h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A511084

This entry was published in the h2g2-post in january 2001.

Please review it.

TM.

I liked it last time, I like it this time Londo story is B5's story - or at least the most important one Well, just an opinion Until later.....
BCNU - Crescent

I like it too.

A few comments:

1. 'Philosophy' is spelt like that, not with an 'f'.
2. I think it could be shorter.
3. The two paragraphs 'Londo is far from perfect...' and 'As the Babylon 5 storyline ...' could be combined as they really cover the same ground. In particular, they both refer to Londo as a man of great integrity.
4. 'The Fall of Centauri Prime" starts with a single quote and ends with double.
5. It would be interesting to have one or two more Londo-centric episodes referred to.
6. 'parallel' has 'all' in the middle.
7. Augustus et al were the first Roman Emperors. You can hardly talk about Augustus and 'the decline and fall' in the same thought. The correct order of Emperors is Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius. I really don't see the parallels at all, though I do agree that the severe introspection of the Centauri Empire is more reminiscent of the Roman Empire than the British.
8. it's means 'it is' . The possesive of 'it' is 'its'.

A brief pargraph aexplaining what B5 is might be useful, otherwise a great article.

Yes .. hmm.

Yes I see your Roman Emperor allusion .. its valid (Cartagia was very much a Caligulic figure) but the line of Emperors is a consideration.

Mention of more great Londo episodes would be great too .. I suggest the 'Long night of Londo Molari.'

And yes, fromt he outset I would put in a paragraph explaining B5, botht hte show and the space station and its politics -- just to set everything up.

Beyond that and the typos, great work TM!

~Beeblefish (Scout)

One of the Titles monologues, you know '10 years after the Earth/Mimbari war....' thing may be a good opener...
BCNU - Crescent

good thought

Excellent fun, reminded me of all the joy of watching the series once again. Londo was a steadily improving character throughout and the article really captures that.

Cheers,

Cestus

It still needs a brief intro to B5 as a whole.

Hi to all,

Thanks for the input.

Let me respond to some of the remarks :

Manolan wrote an extensive review(thnx) :

1. 'Philosophy' is spelt like that, not with an 'f'.

Fixed.

2. I think it could be shorter.
That is of course a matter of opinion. I think that this is one of the longest Bab-5 impressions I will write in the series. Strangely enough, I think it will be much easier to write about the other characters. Perhaps with the exception of Valen/Sinclair because of all the mucking about with time-travel and all...
Do not forget that we are talking about a huge series with several HUGE story-arcs...And also plesae keep in mind that I am writing about the characters, not about Babylon-5 itself(not yet...).

3. The two paragraphs 'Londo is far from perfect...' and 'As the Babylon 5 storyline ...' could be combined as they really cover the same ground. In particular, they both refer to Londo as a man of
great integrity.

Fixed it. Please read.

4. 'The Fall of Centauri Prime" starts with a single quote and ends with double.

Fixed.

5. It would be interesting to have one or two more Londo-centric episodes referred to.

I have no problem with that. Fixed it. Please read.

6. 'parallel' has 'all' in the middle.

Fixed.

7. Augustus et al were the first Roman Emperors. You can hardly talk about Augustus and 'the decline and fall' in the same thought. The correct order of Emperors is Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius. I really don't see the parallels at all, though I do agree that the severe introspection of the Centauri Empire is more reminiscent of the Roman Empire than the British.

Aahhh ! We disagree! I have never stated that Babylon-5 is an exact copy of the Roman Empire. I do state however, that the line of emperors is reminiscent of... :

Emperor Turhan(died in 2259) : Augustus(perhaps Tiberius). A reasonably prosperous period in the Empire's history although it is also already a bit in decline.

Emperor Cartagia : Caligula all over. Count the heads baby...(on the table by the way... Season four).

Emperor Molari : Is such a very complex character, and is mainly part of the Babylon-5 story itself(instead of Centauri Prime) that I do not count him in. I see him as an extremely important transitional Emperor. A sort of crisis-manager.

