Early B5

[vacantlook]

I was looking at the character information on the Early B5 webpage again. I think it's pretty interesting how the characters evolved just slightly between this early form and what was done on the show. But one thing I never noticed on that page in the detailing of the early forms of the characters is that there is no telepath character listed.

I wonder if jms just hadn't decided at that point whether or not he wanted a teep character for sure or if he hadn't thought up the idea of having telepaths on the show yet.

 

[Shaal Mayan]

I for one am glad JMS changed the characters some of them more drastically than others.As for the telepath maybe at the time of making up the characters he didn't want a teep in his story.Good question to send to JMS along with the page .

 

[A_M_Swallow]

The Babylon 5 "Treatment for a Prime-Time Series" dated September 1988, mentions 2 telepaths.

VELANA a Vorlon and Kosh's life-mate; who scans Kosh when he is poisoned.

An unnamed female telepath in the employ of a Centauri businessman who is killed.

Looks like these 2 characters were merged to produce the human telepath Lyta.

 

[vacantlook]

I wish the Treatment was still easily available because I only recently learned of it's actual publicized existance and sale through the old B5 fan club. But it sounds like it would be an interesting read.

 

[Shaal Mayan]

VELANA a Vorlon and Kosh's life-mate; who scans Kosh when he is poisoned.

Now that vorlon teep I would like to have seen on screen as well as a little more info please about the centauri and how they view telepaths.We know the minbari keep them feed and clothed in return for favors in the use of their talents .But I guess a little more info will be in the mogoose book the centauri republic when and if it eventually comes out.

 

[vacantlook]

How telepaths are dealt with in Centauri society does sound like it would be an interesting topic. With Londo saying that his people have dreams that tell them how they will die (i.e. that sort of dreaming isn't a Londo-only event), and with the much use of prophetesses in Centauri society and the use of the four-woman team of telepaths to aid the Emperor, it would seem that Centauri are a considerably telepathic species. They might not have many really strong telepaths, but the dream issue makes it seem to me that they have many low-level telepaths.

 

[PillowRock]

They might not have many really strong telepaths, but the dream issue makes it seem to me that they have many low-level telepaths.

Not necessarily. Precognition and telepathy are two very different abilities. One has to do with picking up another beings thoughts. The other has to do with seeing through time. There is no reason to assume that the two abilities are related to each other (though, of course, that does not rule the possibility that they are).

I would point out that none of the Centauri precogs that we see ever demonstrate any ability for telepathy, and that none of the Centauri telepaths that we see ever show any hint of precognition. They appear to be two entirely distinct and separate abilities (admitted based on a very small sample space of 6 teeps and 2 or 3 precogs, depending on whether you count Londo's dreams of his death and of the Shadow ships over Centauri Prime).

 

[AnlaShokGrey]

Being a seer and being a telepath are two decidedly different things. I don't see a real relation between being able to read what's going on in someone's mind who is on a line of sight with you, and having foreknowledge of events (unlimited by proximity or personal relation). In that regard, telepathy, to me, seems a rather mechanical, physical process. While the business of prediction is by nature much more ethereal. Another important difference is that telepaths were bio-engineered by the Vorlons, but as far as we know, seers occur naturally. Of course, most Earthers don't believe in them, but the Centauri have them, as do the Narn. Can't recall hearing about any other species having seers, though.

Aisling

 

[vacantlook]

The other has to do with seeing through time. There is no reason to assume that the two abilities are related to each other (though, of course, that does not rule the possibility that they are).

Yes, telepathy and precognition aren't the same thing, but they are both psychic in nature. So, to be specific, I guess one could say what we've been shown of Centauri people, there seem to be many low-level psychics.

In that regard, telepathy, to me, seems a rather mechanical, physical process. While the business of prediction is by nature much more ethereal.

But seeing two telepaths going at a pscan-and-block battle in "The Corps Is Mother, The Corps is Father" in season five, the visualization of telepathic attacks and blocks seems considerably ethereal to me.

Of course, most Earthers don't believe in them, but the Centauri have them, as do the Narn.

There's a difference between most Earthers not believing in the existance of human precogs and there being no human precogs. There's plenty of possibility that there are Centauri and Narn that don't believe precogs of their species actually see the future.

 

[sleepy_shadow]

The other has to do with seeing through time.

Or from another angle, leaving time alone... highly advanced probability calculations with limited data, presented in highly abstract form conductive to later deja vu.

If one believed in seers (I personally prefer not to, since human mind does not appear to have such computing power) one might believe them to possess a unique mathematical talent which doesn't quite submit to conscious control.

 

[bmp]

I was looking at the character information on the Early B5 webpage again. I think it's pretty interesting how the characters evolved just slightly between this early form and what was done on the show. But one thing I never noticed on that page in the detailing of the early forms of the characters is that there is no telepath character listed.
<snip>

Thanx for posting this link.

It would be great if the B5 DVD movie set featured some of the early production paintings or character descriptions - maybe with some additional words from jms.

 

[grumbler]

It strikes me that Centauri teeps are much like the other Centauri in terms of being motivated by greed and power, and following their clan leaders' orders no matter how distasteful the task.

