Canon vs. Fanon, part 19: Sarcophagus Use

[fignewton]

Welcome to the latest edition of Canon vs. Fanon! Pull up your keyboard and join the fun. I've had lots of people wandering onto my flist of late, and you're all very welcome. :) If you're new to the Canon vs. Fanon series, you can read older entries via the tags or the LJ Index.

Briefly, the purpose of these essays is to explore canon issues, contrast them with common fanon usage, and determine how far fanon strays from canon. Some fanon is completely unsupported by canon; some is actually contradicted by canon; and some is only a question of emphasis or degree.

The point is not to condemn authors who use fanon, or even to suggest that there is something wrong with extrapolation or common plotlines. The purpose is simply to reach an understanding of what is canon, and what isn't. You may apply my conclusions to your writing, ignore them completely, or even find them pretentious or ridiculous - the choice is entirely up to you. :)

In this case, I'm not entirely sure I have any conclusions. So I'm presenting you with the canon facts, and together, I hope we can come to a clearer answer of how much the sarcophagus corrupts, and when withdrawal should occur.

"We don't use the sarcophagus!"

Sam's blurted half-memory was the get-out-of-the-sarcophagus-free card for SG-1, and it was an excellent move. If the sarcophagus hadn't been taken away as a convenient option for cheating death, then there's no suspense, no drama, no tension. Just pop the dead guy into the sarcophagus for a wash-and-spin, and presto! Back to normal! Giving the sarcophagus such a drastic drawback - the loss of soul and self, the subsequent addiction - removed the easy way out for us. Definitely a good thing, all round.

On the other hand, it's difficult to figure out exactly where to draw the line, and in fanfic writing, it tends to be all over the place. So I invite you all to help me figure out exactly how this all works: how dangerous is sarcophagus use? When does it start to corrupt and destroy, and how long can it be used in relative safety?

We first meet the sarcophagus in Stargate: the Movie. It's important enough to be part of the story that the Ancient Egyptians drew on the walls, as Daniel mentions it when he reads the hieroglyphs to Jack. When Daniel is killed in Ra's throne room, the Eye of Ra he wears is enough to pique Ra's curiousity, and he orders Daniel revived. Daniel wakes up gasping, with unmarked skin below the tattered hole in his BDUs. Later, when Sha'uri is killed in the struggle to get the nuke back, Daniel rings back up to the ship and revives Sha'uri in the sarcophagus as well.

Repercussions: There don't seem to be any. Daniel is as idealistic as ever in the aftermath, and risks his own life when he fires the staff weapon at Ra instead of complying with the order to execute Jack, Ferretti, and the others. Sha'uri is shaken more than anything else, and does not exhibit any changed behavior.

Next: Hathor. We discover that the sarcophagus not only revives the dead, but also keeps the Goa'uld in indefinite stasis. The sarcophagus is brought to the SGC, and Hathor tracks it there, attracted by the naquadah in the Gate. She manages to strip Jack of his immune system before she flees through the Stargate (among other things...), and Jack is de-Jaffa-ied in the sarcophagus.

Repercussions: None, although Jack seems to think Sam is impressed by his stomach muscles, not the absence of a Jaffa pouch. "Crunches."

Things get a bit more murky with Within the Serpent's Grasp and The Serpent's Lair. Klorel rises from the sarcophagus like a vampire from his coffin, and we get the clear impression that he spends a lot of time in there - and not in stasis, either. Bra'tac revives Klorel after Jack shoots him to spare Daniel's life, and Klorel wakes up spitting mad: "Let us burn their world to ashes!" There is definite fury, although there isn't much suggestion that his anger is irrational or sarcophagus-inspired; it seems to be the natural reaction to being killed by Jack.

Apophis gives Klorel instructions about the attack on Earth, and Klorel hesitates: "Father, the host you chose for me is strong. I fear I may need more time in the sarcophagus to gain strength." This is our first indication that the sarcophagus not only heals, but also somehow helps the Goa'uld to subdue their hosts.

Daniel gets fatally shot - "Go, just go! I'll stay and watch your back." - and drags himself across the floor to the sarcophagus. He heals, rises, and dashes for the Stargate, diving through literally a second before the explosion that rippsed the ships to pieces.

Repercussions: We learn that Klorel uses the sarcophagus not only to heal Skaara's physical body, but also to control Skaara's mind. Daniel does not seem to suffer any after-effects.

Then comes Need, and SG-1 discovers that the sarcophagus isn't just a convenient medical box of tricks, but also a deadly addiction.

Pyrus has been using it for 700 years, to keep himself alive and perpetuate his people's belief that he is a Goa'uld himself. Pyrus was probably a decent man before he started using the sarcophagus. By the time we meet him, he is a paranoid obsessive with failing memory. There is no question that the sarcophagus gave him centuries of life, but he has deteriorated to a doddering old man who seems to live from sarcophagus to meal to sarcophagus again. It no longer works properly for him, and he dies of old age.

Daniel is first healed by it, then uses it repeatedly when he is in good health, slowly deteriorating into "the man who would be king." He's barely recognizable by the time they go back to Earth, and he subsequently suffers from almost fatal withdrawal before he finally recovers.

Sam's memories of Jolinar warn her that the sarcophagus affects the khalak, or soul - a Goa'uld word, interestingly enough, for a species who prefers immortality to worrying about the afterlife. Certainly, Daniel goes from worrying about his friends, and his appeals to Shyla to spare them, to a person who is ready to dump not only his friends, but also his wife. There is still enough of Daniel left to coax Shyla into letting them all go back to Earth; but once there, and away from the sarcophagus, Daniel's withdrawal symptoms accelerate into not only a systemic shut-down, but also cruelty and violence.

