I thought I'd follow my rule about starting new threads, and at the same time give a serious thread a shot, so canon discussion -- continue here.
Mark says that the TNGTM and the other books have been used more than TOS in the new shows. That's true. However, the official canon policy (live-action material is canon) doesn't specify what the writers *really* love and use in their shows, and nobody from Paramount claims it does. It merely specifies what they cannot simply ignore.
Whereas the writers routinely say, "The manuals aren't canon, don't bother me with them," they tend to at least attempt a rationalization with other materials that are considered canonical. Otherwise, Braga could've simply said "TOS and TNG aren't canon; although they are an important inspiration for Enterprise, I don't need to bother with the details".
It's also pointless to try to define what the writers can or cannot use, because they can use Plato's Republic as far as anyone is concerned. The reason such definitions are in place is to protect Paramount property, the integrity of established Star Trek, not to prevent it from expanding.
For our analytical purposes, the policy simply makes the canon sources more reliable than any others, except in the case of obvious impossibilities caused by bloopers (camera reflections, visible set pieces). Without such a policy, the only criterion for determining the precedence of sources would've been things like comparison with real world naval practices, laws of physics, and other sources, which is how scientists determine the precedence of real-world sources. Under this criterion, Franz Joseph's Technical Manual, or in some cases the TNGTM would've probably qualified as the real Star Trek!
However, because we have the above policy, the filmed shows/movies take precedence, and are then followed by official sources that most closely match the filmed shows and movies. For the TNG era, it's usually the TNGTM/DS9TM. For the TOS era, it's usually "The Making of Star Trek". And for the TMP era, it's usually the Star Fleet Technical Manual (although its status is somewhat questionable due to copyright problems) or "Mr Scott's Guide to the Enterprise".
It really is fortunate that TNGTM and DS9TM aren't by default more valid than other official books, for it allows us to sometimes hold these other official books in higher regard than the TNGTM/DS9TM. Because some people falsely see the TNGTM/DS9TM/Encyclopedia as canon/semicanon, the TNGTM and other books are being nonsensically applied to all the eras.
Does this make any sense? Wouldn't it make more sense to use the Star Fleet Technical Manual to easily explain Grissom's NCC-638 (science ship -> lower number, like the Columbia and the Revere?) After all, the writers of that time used these books as their guides, and if we use them, the result is a simpler, better ordered, more realistic universe.
As far as the unofficial books go, the problem is that they are have to compete with every Internet poster because of their status. If an unofficial book says that the Reliant is Avenger-class, how is that more reliable than me saying it's Lexington-class? That's why including the specifics from such sources, unless they happen to withstand reasoned competition as opposed to a creative one, is usually a problem. Besides, they are illegal, infringe on copyright and can only be saved through the Fair Use section of the copyright law, which allows them to refer to official materials in an analytical, scholarly context -- the one most of the Internet discussions follow.
Boris
[ September 12, 2002, 20:00: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I would suggest a corollary to that canon policy:
For any specific detail from the shows, one should take into account that we are still watching television shows. Thus, background details -- though faithfully created by the wonderful people in the Art Department -- should not be treated as 100% canon all the time.
For example: Dedication plaques from "Enterprise," "The Next Generation," and "Voyager" all list the names of Paramount production staff. Obviously, Starfleet has not been commanded by Chief of Staff Admiral Gene Roddenberry from 2151 all the way through 2375.
Another example: Ships in the extreme-background in scenes like the Wolf 359 graveyard. I love analyzing the screenshots like a lot of others here, but remember that ships like the Excelsior study models were simply put in so there would be more ships appearing on the screen. It's possible to come up with explanations for this ships, and I'm not suggesting that we don't try. However, I also don't think that we need to bend over backwards to ensure that every single ship ever shown has a full background and history of development.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Thanks. In the above canon policy I already mentioned bloopers and impossibilities. The more meaningful but still problematic background details you mention can be taken care of by a strict interpretation of the official canon policy -- by making that which can be *seen* onscreen, that which is contained in the actual footage as opposed to unrelated model photos or publicity photos, canon. After all, the shows and the movies are canon, and not a random publicity shot!
