Kahless -- the Book

[weslipuqlod]

originally posted on 3-10-2002 at 23:49

I am interested in learning other's viewpoints regarding the story line within Michael Jan Friedman's Kahless.

It is my interpretation that the book provided a credible insight into what the true Kahless may have been like and how time and history, through other's perceptions, creates legend and myth.

I found the implication that the clone of Kahless might possibly actually be a clone of Morath interesting for lack of a better term.

There are other unique twists within this story line as well, perhaps this post will stimulate others to debate them here.

[Kesvirit]

originally posted by KAllen on 4-10-2002 at 14:32

I really enjoyed the book. I thought it was very interesting how the chapters went from modern, to history.

Like you said, the Kahless Klone seemed to be programed w/ the "legends" of Kahless. Remember on board the Enterprise when he gave the parable of the Storm??? Gowron asked him "what color were his eyes?"and he couldn't answer. That, to me, proved he had been "programed" by the clerics. However, in the book, the actual happenings were "glamorized" to prove a point, or to provide guidance for Klingons.

Kinda makes ya wonder if some of the stories in The Bible have been "glamorized" a bit to prove a point!!!

[weslipuqlod]

originally posted on 4-10-2002 at 17:14

Bible comparison and programmed clone

I would agree with you that the bible stories have been somwhat embellished to make certain points.

Evidence of this embellishment has been documented between various translations and rewrites based upon the authors. One such author being the bard Shakespeare himself.

The more you read Kahless the more that you find yourself studying the passages, especially those within the Heroic Age chapters. I seem to interpret new meanings each time (to steal a phrase).

The teachings of Kahless, and the fabled scrolls, had to have a beginning somewhere. What does it change if Kahless learned a great deal of it from Morath? What matters is that the ideals of true tlhIngan tIq was born with Kahless, regardless of the "original source".

I also agree with your description of the clone being "programmed". He is but a two-dimensional character without the depth and true wisdom of the original hero of the Empire.

Without an ability to draw from personal experience we are but a book.

Friedman did a wonderful job with the interpretation of the established "lore". I would hope that there would be a sequel to Kahless in the future.

[ngabwI]

originally posted on 19-3-2003 at 05:27

A sequel??

I disagree.

Some stories do not require a sequel. Examples are the movie Ghost, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and Cinderella (but The Rat did it anyway).

I do, however, agree the original source of the ideas is unimportant. The victor is, and always has been, the first to market.

Tae Kwon Do, for example, is regarded as a way to improve grades and discipline in children. Fact is that ANY martial discipline, properly taught, will bring the same results. Tae Kwon Do was the first to market itself in this way in the 70's, and so it gets the perception of somehow being better for children.

The same with the teachings of qeylIS. How many people reading this would believe that Morath would even want to be emperor? He would probably view it as a disadvantage. Noone would fight him, even if they believed him to be wrong. Thus his position would force others to betray his very teachings, e.g. give ground to noone. He would not order others into battle if he could not go himself. He would view it as dishonorable.

Kahless, on the other hand, was merely shaped by Morath's influence, but was stilll a political enough creature to know the nuts and bolts of government. Morath could not and would not have an emperor. And so Kahless stepped in, and so history gives him the credit.

And the ideas remain valid.

[weslipuqlod]

originally posted on 25-3-2003 at 07:38

Yet would Kahless, as written by Freidman, have risen to the challenge without Morath's influence?

Kahless may have understood the political climate of the times but I got the distinct impression that he was very uncomfortable with the position he found himself in, further supported by the "blasphemous scrolls" discovered later.

I wonder just how much influence Morath would have held over Kahless' reign as Emperor had he lived.

Freidman did a wonderful job of intertwining elements presented within the series into a tapestry of believable lore.

Some stories may not require a sequel but when a particularly good one comes around it leaves you wanting more.

[ngabwI]

originally posted on 25-3-2003 at 20:47

Finally, a debate!

Originally posted by weslipuqlod
Yet would Kahless, as written by Freidman, have risen to the challenge without Morath's influence?

I must admit, probably not.

I got the distinct impression that he was very uncomfortable with the position he found himself in

Agreed.

I wonder just how much influence Morath would have held over Kahless' reign as Emperor had he lived.

He probably had more because he died.

Some stories may not require a sequel but when a particularly good one comes around it leaves you wanting more.

And that, my friend, is the cardinal rule of entertainment.


--ngabwI'
03/25/2003 23:43
HovpoH 699830.9

[weslipuqlod]

originally posted on 29-3-2003 at 07:33

A debate? Careful what you wish for new ngabwI...

I would agree that Morath still had considerable influence over Kahless even after death. Yet that influence would be limited to the ideals that were impressed upon Kahless prior to that death.