Repercussions: We learn that the sarcophagus has limitations: without a Goa'uld symbiote, it can only preserve a human body for so long. And we learn that it has drawbacks: it destroys a person's soul, it is addictive, and the withdrawal symptoms can be nearly fatal. However, it seems clear that Daniel was only adversely affected when he entered the sarcophagus a second time, when he was healthy. After the first use, Daniel spends most of the conversation with Shyla trying to convince her to free the others, and he is clearly uncomfortable when he explains to Jack, Sam, and Teal'c what has happened. In fact, his behavior is no different than what we have seen after other occasions on which he was healed from fatal (or near-fatal) injuries. It seems that we should conclude - from this episode, at least - that sarcophagus use is only dangerous when it is used to prolong life, not to heal injuries.

The sarcophagus gets mentioned again in The Tok'ra, when Martouf confirms the Tok'ra aversion to sarcophagus use because it "drains the good from our hearts" and Daniel wryly adds, "I can vouch for that." We learn that a symbiote prolongs a human's life to approximately 200 years without sarcophagus use, although it is unclear whether this is because the symbiote heals all injuries and illnesses, because the symbiote somehow slows aging, or a combination of both.

In Serpent's Song, Janet tells Hammond that a sarcophagus is the only thing that could heal the symbiote. Janet also tells Martouf that Apophis is showing sarcophagus withdrawal symptoms. Apophis doesn't bother asking for one; instead, he asks for a new host. Either he doesn't know that his own snakey self is so badly injured; or he is confident that in a healthy host, he can heal himself; or he knows that the SGC doesn't have a sarcophagus, and he figures that a healthy host is his best chance under the circumstances.

We see Apophis deteriorate rapidly, his body aging decades in a matter of hours. It is unclear if this drastic acceleration is a natural result of a Goa'uld dying, an after-effect of the torture he suffered before he fled to the Tau'ri, or a lack of sarcophagus use. Saroosh/Selmac also showed extreme signs of age, which would lead me to theorize that all Goa'uld do show signs of age as they near death, and that the acceleration was caused by the symbiote's illness/suffering; but, as I said, that's certainly open to speculation.

After he dies, and the SGC gives his body to Sokar, Martouf tells the Tau'ri that Sokar will revive Apophis in a sarcophagus for the purpose of torturing him to death, over and over again. It is interesting that Martouf doesn't show any concern for the poor host who will suffer alongside Apophis, but in terms of repercussions, this is the first time SG-1 realizes that the sarcophagus can actually be used against someone's will, as an instrument of torture.

It is interesting to note that when the team and Martouf next encounter Apophis is The Devil You Know, the aging has been reversed. On the other hand, it seems that there are some things that it can't heal completely - Apophis has some kind of metal prosthesis/bandage on his face. Since he is still sporting a reduced whatever-it-is-when we meet him in Enemies, it can't be attributed to Sokar deliberately programming the sarcophagus not to heal Apophis completely, or Sokar inflicting some kind of wound after the final sarcophagus use. I think this detail deserves more attention than it gets, because the implication has always been that the sarcophagus can heal anything.

Of course, we know that Apophis has a sarcophagus in Enemies - not only do we actually see his Jaffa escorting it down the corridor, but he also used it on Teal'c. Teal'c was killed by a staff weapon blast to the back when he went after Tanith on Vorash, literally dying in Jack's arms. When we next see Teal'c, alive and whole, he is also serving Apophis as his First Prime again - when he was healed in the sarcophagus, he was also brainwashed.

Repercussions: We gain additional confirmation that the sarcophagus somehow weakens a person's personality and soul, as Apophis is able to brainwash Teal'c so thoroughly that he maintains that his every action since meeting the Tau'ri has actually been in the service of Apophis. Note that Apophis didn't regress Teal'c's memories; he reprogrammed him. We have ample proof of this in Threshold, when we learn how a younger Teal'c suffered from doubt for many, many years before he met SG-1 on Chulak.

The next time we see a sarcophagus is in The Tomb, where it was used as a particularly gruesome form of recycled execution. Jack calls it "officially the worst way to go," although our next direct encounter with the sarcophagus probably changed his mind...

We get another reference to the sarcophagus in Summit, when Jacob tries to convince Daniel that the hosts of the System Lords are beyond help: "The human host of a System Lord has been through the sarcophagus countless times. We know the toll that takes. They're hundreds, sometimes thousands of years old. Never mind the psychological damage they suffered; physically, without the Goa'uld sustaining them, they'd die anyway." The rapid aging and subsequent death of Apophis' host in Serpent's Song seems to confirm this.

In Abyss, Ba'al first heals Jack after Kanan abandons him, then repeatedly tortures him to death for information, reviving him in the sarcophagus each time for the next round. Daniel passionately begs Jack to ascend, rather than let the sarcophagus strip him of his goodness: "This is not your life we're talking about, Jack! This is your soul!" When Jack finally escapes and makes it back to Earth, Sam tells Teal'c and Jonas that Janet "says he'll probably suffer withdrawal symptoms from so much time in a sarcophagus."

Repercussions: Despite Daniel's open admission that Ascension doesn't lend omniscience, he does confirm for us again that the sarcophagus destroys a person's essence, as he warns that after too many cycles in the sarcophagus, Jack wouldn't be able to ascend even if he wanted to do so. And despite Jack being either dead or near-dying each time he was put in the sarcophagus, he is expected to undergo withdrawal. It should be noted that other than Janet's stated assumption, there is no proof that Jack actually suffered addiction. Nevertheless, this is the first time it is suggested that sarcophagi are just as dangerous when used for healing fatal injuries as they are when they are used to prolong life.