So:
1) If the background details are invisible even on a DVD capture, then their existence on film cannot be proven, making them rather a part of production materials that include series bibles and technical manuals. This takes care of the plaques most of the time.
2) If they are partially visible, then the part that is visible is canon, while the rest is not. This takes care of the Centaur and the Wolf 359 ships.
3) If they are fully visible yet completely inexplicable, then they are bloopers. The big BoPs almost certainly fall into this category -- either their appearance or size must be discounted, unless one is to postulate that ships really change sizes.
Note that model and publicity shots still are *extremely important* to any analysis of the actual canon, moreso than any other official sources, with the exception of their obviously nonsensical parts (i.e. the people list in dedication plaques as opposed to other parts of them such as registry numbers or stardates).
Boris
[ September 12, 2002, 19:58: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
Just a terminological suggestion:
I submit that we take a lesson from the church and apply the term "apocryhpha" to sources originating from the writers/producers of the shows that aren't canon. This would distinguish it from both canon and so-called "official" sources, which technically could include novels and the like since they are officially licensed. Apocrypha's chief claim to relevence in discussion is that it shows the creators' intent/beliefs on a subject. To cite a common argument, apocrypha can mean the difference between having to choose between equally canon Yamato/Prometheus registries and simply acknowledging that one of each was a mistake.
The Trek apocrypha would be all the usual production-staff books and magazine articles (TMs, Encyclopedia, etc.), but could also include Ron D. Moore's AOL chats and other non-"official" material that still demonstrates the creators' intent. In this way, it is superior to the old "official" category, which generally applied only to licensed and published material. Personally, and I know I am in a very small minority here, I would extend this apocrphya to include things like Fontana's Vulcan's Glory novel and Foster/Roddenberry's TMP novelization. Maybe even Mandel's upcoming Star Charts, since he works for the show nowadays...
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
The terminology suggestion is right on the spot. I suggest we adopt it.
Now, as far as the Yamato/Prometheus example is concerned -- I propose that we be extremely careful here, as apocrypha would still override canon only when an impossibility can be proven in the latter. That is, the impossibility that a ship can have two registry numbers at the same time -- and only after the NX-74913 registry has been proven to exist onscreen -- or two registry numbers at two different time periods (Yamato).
In the case of proven bloopers, yes, apocrypha are an obvious choice for correction, but only because they're so tied into the canon. I would specifically mention the VFX people's *intended* ship size alterations as a correction to observed size changes, as opposed to ignoring size changes in favor of model appearance.
As far as the other materials you mention are concerned -- for simplicity, I would include them in the category of apocrypha, meaning that they obviously override a novel written by an outsider. It is pointless to distinguish between past and present TV shows, or past and present involvement. However, the actual relevance of an apocryphal source to the show would still be determined by the involvment of its authors with the particular show in question -- is "Vulcan's Glory" a more valid source on TNG than an arbitrary, though well researched and official TNG novel?
So, we have defined what apocrypha are, but their relevance to a particular show would still have to be independently assessed. While most of the time, they would be more relevant than any arbitrary official source, there may be a few exceptions.
Boris
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Least. Interesting. Thread. Ever.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
This may sound a bit unserious, or worse, unsympathetic, but I ask in all seriousness and curiosity: How much of this is necessary?
I mean, when it comes down to it, surely we all know that "real" Star Trek is what we see on the television and in the cinema, that some things are written or otherwise produced by Important People, but aren't seen, and that some things aren't seen and aren't produced by IPs.
Sure, there are some fuzzy areas there, but they will always remain, because Star Trek is a TV show. (Ok, Multimedia Empire.)
At the risk of sounding pretentious, I think the problem with this attempt to produce One True Standard upon which all can agree is that Star Trek does not exist outside of the people who watch it. Oh, sure, the stories exist. The sets exist. But the universe as a whole exists only inside our heads. (And, say, Gene Roddenberry's head, or Rick Berman's head, or Ira Behr's head.) But they can only communicate that through this imperfect medium, where we have to reconstruct it all on our end.
Now, I enjoy a good canon wrangle as much as anyone. I've even got my own silly little project which revolves around such questions. But it seems to me we may be grinding this question down beyond all recognition.