One has to wonder how the Centauri keep them under control since as we saw in "Born to the Purple" secrets form the basis of house power, and teeps seem antithetical to keeping secrets.

It is also curious that the poster in the link (which I haven't seen in ages) has a typo in the fifth word from the end of Sinclair's decription (as well as a comma where there should be a colon)!

Also, the Laurel bit has blunders: "practically" vice "practicality," "She is no-nonsense..."

"Chakri is driven by the goal of leaving behind definitive work on alien biology" is missing "the" before "definative."

"As a result, we will rarly see the secret face hidden within the encounter suits" ???

Sorry, couldn't resist (and did resist some less obvious clumsiness).

 

[vacantlook]

"Chakri is driven by the goal of leaving behind definitive work on alien biology" is missing "the" before "definative."

I don't know if that is necessarily an error in statement. Chakri could very well have a goal of leaving behind definitive work on alien biology when he dies. In other words, he sees his work in studying alien biology to be something he wants to be of quality so he can pass it on to the next generation when he dies.

"As a result, we will rarly see the secret face hidden within the encounter suits" ???

At the point of the creation of this pamphlet, especially going on the picture of Khosh shown and the description of the Vorlon Empire, I think his Vorlon mate Velana was still a part of the story. Because of this, I don't see the pluralization of suit in the statement about seeing the face behind the suit to necessarily be an error.

 

[grumbler]

I don't know if that is necessarily an error in statement. Chakri could very well have a goal of leaving behind definitive work on alien biology when he dies. In other words, he sees his work in studying alien biology to be something he wants to be of quality so he can pass it on to the next generation when he dies.

Have you ever seen the phrase "definative work" used in a sentence (not a title) without an article? I haven't. I think it is clear that this was a wordo.

At the point of the creation of this pamphlet, especially going on the picture of Khosh shown and the description of the Vorlon Empire, I think his Vorlon mate Velana was still a part of the story. Because of this, I don't see the pluralization of suit in the statement about seeing the face behind the suit to necessarily be an error.

Nice try, but face is singular, so unless Kosh and Koshette had a single face and multiple ES's, it is an error.

So knock it off! I am trying to convince JMS that he should pay me tens of thousands of dollars to proofread his publicity material before sending it off!

 

[WorkingClassHero]

I'm sure I've seen "definitive work" used without an article. If I haven't, though, I still shouldn't be surprised by it.

Think about all the ways you can use "work" without an article:

I love work. I try to do work that will benefit others. You have done much work in the field of microbiology. When I die, I want to leave behind work that I'm proud of.

Now, how does putting an adjective in front of it (making the work definitive, if not *the single definitive* work) affect usage?

JMS & WB, please give us something to bite on soon . . . we're getting stir crazy . . .

 

[PillowRock]

Now, how does putting an adjective in front of it (making the work definitive, if not *the single definitive* work) affect usage?

It is because that particular adjective takes a general noun and makes it singular. "Definitive" is not equivalent to saying "good", it is much more along the lines of "best". It is the difference between saying "I want to be good at what I do." and saying "I want to be the best at what I do." You would never expect to hear "I want to be best at what I do.", unless the surrounding conversation had made it *very* clear that "best" was implicitly modified by something like "among the group we are talking about".

 

[grumbler]

Now, how does putting an adjective in front of it (making the work definitive, if not *the single definitive* work) affect usage?

I would differ slightly from pillowrock and make the argument that "definative work" is, in fact, a compound noun, because in this case "definitive" is the controling concept, not "work." In other words, you could use other words in place of "work" like "text" or book" and not change the overall meaning, but you couldn't replace "definative" without an exact synomym without changing the meaning.

And compound nouns require articles (well, mostly, but let's not go there! )

 

[WorkingClassHero]

Alright, I know when I've lost an argument. Thanks for explaining

I'll have to learn all this stuff if I'm going to major in English . . .

 

[vacantlook]

And I would still contend that "definitive" is still an adjective and the changing of the noun it modifies does change the meaning. I see that you're seeing the word "work" as used to be synonymous to "book" or "text," however, when I read the sentence on the brosure about Chakri, I don't read it to be refering to a book of his but of all things he's done throughout the world of medicine. The work to be the act of performing experiements and surgeries and discussions with patients, not work as in a volumized recording of information.

(Buffy The Vampire Slayer fifth season finale spoilers to follow.)

I see the use of work there to be similar to the use of the the word work Buffy uses when she tells Dawn at the end of "The Gift" that she has to jump. That work is the giving of her life to seal the growing tear in the dimensional barriers.

(End of Buffy spoilers.)



It seems that we have two camps on this thread, those who see "work" to be a physical object, and others who see it to be an action.

 

[grumbler]

Alright, I know when I've lost an argument. Thanks for explaining

I'll have to learn all this stuff if I'm going to major in English . . .

I was actually kidding about the "compound noun" stuff, trying to make this more complicated than it really is (in the spirit of the semantics hijack).

Compound nouns have a different meaning than the word elements have on their own, so I don't think that this phrase is one of them.

Look up definative in the dictionary, and you will see that it is always used with an article.