We learn more about sarcophagus limitations for the Goa'uld in Fallen/Homecoming. Yu has become irrational and irritable, and Oshu, his First Prime, tells Teal'c that Yu spends much of his time in the sarcophagus. It may have taken millennia instead of centuries, but Yu is in much the same position as Pyrus - he needs to use the sarcophagus constantly, and is getting old and infirm. Oshu tells Teal'c that he believes Yu has "has reached the point where he is incapable" of taking another host. On the other hand, Yu has always been the Goa'uld most willing to work with the Tau'ri - partially because his domain doesn't really clash with Earth's part of the galaxy, and partially because he's supposed to be a more decent Goa'uld, for whatever value of "decent." That does tend to contradict the general trend of the sarcophagus causing a deterioration in goodness.

Repercussions: The Goa'uld, like non-blended humans, suffer a limit to just how long the sarcophagus can prolong their lives. We are also offered the speculation that aging symbiotes might not be able to change host bodies. This seems to contradict Ra, who was the Supreme System Lord and whose host body was that of a child's; on the other hand, show canon supersedes movie canon, and Ra could have risen to supremacy even if Yu was much older.

We don't see the sarcophagus again after this, but we do learn a little more about it in Evolution, when the SGC and the Tok'ra are trying to figure out the Kull warriors (aka "supersoldiers"). The sarcophagus was invented by the Goa'uld based on the Telchak device, and the Tok'ra have always hoped there was some way to refine it further to get the sarcophagus benefits without the bad side effects. Since the Kull warriors were created with sarcophagus-like technology, they hope that by tracking down the device, they might be able to engineer a weapon to defeat them.

Daniel and Bill Lee find the Telchak device and are promptly abducted by Rafael and his merry men. When Rafael randomly pushes enough buttons to trigger the device, he rapidly shows signs of extreme addiction: he claims to be feeling better and more powerful, he kills his own subordinate for arguing with him, and is nearly demented when he finally catches Daniel after his escape. The device - either because it is more primitive, or because it isn't in an enclosed area like the sarcophagus - reanimates dead tissue, but brings Chalo back to zombiehood instead of actual life.

Repercussions: We now know that the sarcophagus - and its more powerful/primitive predecessor, the Telchak device - can reanimate living tissue that is now dead with varying degrees of success, but can't animate tissue that was never alive in the first place.

One last mention of the sarcophagus in Death Knell, when Jacob and Hammond discover that the Tok'ra Council went behind Selmac's back and sent an operative to a certain System Lord. Jacob tells Hammond that the Tok'ra agents "take special precautions to ensure that the brain is not left intact" if they are captured, and that "no revival is possible" by a sarcophagus. This puts the events of Deadman's Switch in rather alarming perspective, actually: what was going to happen when Korra tried to bite down on a capsule that would have left his brain so badly destroyed that he couldn't have been revived by a sarcophagus? And how far would the blast radius have gone?

So, to sum up the various repercussions we've uncovered:

Unblended humans: The sarcophagus heals injuries - even fatal ones - and prolongs life. With the exception of Abyss, which in itself is uncertain, the healing/revival process does not seem harmful. But using the sarcophagus with a healthy body for the purpose of prolonging life is unquestionably dangerous to the person's soul and sense of self: the user will be invigorated and powerful, but he will also be warped and changed in personality. There is a limit to how long a life may be prolonged; in the case of Pyrus, it was approximately 700 years.

Hosts with symbiotes:The sarcophagus can be used as a stasis chamber, and heals injuries - even fatal ones - and prolongs life. A human playing host to a symbiote will live for some 200 years; with the sarcophagus, that number is increased exponentially, but not indefinitely. When a symbiote with a healthy host uses the sarcophagus, it not only prolongs life, but it also helps subdue the human mind. The Tok'ra's refusal to use the sarcophagus, and their avoidance of what the sarcophagus does to the soul of both human and symbiote, is the greatest explanation of why they are not evil like the System Lords.

Let's take a look at another difficult question: How long does it take the sarcophagus to work? Minutes? Hours? There doesn't seem to be any clear canon for this. Actually, there is canon for this! Unfortunately, it doesn't make any sense. :)

Stargate the Movie. Ra tells Daniel that one of the reasons he chose a human as his host is that humans are so easy to repair. While we can't know how long Daniel's revival took, we do know that Sha'uri was in the sarcophagus for less than two minutes. Jack set the timer on the nuke for seven minutes before Sha'uri was killed, and there was a less than a minute left when she and Daniel ringed back down. Subtract time for her death, for Daniel to ring up to Ra's ship with her body, for Daniel to carry her to the sarcophagus and back to the rings again afterward, for Ra to catch them and ribbon Daniel half to death... In fact, the movie shows us the timer at 4:14 right after Daniel puts her inside the sarcophagus, and the timer at 2:12 when Ra starts ribboning Daniel, after he's carried her back to the rings.

Hathor. When Teal'c, Sam, and Janet place Jack in Hathor's sarcophagus in order to restore his immune system, here's barely time for the sarcophagus to close before two drugged airmen show up and start a firefight. Janet goes down, Teal'c goes down, Sam takes cover behind the sarcophagus, and Hathor yells at her mindless minions to be careful not to hit her shiny new Jaffa - although she doesn't hesitate to try to ribbon him, which subsequently destroys the sarcophagus. But Jack couldn't have been inside for more than 30 seconds! Granted, the sarcophagus was healing his immune system, not bringing him back to life. Still, that is a very quick job.

