is little in JMS's comments on the show that are more funny (intentionally) than his explanations for his errors - his "that's my story and I'm sticking to it" routine.

 

[Nathan]

Jones went with 160 to tie in with JMS's comment that she was 60-70 years old in the series, and was wise to do so - but there still is that unexplained difference between 140 and 160.

What part remains unexplained? I was very forthright with how I think his conclusions were reached - I was at the very least able to reproduce Terry's numbers with what little information he gave.

But at what point had JMS actually decided that she was between 60 and 70? And why cannot JMS say something definative, like "Delenn was 62 years old in 2261?"

Look over my third post again. I not only quote the post, but I also give the date. At that point, the show was in its second season. The way the answer is worded I would guess that jms was asked how old Delenn is during the show's run. If this really was the question, jms' answer would be correct due to the fact that the show spans over five years. I do not know how to look up previous Usenet message so this can only be a deduced from his posting alone. If anyone else knows how to do this, can you please pass that information along?

He only needed to band together the prophecies and their resolution and didn't need to worry about specific details like the birthdays of his charactors.

However, those prophecies do have chronological implications. The chronology is deduced from information in the show. The prophecies given in the show and the subsequent stories were fulfilled in the time period as given originally. The stuff about the birthdays are almost always from conjecture and the dates given were "best guess based on ..." However, jms can illuminate more if needed by the story. The good thing about this - from his perspective - would be that the chronology could show this.

It was the fans that started to press the idea of an "official" chronology, from what I can tell. I think that this effort seems kinda fun, but that anyone who hopes for a definitive chronology which is internally consistent and considtent with everything in the scripts will be disappointed, because I think that contradictions already exist in the show as shown, and by definition what is in the show is canon and all the post-hoc rationalizations are just that.

From my POV the idea of a officially chronology has been proposed only by the official magazine and jms. Maybe some other fans have held this idea based on other (loosely connected ideas) but I am not one of them. I do not understand the reasoning for drawing up a straw man (of myself) only to knock it down.

 

[grumbler]

What part remains unexplained? I was very forthright with how I think his conclusions were reached - I was at the very least able to reproduce Terry's numbers with what little information he gave.

Oh, I agree with Jones' determinations of her age, I was simply referring to the fact that JMS included in his script for DFS that it was "impossible" for Delenn to be 140 years old in 2362 - which was broadcast, and therefor canon, and yet does not agree with the 160 number (nor does 180 years old, if you assume that the "140 years old" in 2362 referrs to Minbari years.

The discrepancy bothers me not at all. I am simply pointing out (as Jones does when he notes this issue, as I recall) that JMS himself was not consistent in his dating.

However, those prophecies do have chronological implications. The chronology is deduced from information in the show. The prophecies given in the show and the subsequent stories were fulfilled in the time period as given originally. The stuff about the birthdays are almost always from conjecture and the dates given were "best guess based on ..." However, jms can illuminate more if needed by the story. The good thing about this - from his perspective - would be that the chronology could show this.

Yes, but you are making my point - which is that the ideal chronology you seem to be arguing for can only be created post-hoc and does not exist anywhere in final form - and that therefore your dismissal of the speculation on this board as "vague and ambiguous responses" when, in fact, only "vague and ambiguous responses" are warrented in this case, including JMS's "vague and ambiguous response" that Delenn was "60-70" during the show. In other words, JPH was correct to note that "Joe's answers to age questions in his forum posts were always nebulous."

From my POV the idea of a officially chronology has been proposed only by the official magazine and jms. Maybe some other fans have held this idea based on other (loosely connected ideas) but I am not one of them. I do not understand the reasoning for drawing up a straw man (of myself) only to knock it down.

So you are arguing that Terry Jones created his chronology as an official part of Babylon 5, and did not draw it up as a fan, and THEN get JMS's backing?

My position is quite clear: that JMS himself apparently had little interest in dating all of his ideas precisely, as it was unneeded for his work, and that the idea of an "official chronology" was something fans (among them Terry Jones) drew up and got backing for. That isn't a "strawman" it is a statement of how I think events arose.

I clearly don't take this as personally as you, so this may be a wasted post. Feel free to disregard it if it challenges any of your beliefs, and I won't be offended. This isn't about me and if it is about you, I will drop it.