Posted by Akira62497 (Member # 850) on :
Canon is Tv, Movies Canon 2 is Models and such Simi-Canon 1 is Tech books and Images and such simi canon 2 maybe the Chats and Fact Files simi canon 3 is novels because of paramont connection to them. simi canon 4 FASA books (note that some designs have appered in episodes thats why i call this simicanon 4) Fan books UN-Canon
And to the Proxima i consider it to be the 70000 number not the 50000 because of the Commisioned Date. Only ship i have a proble with this launch date is the Phenox with is was to late for the ship number
Posted by Capped In Mic (Member # 709) on :
This is stupid. Even analyzing onscreen canon, there are too many differnces. Sure the VFX guys intended one thing, the art department intended another and the writers intend another thing. The writers dont give a shit about tech, they just want the story to work. The art department love to make the details right, they often would forget the writers intention to maintain stylistic integrity, the VFX guys need to save money and make things look cool.
The viewer is the one who judges the final project. If Star Trek was a creative vision that was approved on all levels by a creative authority (like Lucas and SW) then it would be coherent. But its not, its a jumble of a couple producers, a large and usually surly and/or unconcerned writing staff, a really geeky art department and inattentive personnel in all corners. The producers could care less about things that are going onscreen, so they have little control of stylistic continuity except to sign off on things that 'needs to look cooler' or 'needs to look bigger'
Some of the staff cares about making sense, some just cares about playing the viewers perceptions. The final product doesnt take a life of its own until someone tries to make sense of it, since the creators couldnt be bothered to make it gel.
BTW, this thread seems to be referencing my one-size BoP explanation, and seems quite bullshit, and, in the same tired circular argument, quite uninteresting also. I know what the VFX people and the art department intended. People intended for there to be a Yamato 1305-E. People intended for the 15 launcher Akira. People intended for Spock's brainless body to be pushed around by remote control.
These premises only make sense when someone with common sense watches them, and tries to reconcile it with their idea of reality. Me, I try to wonder 'how could that make sense' and answer it and use that answer as the explanation for why that happened. sometimes it works.
For example: A TOS episode establishes that '2+2' has an answer. A TNG episode establishes that '2+2' is equal to a number greater than 1. A DS9 epsiode establishes that '2+2' is the square root of the number of ships in Battle Group 9 A Voyager episode has Janeway theorizing that 2+2 is less than 6.
Now, I could count up my fingers a little and say 'hm.. 2+2=.. 4!' but would that be canon? no. its would be an extrapolation of what could be the final answer in the Trek universe, but it would not be established canon. we only can theorize whether thats what they intended 2+2 to be. but it makes sense, so we can run with it. all thats canon is that it's more than 1 and less than 6.
now if the writers intended 2+2 to be 3 and then the art department made up signs that said '2+2=3.9' and then the VFX crew used 5 as their 2+2 answer, all in the same episode, who would we believe, if none of those assumptions made it explicitly onscreen? One was behind the scenes trivia, one was unseen, and one was subjective because it would take serious mathematical analysis to tell if that was the number they use for the ships VFX.
would we take the writer's 3, that art dept's 3.9 or the VFX's 5, even though none were canon?
Of course not, because 2+2 is 4! they are all fucking retards for getting it wrong and contradicting themselves, and I certainly dont think I'm a retard whos going to settle for taking anything except 4 as the answer for 2+2.
So basically, fuck everyone whos wrong when I'm right. good night.
Posted by Magnus de Pym (Member # 239) on :
Is "Simicanon" the new Maxis program dealing with Cult Television Production?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: The producers could care less about things that are going onscreen
Zuh? Arguably, this is all the producers care about. That's why they call them producers.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Oh, yeah. Proxima?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:So basically, fuck everyone whos wrong when I'm right. good night.
So much for the little training cruise...
No, wait. That's not right.
So much for a serious and logical discussion...
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Maybe this would take it too far, but we could try to take a system approach. I could conceive some sort of flow chart to illustrate the way (my way) from the initial evidence to what we/I will accept as canon, independent of the specific question.