The Serpent's Lair. Bra'tac claims it will "take time" for Klorel to be revived by the sarcophagus, because his "wounds were great." Apophis doesn't dispute this. How long was Klorel in the sarcophagus, then? The conversation between Samuels and Hammond suggests well over eighteen hours from the time the shock grenade was set off (after Klorel's death) to the time when the ships started moving again, after Klorel rose from the sarcophagus! Contrast this with Daniel's experience in the same device: nearly half his chest was blown away, yet he's in the sarcophagus for less than five minutes before he gets up, fully healed, with a repaired, blood-free jacket thrown in at no extra change. (Sam reported they had six minutes left about the time Daniel was dragging himself towards the sarcophagus; when he awakened, he checked the timer and saw there was one minutes, fifteen seconds left. What is is with Daniel and sarcophagi and timers, anyway?)

Why the drastic difference? Do multiple gun-shot wounds really cause so much more damage than third-degree burns, major blood loss, and missing skin/muscle/who knows what else? Or does the need to revive human body and symbiote take that much longer?

There is no other episode in which we can tell exactly how much time it took to heal a person in the sarcophagus, so those four incidents are all the canon we have on the subject.

My personal fanon opinion? I can't say there's much of one. :) Regarding sarcophagus use, I would suggest that Janet's concern about Jack suffering withdrawal proved unfounded. There is no actual canon proof that Jack was addicted; Daniel does reassure him that he's going to be all right, but that could have easily been an assurance on the emotional (and soul) level, not the physical one. And if we dispense with Abyss, at least we have a relative level of consistency to match Jack's experience with the sarcophagus in Hathor and Daniel's experiences in the movie, The Serpent's Lair, and his first round in Need: if there's actual death, a near fatality, or a serious injury, the sarcophagus heals without doing damage to the soul.

I am very much intrigued by Apophis and his not-quite-healed face in The Devil You Know and Enemies. As I noted above, it seems to be the only canon incident in which the sarcophagus does not heal someone completely. Any theories for this one?

But sarcophagus timing...? The best I can do is use Ra's line: humans heal easily, which might mean that Goa'uld symbiotes don't. The only Goa'uld we ever see use the sarcophagus due to injury is Klorel, and his healing took over 18 hours. Contrast that with Sha'uri's two minutes, and Daniel's five minutes, and Jack's handful of seconds. The differences are so huge that either my theory is correct, or... or I need someone else to come up with a better idea. :)

I absolutely refuse to come up with a rational explanation for why, in The Serpent's Lair, the sarcophagus not only healed Daniel, but also restored his BDUs to their formal pristine condition. After all, it didn't happen in Stargate: the Movie, or in Abyss, either, where Jack was definitely sporting acid-eaten holes in his brown turtleneck. Was Daniel's jacket freshly laundered, too? How about his weapon? Did it suddenly acquire extra bullets? Unless someone wants to theorize that Klorel had the Extra Special Edition...? I'll be happy to accept all suggestions, no matter how ridiculous, since this little bit of canon is pretty ridiculous on its own!

Anyway, I'm sorry, but that just happens to be how I feel about it. What do you think?

Comments

[6beforelunch.livejournal.com]

I am very much intrigued by Apophis and his not-quite-healed face in The Devil You Know and Enemies. As I noted above, it seems to be the only canon incident in which the sarcophagus does not heal someone completely. Any theories for this one?

I've seen a lot of stories suggest that the sarcophagus cannot regrow limbs or heal an old injury. So it's possible that if Sokar took took a big enough chunk out of Apophis face or, more likely, left him to suffer for a long time before he finally died so that the wound had already started to heal on its own and scar, the sarcophagus couldn't heal the damage.

Pure conjecture, but it makes sense to me.

And I got nothin' for Daniel's shirt in Serpent's Lair. Especially since in Abyss Jack's outfit gets progressively more holey as time goes on.

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. I like the theory about older scars remaining. Anyone take a close enough look at descended Daniel to see if he still had his appendix scar? ;)

And yes - you'd think that if a Special Edition Sarcophagus that fixes clothing actually existed, Ba'al would definitely have gone for the upgrade!

[sg-wonderland.livejournal.com]

"I am very much intrigued by Apophis and his not-quite-healed face in The Devil You Know and Enemies. As I noted above, it seems to be the only canon incident in which the sarcophagus does not heal someone completely. Any theories for this one?"
The only way I can even begin to explain this is that the face thing was something Apophis did deliberately to himself in order to help conceal his true identity-and his true agenda.


"I absolutely refuse to come up with a rational explanation for why, in The Serpent's Lair, the sarcophagus not only healed Daniel, but also restored his BDUs to their formal pristine condition. After all, it didn't happen in Stargate: the Movie, or in Abyss, either, where Jack was definitely sporting acid-eaten holes in his brown turtleneck. Was Daniel's jacket freshly laundered, too? How about his weapon? Did it suddenly acquire extra bullets? Unless someone wants to theorize that Klorel had the Extra Special Edition...? I'll be happy to accept all suggestions, no matter how ridiculous, since this little bit of canon is pretty ridiculous on its own!"

Over at Stargate Information Archives, this comes in on the Top 15 Stargate Nitpicks. http://www.sg1archive.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13332

There is no way I'd even try to handwave this one.

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Can't be solely due to an effort to conceal himself, since he still has it in enemies.

Thanks for the nitpick link! I don't actually agree with all of them :) but it was interesting reading.