Emperor Vir : The closest you can get to Claudius. The underestimated, sometimes considered halfwitted character who never the less makes it to the throne because history sweeps him that way. And does a good job(although I admit Bab-5 is a bit vague about that).

The debate about this point of view would of course be a perfect subject for a thread started from the article.

8. it's means 'it is' . The possesive of 'it' is 'its'.

I know, a problem we foreigners tend to make all the time. Thank Bob for editors... I will go through the entry one more time. Basically I need Shazz to do this for me.

BTW : posessive is spelled with ossesi... LOL

HappyDude said :

9. "A brief pargraph aexplaining what B5 is might be useful, otherwise a great article".

Thanx for the praise. However, Zathras has already announced that he is going to do the general article. So I don't want to duplicate his work.

Beeblefish :

Same goes for your comments. Zathras is working on it and I will probably be helping him with it. It *might* be a university-project although that is still under consideration. I think that maybe the personal opinions would get in the way if too many people get involved.
The fact that everybody has his/her own view on Babylon-5 is an indication of how well it was written. Take "Dune" for example : most people where disappointed when they saw the movie. Not because the movie was that bad, but because the readers already had their own images in their heads.

Crescent :

The article was originally titled "The Long Night of Londo Molari". However, as I discovered in my Peter Gabriel article, the Towers don't appreciate long titles for the articles. Peter G.'s entry was called "The Guaranteed Eternal Sanctuaryman" and was abbreviated to "Peter Gabriel"...
I can of course put a quote in the first line of the article itself and I have done so. It's not much but check it out.


I suggest/request that you all look at it one more time. And don't forget to check out Zathras' page too.

Thanx for the input everyone. Now all I have to do is remember how the photons I can get it published. This Peer-review thingy never was that obvious to me. Anyone who can shed more light on the next step please do so...

TM.

By the way, let me expand my previous answer somewhat.

By "Roman Emperors" I mean "Roman Rulers". But because most people associate this with "Emperors" I decided to use that word. The list of Centaurian Emperors is by no means an accurate copy of the Roman Emperors. As you can see below the list starts in 81 BC :