Something like this (spontaneous and incomplete) one:
1 Screen evidence (everything said and shown) | | 2 Reality check (y/n, filter out physically impossible facts), otherwise go to 4 | | 3 Common sense check (y/n, are we able to explain or disregard certain unrealistic evidence), otherwise go to 4 | | etc.
At some point, there would be an additional source from TMs or model photos and would have to be weighted appropriately.
Of course, this would only reflect our personal way to deal with canon, not the way it was meant to be from the part of the writers or the creators of props and VFX (if they bothered about it at all).
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Allright, here goes.
TSN: Thank you!
Sol System: Every writer has her own vision of Star Trek, and needs to ignore some of the established canon in order to add a personal twist on it.
However, this is not a fan-fiction forum. We already have one -- Designs Artwork and Creativity. Here, we're analyzing things, and even something as loose as literary analysis requires evidence. You cannot argue that "This is my personal vision of Hamlet" without saying why, without justifying your view by referencing the Hamlet play. And the Hamlet play is clearly going to rank higher than "Gertrude and Claudius" by John Updike.
Now, I am not saying that certain sources are always better than others, because of already mentioned bloopers and impossibilities. I am only insisting that things be explained and supported by evidence, as opposed to "This is my vision of Star Trek." What's the point of doing something if you only do it halfway -- sometimes analyzing, sometimes creating? I would argue that this kind of approach belongs to the Creativity forum.
Akira62497: I feel that's getting too specific. We can always discuss the importance of specific sources for specific cases later.
Capped in Mic: That was a great summary of the whole idea of laws of physics and reality taking precedence over official sources. After all, those are humans out there, they think as we do, they obey the same laws of physics and mathematics, so how much sense does it make to ignore established laws of reality in favor of official sources? Yes, 2+2=4 even if it's never been said onscreen, because if some laws of mathematics and physics are canon, the rest cannot be non-canon, even if an official source says otherwise. At the very least, it is much more likely that the official source is plain wrong.
Bernd: The chart is a good suggestion. However, I disagree with this being our personal way to deal with canon. The analyses should be impersonal and strive for a measure of objectivity. Again, the fact that a writer prefers his stories to have 40% of DS9, 5% of Voyager and 55% of TOS doesn't mean that he is ignoring the official Paramount policy, and that we are being subjective for following it. The writer is still following this policy, and just because their rationalizations aren't always explicit onscreen (as with the Ferengi/Archer contact) doesn't mean that they wouldn't prefer to have it rationalized appropriately.
That's what we should be doing, and you're right, the conclusions won't always reflect any one intention -- ideally, they ought to explain the show and official sources in a concise way that makes sense with respect to laws of physics and real world practices. Remember, it is the latter that distinguished the Star Fleet Technical Manual from other simple fan works.
Boris
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
My $0.02 . . .
As some have seen, I've already done a bit of exploration of the ST canon issue for the purposes of my site. The data I have on canon is compiled here:
The main point I'd like to bring up is the fact that at no point are the Sternbach-Okuda TNG/DS9 Tech Manuals referred to specifically as being not-canon . . . there's ambiguity in play. Tim Gaskill refers to them as "pretty much canon".
In any event, Paramount's position is that they do override those manuals which were not written by production personnel, such as the Joseph and Johnson works. Those are specifically referred to as being not-canon.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
First, John Ordover seems to consider Jeri Taylor novels canon, as did Jeri Taylor, but is that any longer true?
quote:
From: Arthur Levesque ([email protected]) Subject: Re: Jeri Taylor Interview Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current View: Complete Thread (6 articles) | Original Format Date: 1996/09/16
[email protected] wrote: Ma>Warp 10 newsletter recently gave its members the opportunity to ask Ma>Jeri Taylor questions. Here is the transcript...
W10>FIRST, I like to John Ordover, Pocket Books Star Trek Editor, and W10>Pocket Books for arranging this interview... I would like to THANK W10>Jeri Taylor for taking the time to answer ALL submitted questions.
[only selected questions/answers kept -- However, I would like to draw attention to the fact that out of ALL submitted questions there didn't seem to be a single negative one. I find that truly suspicious.]
