326 lines
17 KiB
Plaintext
326 lines
17 KiB
Plaintext
|
O'BRIEN FAQ FILE
|
||
|
by
|
||
|
Scott Hollifield
|
||
|
|
||
|
Since there's been so much discussion and debate concerning O'Brien and
|
||
|
exactly what his rank and station is, I thought I'd write this file which,
|
||
|
while not exactly arriving at a conclusion, will lay out the facts and make
|
||
|
things a little clearer for those who are confused.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
1. Didn't O'Brien appear in the first season as a
|
||
|
helmsman/security officer/ Ops officer?
|
||
|
|
||
|
First, let's begin with Colm Meaney's early appearances. In "Encounter At
|
||
|
Farpoint", he appeared in a red uniform, and was stationed at the helm, or
|
||
|
Conn, station on the battle bridge. In "Lonely Among Us", he appeared in
|
||
|
a gold uniform and was depicted as a security officer.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Note that NEITHER of these appearances were as O'Brien. The character was
|
||
|
not named in either instance. Colm was simply showing up as bit player, and
|
||
|
no one could predict that he would be made into a major supporting character.
|
||
|
Someone COULD argue that O'Brien simply got around a lot, and served in
|
||
|
several areas of specialization, but this is stretching it a bit, especially
|
||
|
in light of later details.
|
||
|
|
||
|
(Note that O'Brien never appeared as an Ops officer. Confusion over this
|
||
|
stems from the fact that, on the battle bridge, the Ops and helm stations
|
||
|
are *reversed* from their configuration on the main bridge; some people
|
||
|
thought that Colm Meaney's red-shirted character from "Farpoint" was an
|
||
|
Ops officer as a result.)
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
2. Okay, so when was Colm Meaney finally O'Brien?
|
||
|
|
||
|
Let's move to what is widely considered to be the first appearance of
|
||
|
O'Brien himself. This was in "The Child", the first show of the second
|
||
|
season, and the first time Colm Meaney appeared as a transporter officer.
|
||
|
He wore two pips in this episode, and was addressed neither by name or by
|
||
|
rank.
|
||
|
|
||
|
His second appearance was in the next episode, "Where Silence Has Lease",
|
||
|
in which he was still unnamed. The character then skipped three episodes
|
||
|
("Elementary Dear Data", "The Outrageous Okona" and "The Schizoid Man"),
|
||
|
and then appeared again without a name in "Loud As A Whisper". In the
|
||
|
episode after that, "Unnatural Selection", the character was finally named
|
||
|
O'Brien. (If I'm not mistaken, I also believe that this was the first
|
||
|
time he was referred to as "Chief".)
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
3. He was called a lieutenant in "Where Silence Has Lease"!
|
||
|
Doesn't that settle the argument?
|
||
|
|
||
|
Well, not really. It's true that he was addressed as such in that episode.
|
||
|
The exact moment was when Riker and Worf were being beamed over to the
|
||
|
fake Yamato, and Riker gave O'Brien the instruction "Aft station,
|
||
|
Lieutenant." However, it's quite significant that (1) This was a very early
|
||
|
appearance of the character - his second in fact; (2) He has NEVER been
|
||
|
addressed as "lieutenant" since; and (3) Errors and confusion of this type
|
||
|
was relatively common during the first two seasons, when the producers
|
||
|
weren't as concerned with maintaining a tight continuity. (Data has been
|
||
|
called a lieutenant, incorrectly, more than once, and there are other
|
||
|
examples as well.)
|
||
|
|
||
|
It's also true that this example has never been conclusively contradicted,
|
||
|
but evidence HAS popped up since which, while inconclusive, does shed
|
||
|
plenty of doubt on this, and at least raises the possibility that Riker's
|
||
|
line was a mistake.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
4. Okay, so they started calling him "Chief" with "Unnatural
|
||
|
Selection". Can't he still be a lieutenant? What exactly
|
||
|
does "Chief" mean in this context, anyway?
|
||
|
|
||
|
A tricky question. The way I see it, "Chief" means one of two things:
|
||
|
(1) Chief Petty (or Warrant) Officer, or (2) Chief of a particular
|
||
|
division.
|
||
|
|
||
|
(A Chief Petty Officer is enlisted, a non-commissioned officer, who is
|
||
|
someone who hasn't been through the academy, and therefore doesn't have
|
||
|
a commissioned rank like ensign or lieutenant.)
|
||
|
|
||
|
O'Brien is transporter chief, that much is certain - so you figure that
|
||
|
(2) applies for sure. (Until question #10 - put that aside for later.)