[annerbhp.livejournal.com]

It's probably a crossover into my personal fanon, but I can't dismiss the events of Abyss. I find that episode rather fundamental for understanding how the sarcophagus possibly affects unblended humans. The writers seemed to make a big deal about the fact that it wasn't just the torture that was getting to Jack in Abyss, but that his soul was being affected by prolonged use of the sarcophagus. Because if we use Daniel's lack of evil after his *first* pass through the sarcophagus in Need (or the movie, or Serpent's Grasp) as evidence that using the sarcophagus when you are injured doesn't affect you, it could just as easily be said that *one* use of the sarcophagus, injured or not, is not enough to affect you, and is independent of the person being injured or not. Could a healthy person use the sarcophagus once and not be negatively affected or becoming addicted? We don't know, because that situation has never been shown in canon. So the injured one time uses by Daniel only prove that once isn't enough to develop addiction or soul-loss, not that you can't be affected by constant use when you are injured. Therefore I think the question of the affect of prolonged use on unblended humans is a bit of a grey area that can't be established 100% either way just from canon. Like with most things, just enough wiggle room for us to have fun with fanon. ;)

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

Oh, some nice speculation, here.

But it makes me wonder - how frequently do the uses need to be in order to have a cumulative effect? Hours? Days? Weeks, months, years? Because Daniel did use the sarc repeatedly, even if there were long periods in between, before he started going soulless.

Still - I like your theory very much. It's not so much what you're using it for, as much as how often.

OTOH, if that was the case, why couldn't the Tok'ra use it every once in a while, instead of eschewing it so completely? Or maybe that's a fear of once it's available, they'll start down a slippery slope: once a year, then once every few months, then once every few weeks...

Like with most things, just enough wiggle room for us to have fun with fanon. ;)

Yeah. There's a reason I said I'm not going to draw any real conclusions with this one. :)

[samantilles.livejournal.com]

It strikes me curious about what you mentioned about the hosts of the symbiote. We actually see quite a few people de-goa'ulded throughout the series (Skaara, Sarah Gardner, Vala Mal Doran) who prove that something of the host does exist, which is why we always held so much hope for Sha're. But all three of the hosts in question were "hosts for a relatively short time" to quote Daniel from Continuum. How then would the hosts of the System Lords, who have been hosts for thousands of years, really come out from being de-goa'ulded? Something of the host does survive, as we see in Serpent's Song, but other than a final call for death or to bring the soul to rest, could a host survive and re-enter society? What kind of life would/could they possibly have as their conciousnesses have been suppressed and broken apart by repeated use of the sarcophagus for centuries? At what point in the life of being a host does the quality of life for the host deteriorate past the point it is capable of living in the world?

[6beforelunch.livejournal.com]

It's also worth noting that in Summit/Last Stand, the Tok'ra dismiss the death of the hosts because they've been hosts for hundreds and thousands of years and there's no hope for them anyway. (And Daniel goes along with them, so he must believe that.) I always assumed that that was because they'd rapidly age and then die like Apophis' host in Serpent's Song, but I wonder if it's also because there's so little of them left that it's not worth it.

Vala's behavior toward Baal's host in Continuum is interesting. She wants to help him and the way she acts it's like she expects that he'll get better and be able to live his own life like she did. But unless Baal's host is much younger than we've been led to believe (and I don't think he is since he was one of the ones that the Tok'ra were willing to sacrifice in Summit...not that the Tok'ra haven't applied creative ethics to situations before) there's a good chance he'll either die or be such a shell of himself that...what's the point?

I really wish they hadn't used that part just for comic relief in the movie. It really could have given us a nice insight into the effect of the Goa'uld on the host.

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

I think 6beforelunch pretty much sums up my own feelings on the matter: there may be something left, but what there is can't live for very long.

I'll add that while I didn't mention it here - and it will be discussed in one of those "someday" entries :) - the Goa'uld very very very rarely change hosts, despite all those fanfics about Goa'uld stalking SG-1's bodies and brains. The System Lords' hosts have been around for a long, long time - there truly might be nothing left.

[tejas.livejournal.com]

Excellent essay, as usual. ;-)

The way I rationalize Abyss is, if we accept that Jack was, in fact, addicted, then there's no reason why Ba'al couldn't have put him back in for a few more cycles every time he died for the sole purpose of addicting him. On the other hand, he didn't behave as if he'd been addicted. But then, the additional mental trauma could have impacted that, as well. Oh! On the third hand, maybe if you're killed and revived too often in a relatively short period, there's still a level of addiction. Daniel never suffered from addiction from his various deaths (outside of Need) because they were far enough apart to avoid that drawback.

As for Klorel and the 18 hours, perhaps *he* chose to stay in (or go back in) a number of times as a way to better control Skarra. Given that Klorel was already having trouble with Skarra, perhaps the initial healing strengthened Skarra enough to make him even more problematic. Or, maybe, the writers just screwed up. :-)

I kinda wondered if Apophis' oh, so attractive facial decor might not have been implanted on purpose to prevent that portion of his face from healing properly. A not-so-gentle reminder of who's boss.

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

Thank you! :)

Regarding your Ba'al theory - that implies that Ba'al himself recognizes what sarc addiction is, and really, why should he? I can't see the Goa'uld conducting experiments on their slaves - they wouldn't want to get their sarcophagi tainted by unnecessary contact with mere humans.

Your Klorel theory is intriguing, although his sheer fury when he gets up suggests he wouldn't have wanted to hang around more than necessary.

Yeah, I can easily see Sokar doing something like that. One wonders what other damage was hidden under Apophis' clothing.

[sg-betty.livejournal.com]

I kinda wondered if Apophis' oh, so attractive facial decor might not have been implanted on purpose to prevent that portion of his face from healing properly. A not-so-gentle reminder of who's boss.
Ewww. Yeah, that makes sense. So why doesn't he remove it to heal? To painful? Too focused on revenge? Maybe just too busy. ;)

[kalquessa.livejournal.com]

See I always assumed that the soul-destroying aspect had less to do with whether you were healthy going in and more to do with how frequently and recently you'd already used the sarcophagus. But that doesn't really wash either, does it? Jacob says the hosts of all the snakes on the station in "Summit" are addicted but presumably most of them wouldn't have needed to use the sarcophagus all that often. Unless the Goa'uld just make a recreational thing out of it. Which I guess we could say they do, just because, even though there's no evidence whatsoever that they have sarc parties and get high on unnecessary regeneration. *shrug*

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

Annerb above suggests the same thing - it's how often, not why.