Pompey the Great Imperator, c. 81 - 48 B. C.
Sextus Pompey Imperatorial General, c. 45 - 35 B. C.
Julius Caesar Imperator & Dictator, 61 - 44 B. C.
Brutus Imperatorial General, c. 50 - 42 B. C.
Cassius Imperatorial General, c. 50 - 42 B. C.
Ahenobarbus Imperatorial General c. 42 - 32 B. C.
Marcus Antonius Imperator and General, c. 61 - 30 B. C.
Lepidus Imperator, c. 46 - 42 B. C.
Augustus (Formerly Octavian) First Roman Emperor 27 B. C. - A. D. 14
AgrippaImperial General c. 31 - 12 B. C.
Tiberius Emperor A. D. 14 - 37
Drusus Son of Tiberius, Murdered A. D. 23
Nero Claudius Drusus Brother of Tiberius
Germanicus Nephew and Adopted Son of Tiberius
Caligula Emperor A. D. 37 - 41
Claudius Emperor A. D. 41 - 54
Britannicus Son of Claudius
Nero Emperor 54 - 68
Clodius Macer Rebel against Galba A. D. 68
Galba Emperor A. D. 68 - 69
Otho Emperor A. D. 69
Vitellius Emperor A. D. 69
Vespasian Emperor A. D. 69 - 79
Titus Emperor A. D. 79 - 81
Domitian Emperor A. D. 81 - 96
Nerva Emperor A. D. 96 - 98
Trajan Emperor A. D. 98 - 117
Hadrian Emperor A. D. 117 - 138
Aelius Caesar A. D. 136 - 138
Antoninus Pius Emperor A. D. 138 - 161
Marcus Aurelius Emperor A. D. 161 - 180
Lucius Verus Co-Emperor A. D. 161 - 169
Commodus Emperor A. D. 180 - 192
Pertinax Emperor A. D. 193
Didius Julianus Emperor A. D. 193
Clodius Albinus Contender For the Throne A. D. 195 - 197
Pescennius Niger Contender For the Throne A. D. 193 - 194
Septimius Severus Emperor A. D. 193 - 211
Geta Emperor A. D. 211 - 212
Caracalla Emperor A. D. 211 - 217
Macrinus Emperor A. D. 217 - 218
Elagabalus Emperor A. D. 218 - 222
Severus Alexander Emperor A. D. 222 - 235
Maximinus I (The Thracian) Emperor A. D. 235 - 238
Gordianus I Africanus Emperor A. D. 238
Gordianus II Africanus Emperor A. D. 238
Balbinus and Pupienus Emperors A. D. 238
Gordianus III Emperor A. D. 238 - 244
Philip I (The Arab) Emperor A. D. 244 - 249
Philip II Caesar A. D. 247 - 249
Pacatian and Jotapian Usurpers A. D. 248
Trajan Decius Emperor A. D. 249 - 251
Herennius Etruscus Emperor A. D. 251
Hostilian Emperor A. D. 251
Trebonianus Gallus Emperor A. D. 251 - 253
Volusianus Emperor A. D. 251 - 253
Aemilianus Emperor A. D. 253
Uranius Antoninus Usurper in Emesa A. D. 253 - 254
Valerian I Emperor A. D. 253 - 260
Gallienus Emperor A. D. 253 - 268
Saloninus Emperor A. D. 259
Valerian II Caesar A. D. 253 - 255
Macrianus Usurper in the East, A. D. 260 - 261
Quietus Usurper in the East, A. D. 260 - 261
Postumus Emperor in Rebel Gaul A. D. 259 - 268
Laelianus Emperor in Rebel Gaul A. D. 268
Marius Emperor in Rebel Gaul A. D. 268
Victorinus Emperor in Rebel Gaul A. D. 268 - 270
Tetricus I Emperor in Rebel Gaul A. D. 270 - 273
Tetricus II Emperor in Rebel Gaul A. D. 270 - 273
Claudius II Gothicus Emperor A. D. 268 - 270
Quintillius Emperor A. D. 270
Aurelianus Emperor A. D. 270 - 275
Valabathus Dux Romanorum, Ruler of Palmyra A. D. 271 - 272
Tacitus Emperor A. D. 275 - 276
Florianus Emperor A. D. 276
Probus Emperor A. D. 276 - 282
Carus Emperor A. D. 282 - 283
Carinus Emperor A. D. 283 - 285
Numerianus Emperor A. D. 283 - 284
Carausius Emperor in Rebel Britain A. D. 287 - 293
Allectus Emperor in Rebel Britain A. D. 293 - 296
Diocletian Emperor A. D. 284 - 305
Maximianus Emperor A. D. 286 - 305 and 306 - 308
Galerius Caesar A. D. 293 - 305, Emperor 305 - 311
Constantius I (Chlorus) Emperor A. D. 305 - 306
Severus II Caesar A. D. 305 - 306, Emperor 306 - 307
Maximinus II Caesar A. D. 305 - 308, Emperor 309 - 313
Constantine I (The Great) Emperor A. D. 306 - 337
Maxentius Emperor A. D. 306 - 312
Romulus Caesar, Died A. D. 309
Licinius I Emperor A. D. 308 - 324
Licinius II Caesar A. D. 317 - 324
Crispus Caesar A. D. 317 - 326
Delmatius and Hanniballinus Caesars A. D. 335 - 337
Constantine II Emperor A. D. 337 - 340
Constans Emperor A. D. 337 - 350
Constantius II Emperor A. D. 337 - 361
Constantius Gallus Caesar A. D. 351 - 354
Magnentius Emperor A. D. 350 - 353
Decentius Caesar A. D. 351 - 353
Vetranio Caesar A. D. 350
Julian II (The Apostate) Emperor A. D. 361 - 363
Jovian Emperor A. D. 363 - 364
Valentinian I Emperor A. D. 364 - 375
Valens Emperor A. D. 364 - 378
Gratian Emperor A. D. 367 - 383
Valentinian II Emperor A. D. 375 - 392
Eugenius Emperor A. D. 392 - 394
Magnus Maximus Emperor A. D. 383 - 388
Theodosius I (The Great) Emperor A. D. 379 - 395
Honorius Emperor A. D. 395 - 423
Arcadius Emperor A. D. 395 - 408
Constantine III Emperor A. D. 407 - 411
Constans Emperor A. D. 408 - 411
Constantius III Emperor A. D. 421
Priscus Attalus Puppet Emperor A. D. 409 - 410 and 414 - 415
Johannes Usurper A. D. 423 - 425
Theodosius II Emperor A. D. 402 - 450
Valentinian III Emperor A. D. 425 - 455
Petronius Maximus Emperor A. D. 455
Avitus Emperor A. D. 456 - 457
Majorian Emperor A. D. 457 - 461
Minor 5th Century Western Emperors A. D. 461 - 480
Romulus Augustus Emperor A. D. 475 - 476
Marcian Emperor A. D. 450 - 457
Leo I Emperor A. D. 457 - 474
Zeno Emperor A. D. 474 - 491
Anastasius Emperor A. D. 491 - 518
Justin I Emperor A. D.518 - 527
Justinian Emperor A. D. 527 - 565