|
||
|
However, the Enterprise's senior staff is full of (2)-type chiefs:
|
||
|
Geordi is Chief Engineer, Worf is Chief Security Officer, etc. So why
|
||
|
aren't they called "Chief LaForge" and "Chief Worf"?
|
||
|
|
||
|
Well, one could say that falling under number (2) doesn't mean that you
|
||
|
actually get called "Chief" - that you have to be a Chief Petty Officer
|
||
|
for that. That too, however, is not a flawless theory. The chief
|
||
|
engineers who preceded Geordi, such as Argyle and MacDougal, were called
|
||
|
"Chief" - and were NOT Chief Petty Officers. Also, there's no rule that
|
||
|
says no division chief can't be called "Chief".
|
||
|
|
||
|
This is an example of what I call the Betazoid Counselor Principle (BCP),
|
||
|
which is an invalidation of a general application of assumptions. It
|
||
|
basically states that, just because Deanna Troi is both Betazoid and the
|
||
|
ship's counselor, it doesn't mean that ALL ship's counselors are required
|
||
|
to be Betazoid, even though some people think so and even though it does
|
||
|
make a certain amount of sense.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Likewise - given that O'Brien is a commissioned officer (which we're
|
||
|
assuming for the purposes of this one argument), it doesn't mean that he
|
||
|
HAS to be called "Lieutenant O'Brien" as opposed to Chief O'Brien.
|
||
|
There are a number of potential explanations for this. Perhaps O'Brien
|
||
|
is accustomed to being called "Chief" throughout his career. Perhaps
|
||
|
transporter chiefs are traditionally called "Chief", regardless of
|
||
|
commission. Perhaps some people like to be called "Chief" and some people
|
||
|
don't. The only thing that is certain is that there doesn't have to be a
|
||
|
hard and fast rule in effect here. There is so much ambiguity that arguing
|
||
|
either side of the argument is fairly useless.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
5. In "Family", Worf's foster father came out and called O'Brien
|
||
|
a chief petty officer! Now, doesn't THAT settle the argument?
|
||
|
|
||
|
Heh, no. I thought so at the time...
|
||
|
|
||
|
The actual scene features Worf's dad, Sergei Rozhenko, walking up to O'Brien
|
||
|
and saying, "Ah, always good to meet another chief petty officer." O'Brien
|
||
|
then introduces himself by his full name (revealed for the first time).
|
||
|
|
||
|
When I saw this, I thought that the writers were saying to us, "Ignore
|
||
|
any previous evidence that O'Brien was a commissioned officer. He is,
|
||
|
according to us, a CPO." Sergei even recognized him as a CPO right away,
|
||
|
without seeming to examine his pips! What does this mean?
|
||
|
|
||
|
Okay, the one thing I'm pretty sure about is that the WRITER of that scene
|
||
|
meant for O'Brien to be a CPO. Lots of people have railed against the idea,
|
||
|
saying that Sergei was an old guy, didn't know what he was talking about,
|
||
|
had forgotten the way things worked, served at a time when things worked
|
||
|
differently, was possibly senile, etc. However, the writer clearly intended
|
||
|
none of this - he or she thought that O'Brien should be recognized as a CPO.
|
||
|
|
||
|
In fact, only two things contradict this view: the line from "Where Silence
|
||
|
Has Lease", explained above in question #3, and.... the pips (see question
|
||
|
#9).
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
7. In "The Wounded", it's said that O'Brien used to be the
|
||
|
Chief Tactical Officer on the USS Rutledge. Doesn't that
|
||
|
mean that he was and is probably a lieutenant, since the
|
||
|
Enterprise's Chief Tactical Officer, Worf, is also a
|
||
|
lieutenant?
|
||
|
|
||
|
It doesn't mean he has to be. It's entirely possible that the Rutledge,
|
||
|
being a smaller and less important ship (perhaps), didn't need a fully
|
||
|
commissioned lieutenant to be tactical chief.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
8. But what about all those years of service? O'Brien has
|
||
|
evidently been in Starfleet quite a while - shouldn't he
|
||
|
be a full lieutenant by now?
|
||
|
|
||
|
Again, not neccessarily. A lot of people, 20th century types AND Starfleet
|
||
|
people, choose not to go to the Academy and earn a commission. Worf's
|
||
|
dad never did. It's possible that O'Brien didn't, and doesn't want to; why
|
||
|
would he, he's serving on the Enterprise!
|
||
|
|
||
|
9. What ABOUT those darn pips anyhow? O'Brien wears two solid
|
||
|
pips - that means lieutenant! Right?
|
||
|
|
||
|
Er - right. But it's not quite that easy. A number of things need to be
|
||
|
considered:
|
||
|
|
||
|
Star Trek, as everyone knows, does not maintain a perfect consistency.