Jan Schliecker (From Lubeck, Germany) asks: JS>Will "Mosaic" be the first canonical Star Trek novel which is not an JS>adaptation?
Jeri Taylor's Answer: JT>Yes, I expect "Mosaic" will be held as canon. I've already included JT>details from the book in our episodes, and the other writers are JT>starting to do so as well...
quote: From: ORDOVER ([email protected]) Subject: Re: Is The Return canon? Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current View this article only Date: 1996/07/28
First of all, Jeri Taylor's MOSAIC -is- canon. It's the life story of Captain Janeway, and it'll be out in September.
Second, it's logistically impossible to co-ordinate the shows and the books. It takes a year to go from proposal to finished book; it takes six weeks from script to screen. You either set everything in the past, like the B5 books, or you move slowly and carefully in the novels.
Star Wars is what I envy -- the books are the real front wave, with no movies or TV shows to worry about. weeks from script to screen. You either set everything in the past, like the B5 books, or you move slowly and carefully in the novels.
Star Wars is what I envy -- the books are the real front wave, with no movies or TV shows to worry about.
quote:
Message 6 in thread From: ORDOVER ([email protected]) Subject: Re: The Star Trek Novels Are Canon Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current View this article only Date: 1997/05/04
John Ordover here, Star Trek Novels editor for Pocket Books.
While I don't want to rain on anyone's enjoyment of the Star Trek novels, with the exception of Jeri Taylor's MOSAIC, they are - not- canon. What we hope they are is great stories well told.
As for the "canon" status of ST: THE FINAL FRONTIER, it falls into what we call the "grey area." There are a lot of things, like the "Yangs" and "Khoms" of the TOS episode THE OMEGA GLORY that are certainly canon, but since they are generally thought to be silly we'll never touch on them again. This is just a matter of taste, btw; for instance, my ex-boss -hated- the giant space amoeba from TOS: The Immunity Syndrome and I liked it, partly because I have a neat idea for where and how all the space-living beings we've seen in Trek evolved. So while he was in charge, we would never see another one of those amoebas, but now that I am, we may well.
But offically, ST: TFF is canon. John Ordover Senior Editor Star Trek Fiction Pocket Books Check out the Star Trek: New Frontier website: www.simonsays.com/startrek/newfrontier
However, here Ordover didn't mention it:
quote: Search Result 2 From: ORDOVER ([email protected]) Subject: Re: Novels Cannon? Newsgroups: alt.startrek.books View: Complete Thread (42 articles) | Original Format Date: 2001-07-03 02:01:59 PST
The books aren't canon, and never are, whether they are contradicted by an episode or not.
It's a logisical impossibility to co-ordinate a novel, which takes a year to go from idea to the shelves, with an episode, which takes two months from idea to air.
Star Wars, OTOH, has produced only The Phantom Menace in the last umpteen years, so there's nothing for the books to contradict.
John Ordover Executive Editor Star Trek Fiction Pocket Books
We have to look into this further. The Paramount website still mentions the two novels, so maybe they're still canon. However, they also refer to "Yesteryear", which merely contains canonical details. In either event, they obviously hold a high status among the apocrypha.
Tim Gaskill seems to consider the manuals *accurate* because they are made by producers and because they in turn research the real canon. The Star Fleet Technical Manual has been the Copyright of Franz Joseph Designs, which is why Paramount doesn't like it. That's where the current books unfortunately must take precedence, although one could argue that while being unofficial, it has been used by producers and is therefore almost a piece of apocrypha, like any other random production source.
In the end, Ron D. Moore has said that the official manuals are not canon:
quote:
...interview with Ron D. Moore, Monday, October 26, 1998
Q: What type of books are considered canon? The ones written by Production staff? A: Actually, NONE of the books are considered canon. We consider only the filmed episodes (and movies) to be canon for our purposes. We do use things like the Encylopedia, the Chronology, the Technical Manual etc. for reference, but unless it was explicitly mentioned on screen, we won't feel bound by anything stated even in those books.