I still can't really see the British Empire-references... JMS himself has said that these characters where "loosely based" on the roman empire with an extra sniff of the Olde British Empire.


Please feel free to comment.

TM.

I still feel it could be shorter. There are a number of common themes to which you return from time to time. By taking these in turn, I believe you could have something both shorter and more structured. Taking time out to consider the themes you want to address and positioning them as sub-headers may help impose the form.

There are still one or two spelling mistakes ('filosophy' for 'philosophy', 'who's' for 'whose', 'liason' for 'liaison', etc.), but nothing serious. BTW, possession is spelt that way, neither as you nor I had it previously!

My main issue is still with the paragraph about the Roman Emperors. First, the comment about chronology is rather cumbersome, so it may be better to remove it altogether and make some introductory remark to the effect that you're ignoring it. Second, you have removed all reference to Londo in this section. Third is your use of the phrase 'decline and fall of the Roman Empire', which you are using rather loosely. This is my main concern.

Augustus et al do *not* represent the Roman Empire in decline, they represent the very beginning. While Republicans regarded the whole history of the Empire as the decline of Rome, the Empire itself was a vigorous entity at the time you indicate. 'Decline' is a moot point, but 'Fall' specifically refers to Rome's overrun by the Goths. Edward Gibbon, in his eponymous book, starts with Trajan and the Antonines, but dismisses them in about a chapter. In other words, they're there to illustrate what the Roman Empire is before he starts to describe the decline itself. Plus, Gibbon seems generally biased against the emperors, a true man of his time. I would say that you couldn't start looking for a 'decline' until Hadrian or Marcus Aurelius.

Personally, I would suggest two courses of action:

1. Remove all references to specific analogues. This is my preferred option. Merely compare the Centauri Republic to the Roman Empire in decline and leave it at that. You could point to the worst excesses or most feeble policies of some of the later Emperors as examples, but I would stop short of comparing the characters to Emperors directly.
2. Remove reference to 'decline and fall' and refer to the degeneracy and in-fighting of the late Republic and early Empire. Then you could, perhaps, use your analogues.

BTW, I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'imperatorial general'. I assume you just mean 'imperator'.

Hi,

I'm working on a proper response(plus maybe one or two updates in the article). Just one thing though : I didn't make up 'imperatorial general'. It comes straight out of the Encyclopedia Brittanica...and I sort of take their word for it...