|
||
|
It's not always possible to reconcile all the little mistakes, no matter how
|
||
|
contrived the explanation is. The reason for this is that the writers are
|
||
|
always changing their minds about something - or, better put, that old writers
|
||
|
go away and new ones come in and change things. O'Brien may have been
|
||
|
originally intended to actually be a lieutenant. Back in the early second
|
||
|
season, someone may have told Costuming, "Hey, this character's a lieutenant -
|
||
|
give him two solid pips on his uniform." Costuming dutifully produced the
|
||
|
appropriate uniform, and then maybe someone, somewhere in the writing staff,
|
||
|
decided that O'Brien WASN'T a lieutenant. Fine - start calling him Chief, not
|
||
|
lieutenant. Write an episode that says he's a CPO. What? The uniform? Oh,
|
||
|
leave it - no one will care about the insignia.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Then there's the infamous Silver Pips conspiracy. This past summer, a
|
||
|
user named Karl Perjoran posted the following info on the Fidonet TNG echo,
|
||
|
which he said came from someone named John Patritski, who allegedly has
|
||
|
contacts with Paramount's Costuming department. (So we're talking third-
|
||
|
hand information here - fourth-hand if you're reading this.)
|
||
|
|
||
|
"1) Officers wear Gold pips. Non-Commissioned Officers wear Silver pips."
|
||
|
|
||
|
"2) In reference to Silver pips worn by Petty Officers:
|
||
|
CPO (E7 pay grade) - Transporter operator in "The Next Phase."
|
||
|
= one hollow pip
|
||
|
Senior CPO (E8 pay grade)"
|
||
|
= one solid pip
|
||
|
Master CPO (E9 pay grade) - Miles O'Brien."
|
||
|
= two solid pips
|
||
|
|
||
|
"3) Non-Commissioned officers below CPO wear no pips, such as Mr. Tarses in
|
||
|
"The Drumhead."
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Is this true? Beats me. I don't know Karl Pejoran or John Patritski.
|
||
|
One person, James Dixon, claims that the information is bogus.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Are the pips on O'Brien's outfit silver? Again, it's virtually impossible
|
||
|
to tell. Lighting on the set is such that this kind of detail is hard to
|
||
|
make out. There are those who swear that O'Brien's pips are gold, and
|
||
|
there are those who swear that the things are silver. Dixon claims that
|
||
|
he's seen photo stills of O'Brien, showing gold pips. He may be telling
|
||
|
the truth, but again, I would allow for the possibility that still
|
||
|
photography could also be misleading.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The only real way to know for sure would be to see the costume in person -
|
||
|
impossible for most of us.
|
||
|
|
||
|
However, this whole conspiracy is now irrelevant - because the writers have
|
||
|
changed their minds *again*.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
10. The transporter officer in "The Next Phase" was called "Chief"!
|
||
|
And she wore one hollow pip! What is going on here?
|
||
|
|
||
|
Oh boy. First, a word about the notorious hollow pip.
|
||
|
|
||
|
A few months ago, Starlog magazine published a TNG "Technical Journal",
|
||
|
written by Shane Johnson, to compete with Pocket Books' official TNG
|
||
|
Technical Manual. (Johnson himself has written carelessly erroneous
|
||
|
and made-up info about Trek before, but let's forget that for now.) Anyhow,
|
||
|
the Journal was fairly accurate, if redundant, most of the time, but there
|
||
|
was a mistake: Johnson identified the insignia of one hollow pip as "Ensign
|
||
|
Junior Grade". Actually, there is no such rank. It has never been seen on
|
||
|
the show, it is not present in the U.S. Navy ranking system, on which TNG's
|
||
|
Starfleet system is based. Johnson apparently just created the rank himself.
|
||
|
So, if you were ever confused about that, forget it completely.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Up until "The Next Phase", we had never seen a single hollow pip. In
|
||
|
that episode, however, we see a lady working the transporter who is called
|
||
|
"Chief Brossmer" - and yep, she's wearing the SHP. A few people, keeping
|
||
|
Shane Johnson's book in mind, started shouting "Ensign Junior Grade!", and
|
||
|
at first glance, it looked like they might have been right. But this lady
|
||
|
was also called "Chief"! How can she and O'Brien BOTH be Chief Transporter
|
||
|
Officer?
|
||
|
|
||
|
Well, at first, I thought O'Brien might have simply been on vacation, or
|
||
|
off-ship, or something, thus making someone else "Chief" for a while. But
|
||
|
in "Man of the People", we saw yet ANOTHER transporter officer whom they
|
||
|
call "Chief" (and this guy also had a single hollow pip)! What are we
|
||
|
to think? Keep reading.