Had Morath lived, I think we would have seen a variant outcome within the evolution of this fledgling Empire.

Which brings us to the untapped story potentials brought forth by the clone's influences on the current Imperial political climate. Would they remain programmed and two-dimensional or after personal interaction and continued studying would he be capable of playing a greater role than figurehead?

I would have liked to have seen more of Kahless' involvment in the Dominion war. Perhaps even an appearance within Deep Space 9, at least more than a "mention".

[Kapact]

originally posted on 31-3-2003 at 00:59

I will take the other side. The author of the book Kahless admits in the opening that he doesn't even understand the proverb which states that four thousand throats may be cut in one night by a running man....to me he is saying that he doesn't really understand Klingons. So I hardly consider him qualified to say that everything that the culture of Qo'noS is based upon is an embellishment. {A lie}. I enjoy the fiction that he has spun, and I reread it from time to time, but it is no more than a fiction to me, and it doesn't give me cause to question the story of Kahless. In fact, if the clone created on Boreth was actually a clone of Morath, then why did it resemble the ancient painting of Kahless?

[weslipuqlod]

originally posted on 6-4-2003 at 10:20

...and why did the clone have forehead ridges. Why was he not smooth in the face as was Kor, Kang, Koloth, and Kras - even Kahless the Unforgettable - before the mysterious acne set in?

What does it matter the source of a story or the credibility of the author as long as the tale told stimulates thought and insight into who and what Klingons are?

History is replete with references and icons that are later discovered, through continued investigation, to be erroneously labeled or defined.

As for proverbs, some are straight forward lessons, many the moral of a parable, still others are nothing more than goals of idealic behavior. Irregardless, all are present for the individual to interpret and apply personally. There is never a right or a wrong answer with these interpretations only individual insights.

I think Friedman's curt comment, "Don't look at me. I don't know what it means either." - was simply an attempt at humor. You cannot read this book and draw the inference that the author does not understand Klingons - after all Kapact, you yourself admit to reading it over and over again. If it did not speak to you personally you would not touch it a second time.

I also do not believe that this work definitively states Klingon culture is mere embellishment, based solely upon lies. I think it gives credence to how legends are created and how we all have a tendency to aggrandize that which we intimately seek in our lives. Such is the nature of most religion.

[Kapact]

originally posted on 7-4-2003 at 02:17

Originally posted by weslipuqlod
What does it matter the source of a story or the credibility of the author as long as the tale told stimulates thought and insight into who and what Klingons are?

I am happy to see anything that stimulates the minds of young warriors. But I do feel that an author who says he doesn't understand should not attempt to retell the story of Kahless. But that's me. I'm a purist.

As for proverbs, some are straight forward lessons, many the moral of a parable, still others are nothing more than goals of idealic behavior. Irregardless, all are present for the individual to interpret and apply personally. There is never a right or a wrong answer with these interpretations only individual insights.

I am writing a series of essays on the way of the warrior. The klin if you will. And one point I make is that if the stories and events that are the foundation of Klingon society are in fact myths concocted to make us feel good about ourselves and to promote an ideology, then the culture is as mythical as the stories themselves. A structure cannot remain if built upon a flimsy foundation. You can't base a society upon a lie. Of course, I make the point again that none of this is real. None of it is true. So neither story is correct as far as we know. It is just a tv show, and we are debating within that arena.

I think Friedman's curt comment, "Don't look at me. I don't know what it means either." - was simply an attempt at humor. You cannot read this book and draw the inference that the author does not understand Klingons

Again, that is not the impression I got. To me, he was saying hey this is all in fun, not important. And while we are telling the most important story for (neo)klingons, let's start off with a joke about their philosophy. I picked up that book with great anticipation, and was told in the first pages that the author doesn't understand klingons. Maybe he was joking, and maybe I take Klingon culture more seriously than he does. It just seems a rather strange thing to do at the beginning of a book that is the life story of Kahless.

- after all Kapact, you yourself admit to reading it over and over again. If it did not speak to you personally you would not touch it a second time.

It did speak to me. I have in fact read it three times. {Especially after my wife bought a copy for me, not knowing that I had one before we married}. I find it interesting on several levels. I enjoy the look at an early Qo'noS, and from a dramatic standpoint, it is perfect to have Kahless start out as one of Molor's greatest warlords. I just meant that to me the book may be a good Trek book. It might even be a good Klingon book, for the look back...I am a big fan of Klingon stories before they had space travel. Look at my "Death of Tong'Ve" story in the short story section. But it does not tell the story of Kahless for me.

I also do not believe that this work definitively states Klingon culture is mere embellishment, based solely upon lies. I think it gives credence to how legends are created and how we all have a tendency to aggrandize that which we intimately seek in our lives. Such is the nature of most religion.