If the sarc can be used to suppress the host, it might very well be recreational, as you say.

there's no evidence whatsoever that they have sarc parties

Too busy sneering at each other's clothing, perhaps? :D

[beatrice_otter]

re: sarc parties

You're pretty vulnerable while you're in a sarc, y'know? I mean, no clue what's going on outside, can get sealed in, and then there's the awkwardness of waking up and getting out and if someone's waiting for you with a nasty surprise, I'd imagine that it'd be pretty difficult to deal with. So I can see repeated recreational use of sarcophagi by Goa'uld, but only when they're either a) among people and in places they consider absolutely safe or b) times of absolute need. So I doubt they'd get together for sarcing, or whatever, even if they liked each other (which they don't seem to).

[grav-ity.livejournal.com]

I like to think of the Sarcophagus as yet another of the Great Failures of the Ancients. Presumably, they invented this one whilst trying to cure themselves of the plague (I've used that in two fics, one of which I haven't actually written yet), and then the SuperSarcophagus was more extremes of the same panic, but with extra bonus Zombies.

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

Amazing, isn't it, how many Great Failures the Ancients have. Go on, point to one thing they left behind that actually works well!

...Okay, the Stargates. And the rings. And, um, ZPMs? Other than that, you've got me. :)

Extra bonus zombies are always for the win!

[holdouttrout.livejournal.com]

I was always under the impression that the sarcophagus made people addicted not if used one time, but if used a lot in rapid succession. Or over a long period of time. Kinda like diet coke. *g*

Thus, it was many times Daniel used it (or a lot of time at once) in Need, and Jack suffered withdrawal after Abyss.

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

Kinda like diet coke.

::sporfles::

Several others have suggested this, too. It may very well be the right answer. As I said, I'm not drawing conclusions this time!

[night-spear1287.livejournal.com]

Yay! Another canon vs. fanon!

the sarcophagus affects the khalak, or soul - a Goa'uld word, interestingly enough, for a species who prefers immortality to worrying about the afterlife.

Just as a quick note, my personal fanon is that the Goa'uld word for soul is some kind of derivation of 'ka' (or however it'd be pronounced in Ancient Egyptian), and that their ideas of the afterlife come from their human hosts

In terms of how much can be healed, it could be that all the tissue/body parts/etc. have to be physically in the sarcophagus for healing to take place (and perhaps in generally the right area). Perhaps Sokar showered Apophis with shrapnel at some point, and he was healed with the piece of metal in his face in place of some facial tissue (and then the sarcophagus registered that piece of metal henceforth as part of his body and fixed his immune system not to recognize it and start a foreign body response around it). If we go with that, then, in terms of destroyed Tok'ra brains, it could be that, as long as the tissue is mashed well enough...well, this little bit of brain isn't really any different from *that* one, so a sarcophagus might just rearrange it all wrong.

Ew. Enough talk of torn tissue.

I never considered the idea that symbiotes need more time to heal, though it's a good one. I thought Klorel stayed so long in the sarcophagus because Klorel was a lazy sort of Goa'uld princeling who liked his host nice and subdued, and Bra'tac didn't wake him up any sooner than necessary because it gave them a little extra time to make plans and act.

My opinion is that excessive sarcophagus use would cause addiction, period. If it acts as a narcotic and elevates endorphins or whatever Janet said, then it seems like it would happen whether the person was healthy or not (though there's no explicit canon proof for that). The way I think of it, a lot of people might get a shot of morphine once and not get hooked to any perceptible degree, but if you use it more often or regularly, then you might run into problems. And with more use comes tolerance, and then you need it more and more and would start to suffer symptoms upon withdrawal, whether or not you were dead at the initial time(s) of use. (whoa--that's a sentence I thought I'd never type)

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

Oh, I was hoping you'd chime in here - I've been loving what you do with sarcophagus addiction in your fic!

Nice suggestion of khalak deriving from ka, although it doesn't help explain why the Goa'uld would care about it in the first place.

So if the sarc registered the shrapnel as part of Apophis - and I don't dispute the idea, because it's intriguing and makes sense - what happened to the gun that Daniel was clutching in his fist? Or a wristwatch, or even fillings? Does the sarcophagus fill cavitites?

"this little bit of brain," hmm? Ew indeed!

I like the idea that Klorel was a "lazy sort of Goa'uld princeling," although I will point out that Apophis didn't question how long it took. Certainly, Bra'tac was in no rush, but Apophis?

Tolerance - yes, that makes sense. A build-up, even if it happens very slowly.

I am always endlessly amused at how casually we reference the numbers of deaths per character in SG-1. :)

[sg-betty.livejournal.com]

I absolutely refuse to come up with a rational explanation for why, in The Serpent's Lair, the sarcophagus not only healed Daniel, but also restored his BDUs to their formal pristine condition. After all, it didn't happen in Stargate: the Movie, or in Abyss, either, where Jack was definitely sporting acid-eaten holes in his brown turtleneck. Was Daniel's jacket freshly laundered, too? How about his weapon? Did it suddenly acquire extra bullets? Unless someone wants to theorize that Klorel had the Extra Special Edition...? I'll be happy to accept all suggestions, no matter how ridiculous, since this little bit of canon is pretty ridiculous on its own!

Can you believe it? I never noticed it! I'm just so happy Daniel's alive, every time. Kind of like the repetative amazement of a baby playing peek-a-boo...