 

[Nathan]

Thank you. Message boards leave much to be desired. I do take the study of chronology very seriously, and I am sorry for my manor seeming confrontational. I must admit that yours had much the same effect on my side of the keyboard. I did not intend it to be that way.

So you are arguing that Terry Jones created his chronology as an official part of Babylon 5, and did not draw it up as a fan, and THEN get JMS's backing?

If I was saying that then I would be contradicting my earlier post. I never meant to give this impression (of the order of “which came first”). I think jms had done all the work in his head (of the story) then found out that someone was keeping score, not that that is a bad thing.

One other point, disagreements cannot to be solved by silence. Therefore, while you may consider our "back-and forth" pointless, I do not. I wanted to hear what others thought on the subject.

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Hi Nathan,

Sorry if I sounded a little confrontational in my last post. It wasn't my intent, but I guess i bristled a little. Anyway, I wish I had the time to do more research on the timeline, as you've done. Unfortunately, I don't right now. But to return to the issue in general terms -

If we could take Terry's timeline as a single stand alone source...that is, if JMS hadn't been so prolific with fans on the internet during the series run and all we had to go on was information gleaned from the show itself...I don't think you'd have nearly the debate over accuracy that you're seeing. Terry made the timeline as accurate as he could given the information he had - sometimes he was able to pin events down to the day, sometimes he had to make educated guesses that might be a decade or more off. If the chronology were to be judged based solely on B5's 'series' time period, for example, I think Terry pegs dates with great accuracy. Outside of that, though, it's tough to judge. What do we (fans) accept as canon that wasn't on screen or in one of the 'blessed' novels? Terry lists those sources he used as canon, but descrepancies exist among them. How do we agree on reconciling those descrepancies (which is what I guess you're trying to do)? What standard do we apply, or should there be a different standard based on the level of refinement of the chronology's original source material? In other words, should we expect accuracy within a day for 2258-2262 material, accuracy of a year within a 100-year radius around that period, and accuracy within 20 years for the 1000 year radius around that?

I'm not advocating those standards literally, of course. I'm just pointing out that some sort of common baseline is necessary between everybody before discussing the merits of the chronology...IOW, we have to agree on what we agree about before we delve seriously into those things we don't.

Oh, God...I'm starting to sound like Channe.

Anyway, this takes me back to JMS and his willingness to entertain fans on Usenet. Since we've been beating up poor old Delenn wobbling around on her cane for a while now I'm going to use her one more time, since she's gotten used to it by now (I'm not fixated on her age, per se, but it IS a good example for illustration and it's one I've looked into).

When I combed through JMS's Usenet posts, I found three seperate instances where he talked about her age. One, I think from the first season, had both her and Gkar in their 70's in human terms (I didn't write down the specific message, unfortunately). The second, the message you cited, was from the second season and had her between 60-70. The third, the one I cited, was a little later than yours and had her in her late 40s-early 50s. Then we have DoFS, the only on-screen mention of her age, which was around 140 in 2362 (Although it was the most recent I discounted this as a 'math error' because it seems to make her at least a few years too young to have realistically done the things she did during the pre-B5 time period). So, now we have four different age ranges for Delenn, all of which could be considered 'canonical' because they all came from JMS. Which one do we go with? Are we seeing an uncertain JMS or are we seeing his thought process as it evolves through fan interaction? As for the chronology, Terry appears to have figured a rough average, which is logical as long as everyone agrees that's how it should be done. Joe implicitly endorsed this approach, and had nothing more been said that would be the end of it. Joe, however, caveated (voiced by Fiona) that much remained open to interpretation and refinement (my paraphrase, not exact words, obviously). Was he saying 'You're spot on' or was he saying 'I like your approach, but I'm leaving myself some wiggle room'?

Using the wiggle room approach makes a lot of the dates on Terry's timeline debatable - not so much the 'series' timeline, but most of the backstory material he applies dates to. This is why I say pinning down an accurate chronology that everyone can agree on is...well, impossible is probably too strong a word. JMS could, after all, release all of his personal notes someday.

As for years vs. cycles...after giving it some thought, I've come to believe that the term 'year' when used on the show refers exclusively to human years, unless otherwise specified - even when it's aliens presumably speaking in their own language. B5 was written for a western human audience, one that universally interprets 'year' as being one orbit of Earth around the Sun.

V/R
John