Fair enough. I just was really put off by the flippant laugh he had at a Klingon proverb...an important one. Worf says at one point that for Klingons, the stories of Kahless are not supposed to be parables. They truly believe that he did those things. I don't often agree with Worf about anything, but he captured {or the writer did anyway} my feelings exactly.

We all know that our heroes often have feet of clay, but this is all fantasy anyway, so if I want to believe that a fantasy Kahless was able to scale a fantasy KrI'staK volcano, and with a lock of fantasy hair dipped in the lava flow, create the first fantasy betleH, then I can. Friedman hasn't changed my mind, and fortunately, I don't have to worry about it being proven otherwise.

I'm no more right than anyone else on this issue. It was a good book on many levels. I just don't think it told the story of Kahless.

[Kapact]

originally posted on 7-4-2003 at 02:24

weslipuqlod: I also do not believe that this work definitively states Klingon culture is mere embellishment, based solely upon lies. I think it gives credence to how legends are created and how we all have a tendency to aggrandize that which we intimately seek in our lives. Such is the nature of most religion.

But it does in fact say that precisely. The scrolls prove that Kahless did not do what Klingons were taught that he did. I don't see any other way you could interpret what happened. And ask any religious person. They believe that their books speak absolute literal truth.

By the way, I do again emphasize that this is all a hypothetical debate. I have seen people out there have this same debate and get really ugly and personal. And I can't stand that....

[weslipuqlod]

originally posted on 27-5-2003 at 15:17

Kapact you announce that you take Klingons very seriously and that you are purist fan. Welcome to the club. As you read entries throughout this Forum you will see that I think similarly.

In DS9: Rightful Heir, Kahless says, "...perhaps the words are more important than the man."

You state that we can ask any religious person and they will verify that they believe that their books speak absolute literal truth. I do not believe this to be accurate.

I have had the privilege of long discussions with priests, shamans, and clerical leaders of more than one religion. True theologists will discuss various interpretations of their primary religious text. They will tell you they do not believe every interpretation and will admit that select viewpoints are carefully chosen because they can accomplish a goal or make a point. These same viewpoints, interpreted by another can sometimes serve to discredit or contradict as well.

Translations between languages also impacts how the myths and legends are interpreted. With so many dynamics interacting everything comes down to the simple faith of an individual.

What does your heart tell you to believe?

Thus I am interested in what you believe the story of Kahless actually is?

[Kapact]

originally posted on 27-5-2003 at 21:01

weslipuqlod
What does your heart tell you to believe?

Thus I am interested in what you believe the story of Kahless actually is?

Well, to be perfectly honest, my heart tells me it is a TV show, and it never happened. But, within the framework of that show, I take the point of view that the stories are literal and true. No interpretation needed. I can be no more correct than anyone else, of course, but there it is.

I understand the psychology of the fundamentalist, I think. I am not one, but I understand the strength that comes from not just faith, but surety. Knowledge. As I tell my wife, I do not have to have faith in my marriage, or in our happiness. It is as real and immovable as the ground beneath my feet. That is a fundamental, unshakable knowledge of what is not just right but is true, and is also not just truth but fact. There is a difference. So I like my Klingons and my Kahless like that. And I like my Kahless books like that as well.

I picked up the book not wanting to read the real, unknown story behind Kahless, but the story that binds together all the truths that we already know about Kahless. And while I have nothing to say about another fan's interpretation of the story of Kahless, I took exception to a book coming out, approved by Paramount, saying that it was all bunk.

That is just a personal thing. I cannot invest too much emotion into a fictional interpretation of a fictional event. I was just disappointed. For myself. And in fact that has encouraged me to write my own Klingon history. From the time of Kahless to the time of Kirk.........For that, I will always appreciate the book Kahless. It made me want to do a better job.

This is not, however, to take away from someone who maybe thinks that the book makes sense of unbelievable events. That is fine.

[qoSagh]

Ragardless of TV or not TV, in the context of Klingons I found the story to be only passable. I did like the ancient Klingon aspects, however found that most of them wer norse with viking crossed out and Klingon written over in crayon. I would have been much happier to see someone actually create a new story, with new concepts. There was even the scene in Ragnarok, I expected the book to have Klingons riding across a mighty rainbow bridge to see Odin.

The part I did not like the most, s almost no fault of the author, was the Picard & Worf storyline. I know that most Trek books have to have regognizable federation characters in them, but really Picard sneaking arround to investigate Klingon antiquities was just a bit far fetched. Paraborg seems to insist on these characters being in every book, which is in and of itself odd, since they do not acknowledge the books as revised canon. Books would be much easier to ignore if they didn't tie in to the TV series that easily.
 

[tmk1000]

I also enjoyed how the He did not go out on a limb but tied it into the Tv show just enough that you don't feel lost.