I'm really glad you did this one (and I look forward to every new installment)! I have a story percolating (post-need) exploring why Daniel is strung-out, drugged-up, crazy after relatively few uses, and, while Shyla and Pyrus are affected, they aren't anything like as nutsoid and out of control as Daniel. I figure Daniel might wonder about that, too...

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

Oh, I was so focused on Daniel that I didn't catch it the first few times, either. :)

Thanks for your kind words, and I look forward to the fic, when it's written!

[caladria.livejournal.com]

I'm with the folks who thought it was how often, not why with use/addiction. As for the Tok'ra, I always assumed that they had an alcoholic's craving for a pint, and so wouldn't have beer in the house. One is one too many, two is not enough...

the sarcophagus not only healed Daniel, but also restored his BDUs to their formal pristine condition

It had been a long time since laundry day; Daniel's clothes were alive.

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

It had been a long time since laundry day; Daniel's clothes were alive.

Hee! Definitely for the win! :D

Yes, most people agree it was the frequency that caused addiction. But if that's all it was, it's interesting that the Tok'ra use the "strips your soul" argument rather than "dangerous when overused" argument, even when discussing it in theory.

[http://users.livejournal.com/traycer_/]

I used to wonder about the sarcophagus in Hathor, and the fact that she was entombed in one for centuries. I guess I watched too much Highlander, because I kept imagining her waking up and dying and waking up and dying over and over again until poof! The sarcophagus was opened. :D But when it was opened, she seemed to think that only a short time had passed. I couldn't wrap my mind around this, until now. Reading that she was in stasis makes sense. In fact, a lot more sense.

Another mystery solved. *g*

Oh and by the way, I absolutely love your canon vs fanon essays!!!

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

Oh, thank you! :)

Yes, if it wasn't stasis, then Hathor would've been in the same cirucmstances as Marduk in the The Tomb - dying, recycling, dying. Ugh. The stasis thing is the only way it works.

Come to think of it, the Goa'uld might have crawled into stasis on a semi-regular basis, just to while away a decade or century or two. Even all that fawning adulation might get boring after a while!

[merrykk.livejournal.com]

Considering how loosely I treat the inconsistent sarcophagus canon, I found this meta very interesting. As always, you gather up all the evidence and lay it out in order...in this case, with pretty ambiguous results.

My personal theory for the addiction factor of sarcophagus use is this: the energy that it gives off speeds up the cells' natural healing processes, while preserving any trace energy remaining (to explain why there's no brain damage, and also why there's a time limit on how far after death you can use a sarcophagus). However, if cells are healed too often in succession, the energy damages their ability to heal themselves, leading to a real physical addiction to the sarcophagus where the withdrawal is actually the cells dying until they "remember" how to heal themselves. That's all a bit vague, layman's terms and not scientific, but I hope it makes sense. And please forgive the pseudo-science which almost certainly is present...I only attempt this kind of thinking for Stargate, where pseudo-science is a cherished part of their game. ;-)

Anyway, this would explain how the Tok'ra could rescue hosts, if they had a drug or other treatment that would counteract the millennia-long addiction that couldn't be cured naturally. It doesn't explain how the personality/soul is damaged, but that's a bit metaphysical anyway.

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

you gather up all the evidence and lay it out in order...in this case, with pretty ambiguous results.

Heh, yes. As I said, no way am I going to try to come to any final conclusion here - I can only offer the analysis, and let my usual brilliant flist come to my aid for the rest. :)

I only attempt this kind of thinking for Stargate, where pseudo-science is a cherished part of their game. ;-)

Ha! It certainly makes as much sense as just about anything in the series! And it's as good a theory as anything else.

To the best of my knowledge, there has never been any speculation about a drug or treatment that would counteract the addiction or withdrawal; Jacob seemed to be talking about adapting the Telchak device further, to avoid the bad side effects in the first place. Of course, if your theory about how it all works is correct, there would be no way for that to happen.

[abyssinia4077.livejournal.com]

There is no excuse for the Sarcophagus healing Daniel's uniform beyond "Klorel had the special version."

Like a lot of commenters, I always assumed it was the frequency of use that was the problem (and the time between uses). If you think about it, the human brain is, at the most basic, a combination of electrical and chemical signals/connections/interactions. When a person becomes addicted to something, it changes the chemical balance of the person's brain. Rarely is one taste (one cigarette, one joint, one bottle of beer, one cup of coffee, one episode of Stargate) enough to addict a person to the substance, and neither is infrequent use (someone who has coffee a handful of times a year is unlikely to develop a caffeine addiction).

But you give someone a substance with enough frequency and the brain comes to expect it, and that's when you get an addiction - the electrical and chemical pathways of the brain adjusted to expect (even need) the substance to function properly. Taking away the substance can cause physical withdrawal symptoms as well as mood shifts - depression, mania, etc. because all those chemicals running around your head affect all that. There's also the fun bit where how fast and hard an addiction hits depends on both the substance and the person - everyone is wired just differently enough. Add to that the fact that once someone is an addict, they're generally considered to always be an addict, even if they're no longer using the substance, because it may take only one exposure to become completely dependent again (your brain REMEMBERS). This is why "recovering alcoholics" tend not to drink at all. As Leo McGarry says on The West Wing "it's never just one drink."

Take the sarcophagus. There's no doubt in my mind that it affects the chemical and electrical signals in the brain, possibly even provides some sort of rush during the healing process (adrenaline?). Possibly this is even more intense when someone who is healthy goes in - because there is so little energy to be devoted to healing, more goes to the brain rush. So one or two trips probably won't hurt, but lots of trips close together, that starts to be a problem. And I bet some people addict faster and harder than others.