TM.

About this decline and fall thing : I have removed "fall". As for the rest : If you check my article and you will see that it already has several remarks like "rough parallel" and "not in historical order".

TM.

As for the repetitions : The purpose of the article is *not* just to say : "Londo was this person on Babylon-5". It is also meant to show something of the progression that he makes as a person. So obviously there are bound to be recurring themes. I must say that they do not bother me at all(personally). Recurring themes are a perfectly valid writing-tool. Happens in loads of books. So this may be a matter of personal taste. And one cannot argue about that.

TM.

I'm afraid I have to agree with HappyDude (not that that's a bad thing!).

Without some indication as to what Babylon5 is all about, I have a difficult time seeing this entry being included in the Edited Guide.

I know you've got a link to the unedited entry on Babylon 5, but in the Edited Guide, links to unedited entries are removed so we won't have any idea about the programme.

All I know about it is that it's some space-based show involving a space station or something like that. Without a real understanding of the basics, a character study of one of the programme's stars(?) is rather difficult.

Remember that there are people like me who don't have a clue.

The thought of doing this an an h2g2 University project isn't a bad one, that way all the entries will be crosslinked and run at once.

Just by 2 cents.

- X

Hi Jimi X,

Well, the problem with a university-project is that it is a collaboration. This is nothing bad in itself, but the articles I write tend to be my personal assessment of Babylon-5. Otherwise we could just suffice with a link to the Babylon-5 Lurkers' Guide and be done with it(because that is one excellent informational site!).

There is also the problem that it is virtually impossible to describe Bab-5 in a few words. How does one describe Asimov's Foundation-series ? So I *will* write an outline of the series later but that will be quite a lengthy article. BTW : There are loads of entries about things that I don't know anything about.

As for the link : I know it will be removed so I am going to talk to Zathras and see if I can take over his article and finish it. Of course it would be much easier if the guide allowed just one link to the official Babylon-5 website...

I will check out the options of a Uni-project though...

To be continued...

TM.

The reason I questioned 'imperatorial general' is that 'imperator' means 'general'. It was originally a title voted on a general by his troops and later an official rank, if I remember rightly. You can hold the rank of 'general' (or at least command an army) without being 'imperator', but you can't be 'imperator' without being a 'general'. EB has never been a favourite encyclopaedia of mine, but they should really know better. Especially as they sometimes leave it out (if your list if copied and pasted directly).

You're right, there's nothing wrong with returning to common themes. My complaint is that they don't really advance the portrait. I still feel you're saying much the same thing several times. You're also right that this is a personal preference. We can leave a sub-ed to decide.

My point about the paragraph about the Roman Empire is that you have tried to incorporate my previous comments about the chronological ordering and such, but what you've ended up with is an unwieldy section. I just feel it could be simplified.

BTW, you have one Babylon-5 and then Babylon 5 (I would say the latter is correct).

This entry NEEDS an introductory paragraph about B5 to be approved. It is not a suggestion but the only way it will have a chance of making it into the edited guide.

Manolan,

Thanx for pointing out the typo. Basically Babylon-5 is the correct spelling but Bab-5, Bab5 and Babylon 5 are also used frequently. I will stick with the official spelling.

HappyDude,

I absolutely agree. There should be information available about Babylon-5 itself. As I pointed out, I want to do link to such a page from within the article. Unfortunately Zathras is very busy atm so he can't finish his Babylon-5-article on short notice.

My idea was/is to create a general Babylon-5 article, and then link all the character-pages, season-outlines, etcetera to that article. I am now seriously considering writing a short Babylon-5 introduction that could be removed when Zathras finishes his.

Still and all, I think that most recommedations have now been incorporated into the article(apart from the "Roman Connection" which has been modified up to a certain level )


So let's say I write a brief general Bab5 article. Would that do the trick ?

TM.