|
||
|
|
||
|
11. The worst has happened! In "Realm of Fear", O'Brien's rank
|
||
|
insignia is shown as ONE HOLLOW PIP! What happened to the
|
||
|
two solid pips? Has he been demoted?
|
||
|
|
||
|
He's still transporter chief - at least ONE of them, right? Apparently,
|
||
|
from what I can tell, someone on the show finally noticed all this
|
||
|
confusion and said, let's fix it. So they did something they should have
|
||
|
done a long time ago: they changed O'Brien's pips to accurately reflect his
|
||
|
status.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Which is? Transporter chief, of course. Look at it this way: since "The
|
||
|
Next Phase", we've seen three transporter chiefs - O'Brien, Brossmer, and
|
||
|
the guy from "Man of the People" - all with one hollow pip, all called
|
||
|
Chief. I think it's pretty clear what the current TNG line on this is -
|
||
|
someone looked at O'Brien, finally, and said, Why is this man wearing
|
||
|
two solid pips? Let's change that. So now, he's a non-commissioned
|
||
|
officer, along with Brossmer and whats-his-name.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The hollow pip is the key. Regardless of what anyone thought it meant before
|
||
|
"The Next Phase", it apparently now means some enlisted rank. (Whether that
|
||
|
rank is Master CPO or whatever, I'm not going to worry about.) This is a
|
||
|
major, major example of what is known as "retcon" - retroactive continuity,
|
||
|
going back and redefining history, kind of like Winston Smith in "1984".
|
||
|
It has three drawbacks: (1) It's confusing for people who don't know what's
|
||
|
going on. (2) It's messy - unlike in "1984", WE can remember, and even
|
||
|
re-watch, the history as presented before the change. (3) It can change
|
||
|
again in the future.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Right now, continuity says that O'Brien is an enlisted, non-commissioned
|
||
|
officer. Common sense says that he, Brossmer, and Mr. Man are all
|
||
|
transporter chiefs - but O'Brien, being the demonstrated head of the
|
||
|
department, is what I'll call "Chief of Transporter Operations". Yes,
|
||
|
that's right - "Chief" now has a third definition. If you're a
|
||
|
transporter officer, you're apparently called "Chief", no matter what
|
||
|
else you may be. That's according to what the CURRENT continuity says,
|
||
|
as of early sixth season. Every transporter officer is "Chief X", but
|
||
|
O'Brien is the chief of them all.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
12. I've seen other, seemingly official sources that say O'Brien
|
||
|
is a lieutenant anyway.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The guy who wrote the recently released TNG Companion - Larry something -
|
||
|
seems to think so. He calls the character "Lieutenant O'Brien" in every
|
||
|
guest cast listing, despite the inconsistency we went over in question #3,
|
||
|
and when he gets to "Family", he puzzles over Sergei's "mistake".
|
||
|
|
||
|
My response to this is that the TNG Companion is not neccesarily
|
||
|
authoritative -- it obviously has a LOT of official information in it,
|
||
|
and most of it is probably right. However, O'Brien's chieftancy is one
|
||
|
of the stickier little details of TNG's continuity, and I doubt that ANY
|
||
|
one person - Larry So-and-So, James Dixon, John Patritski, Colm Meaney
|
||
|
or Rick Berman - has actually stopped long enough to consider and weigh
|
||
|
ALL of the details involved in this misleadingly trivial situation, the
|
||
|
way we're doing now.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Plus, like I said, continuity is ever-changing - and it would seem that
|
||
|
Larry Companion and the current continuity are at odds. (I'd like to
|
||
|
hear his reaction when he sees the pips in "Realm of Fear".)
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
13. Whew! Okay, keeping all that in mind - what will happen
|
||
|
when O'Brien moves to Deep Space Nine?
|
||
|
|
||
|
Good question! O'Brien will reportedly be assuming the position of "Chief
|
||
|
Operations Officer" on the station - but what they decide his rank to be
|
||
|
is anyone's guess. (My hope is that the above revisionism - changing him
|
||
|
to a hollow pip man - was done with DS9 in mind.)
|
||
|
|
||
|
------------------
|
||
|
|
||
|
That was a lot more information than I even intended to write when I first
|
||
|
started. Some people might be inclined to think, "Geez, HE's got a lot of
|
||
|
time on his hands. Why doesn't he get a life?" Well, I have a life, but I
|
||
|
also happened to have a spare rainy afternoon and nothing to do. And
|
||
|
there's been SO much talk about this, I thought that perhaps a FAQ of some
|
||
|
kind was in order. I hope it's been helpful and entertaining!
|
||
|
|
||
|
|