There's a lot of reasons why Daniel's reaction in "Need" and Jack's in "Abyss" could have been different. Could be as simple as their different personalities and mental wiring. Could be as simple as Daniel going into the Sarc healthy and Jack going in damaged (maybe the soul-stealing process is slower that way - maybe Ba'al wants it slower). And maybe for Daniel, now that he's been addicted once, one more trip really would be that much worse for him.

In terms of Jack going into withdrawal...I see no reason to think he didn't. I mean, if you look at tv show implications, we had an episode of Jack angst. Did we really want to make a two parter where part two is watching Jack sweat through withdrawal? And there wasn't really a lot they could have cut out of the episode to give us several minutes of Jack restrained to a bed sweating through it. I feel like Jack looking groggy in the infirmary (I mean, why wouldn't he have been healthy otherwise?) and Janet's comment was plenty of evidence. Plus he seemed...I don't know. Different? The few episodes after. Quieter, more distant.

As for the Goa'uld...if the Sarc was tech created for Ancients, whose physical form is much more similar to the human form, it would be believable that the technology affects the Goa'uld differently. Maybe the Tok'ra have the genetic memory of being addicted (since they do have Goa'uld genetic memory) and know that if they had them, if they used them, even rarely, the temptation would be too strong and they'd lose the battle. If you're trying to battle your alcoholism, you don't keep a bottle of whiskey in the basement.

There's a really good set of fics out there, which isn't to your taste for a large number of reasons, but the sarcophagus is one of the plot devices and there's an implication that part of the addiction is the actual act of dying. The combination of the endorphins released when it happens and the...fascination with experiencing something mysterious and living to know it.

and I just babbled way too long.

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

Yeah, pretty much everyone feels it's the frequency, not the type of usage. Interesting how I picked up on one aspect and everyone else prefers another, which just goes to show how wise it was not to try to form any real conclusion here. :)

It's interesting that you see it as a "one taste and you'll revert" thing, when others feel that it was purely physical, and the craving wouldn't persist years later. OTOH, there were some commenters above who agree with you, too - it's been an interesting discussion!

Plus he seemed...I don't know. Different? The few episodes after.

That may very well be! Of course, knowing this would involve watching the eps after, heh.

Good point that it's based on Ancient tech, which is geared for the human physiology and not the Goa'uld one. That might indeed explain the different time frames for healing.

Rarely is one taste (one cigarette, one joint, one bottle of beer, one cup of coffee, one episode of Stargate) enough to addict a person to the substance

Ha! By the time I watched my first episode, I was definitely hooked... But then again, I'd already devoured multiple transcripts and meta and fanfic by then. :)

[randomfreshink.livejournal.com]

For the various amounts of time, I've yet to find two microwaves that actually work on the same time frames. Put a frozen dinner in one at high and the thing comes out charred in two minutes. Put same frozen dinner in another at high and five minutes later it's still frozen in the center.

So I'm going for similar tech here -- there's a power source variable in there that has something to do with coils/crystals and waves emitted and that means the timer can need to be anything from a few seconds to a few minutes.

With the microwave theory, this also accounts for time in relationship to damange -- more frozen = more time, and therefore more damange = more time.

I'd also say that less damage and more time = more whacked out human. Janet specifically talks in NEED about the lack of a symbiot to balance Daniel's brain chemistry is party of the addition (this also comes up in THE LIGHT). And Shyla was more than generous with Daniel's time in the box.

I'm also going with the unqiue, hand made theory.

If we count up all the sarcophagi (Ra, Hathor, Apohis, Korel, Pyrus, Marduk, Sokar, Yu, Baal, the one mentioned in Meridian as around but heavily guarded), there's not even a dozen. But it sort of seems as if you're a system lord, you get one of these nifty things.

So I'm booking on these being custom made at some point -- possibly handed out by Ra (what better way to get the loyalty of the system lords if not to addict them to a tech you control). These are presented as a rare thing, something only held by Goa'uld with great power.

And that brings us back to each of these beasties works a bit differently (they seem to have different models, too, distinct markings, etc). Which would account for Korel's being able to repair not just living tissue but dead fiber (which is just tissue, too, if you get right down to it).

Of course the creepier option here is that there was so much of Daniel's bone, blood and body in his clothing there, that it got repaired as a result of that -- and I'm a little sorry I just thought of that (yuck).

As for the whole addiction thing -- it does seem that that's related more to going into the box when you don't really need it. Sort of the morphine theory now -- when you need a really good pain killer, taking a shot is a very good idea. But if you don't need the pain killer and you're taking the shot, that's not a good idea.

So -- less damage = more whacked out body chemistry. Which sort of makes you think that the box has to do something if you go into it, and if it's not 'adjusting' bad things, it's then going to misadjust good things. Kind of like a mechanic who cannot leave well enough alone.

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

Oh, very good catch with Janet's reference in Need! I haven't watched that ep fully in a long, long time - too uncomfortable to watch Daniel being so not-Daniel, so to speak.

But if Janet's right about that, why is the sarc so bad (soul-wise speaking) for the Goa'uld? If the symbiotes can adjust for the imbalance that causes the addiction and the mind-warping, why does it turn them evil?

I agree that the sarcophagi are very very rare, and quite possibly created individually. And maybe Klorel's is one of the last one's made, while Ra got the original, so it's a little better at what it does...? Still doesn't explain the 18 hour plus vs. few minutes discrepancy, though.

And UGH for your creepy option. Sheesh.

So nice to see someone else agree with the less damage = more whacked out body chemistry! :) I like the way you put this: the box has to do something if you go into it, and if it's not 'adjusting' bad things, it's then going to misadjust good things.. Because that makes the most sense of all.