In any event, if something is canon, it is on the level of a TV episode. If the Jeri Taylor books are canon, then any detail from there would be on the same level as a detail from a TOS episode, a TNG episode, etc. That's the crucial distinction. Jeri Taylor was an executive producer. Rick Sternbach and Mike Okuda were technical advisors/artists. Big difference.
Boris
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I read Star Trek novels. I like Star Trek novels. But under no circumstances have I ever considered any novel I've read as canon, no matter what TPTB might say. You just can't do it, because the novels not only contradict what is shown on screen, but they also contradict other novels. That doesn't decrease my enjoyment of reading them, though. One of the best ST novels, IMHO, was "The Final Reflection," dealing with pre-TOS Klingon society. With the advent of TNG, however, everything in that novel was contradicted by Ron Moore's revamping of the Klingons for the new show. But like I said, that doesn't make me enjoy the book any less.
The novels are nothing more than fan fiction that had the good fortune of being published. Whether it's written by a Star Trek producer, a Star Trek actor (or ghostwriter), or even the Star Trek creator himself, it still doesn't hold water if it's contradicted by something on the screen.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Well, the point of contention are Mosaic and Pathways. Whichever label we apply to them, perhaps an argument can be made that they're not as serious as an episode in every aspect. To use a B5 example, JMS initially said that his wife's book, "To Dream in the City of Sorrows", which he checked line by line, is 100% canon, as valid as any TV episode. In later statements, he only considered it 99% canon.
Still, in the case of Jeri Taylor, we're talking about a novel written by an executive producer. Very few people could disagree with her view of the characters and situations, and since she obviously didn't go the route of independently envisioning the characters for the book, the novel was canonized.
But let's be practical -- whatever label we put on these books, if anything can override them it's a live-action TV episode or a movie.
Boris
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:we're talking about a novel written by an executive producer.
And the TMP novelization was written by Gene Roddenberry (at least that's what the cover says), but we don't consider it canon.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
I'm not saying that its being written by an executive producer makes it possibly canon. It's the statements by John Ordover and the Paramount website, singling out these books among so many. I'm merely explaining why it might have become canon -- it is clear that Gene Roddenberry didn't manage (or want) to canonize his book.
Boris
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
quote: Boris wrote:
I am only insisting that things be explained and supported by evidence, as opposed to "This is my vision of Star Trek."
I see a severe problem here. Of course, that's what most of us are striving to achieve here - as opposed to the majority of fan authors or RPG players. But as hard as we try, Star Trek will always be a matter of interpretation as soon as our attempts to apply the laws of real science fail. I am quite pessimistic that we could ever find, as you commented on my "flow chart", a common idea of how the diagram should look like. Therefore I explicitly called it "personal".
To quote only the most blatant example, Boris, there is one person in another sci-fi fandom of whose (allegedly!) scientific approach you are quite fond, but with whom I strongly disagree in almost every respect, as I am absolutely sure that everything from his basic approach over the criteria to the weighting of evidence is wrong, not to mention the pre-fabrication of results and the open aggression. I can disprove for myself, or simply disregard because of irrelevance, almost everything he is claiming, even if the methods of gathering evidence are partially appropriate. But evidence may not be the ultimate proof, and even a scientific approach may become debatable. I know we will never agree in this particular problem.
Fortunately, we all share a largely common and sensible idea of how Trek should be treated, so it won't become *that* bad, but I just wanted to point out that we wouldn't find 100% agreement about even fundamental ways to approach a topic. There is nothing like the one scientifically correct way.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: . To use a B5 example, JMS initially said that his wife's book, "To Dream in the City of Sorrows", which he checked line by line, is 100% canon, as valid as any TV episode. In later statements, he only considered it 99% canon.
A divorce only managed to knock 1% off? Impressive.
The book dealing with Anna Sheridan going to Z'Ha'Dum was considered about 90% canon, and I don't think he'd made up his mind whether the extra stuff in PAD's novelisation of "in the beginning" was canon.
Regarding Taylor, hasn't some of the stuff already been contradicted on air?
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Bernd:
Mike Wong and I disagree on some issues, including the relevance of medium to the interpretation as well as the style of his pages. That is why I didn't use those pages as an example, but rather those of his associate, Curtis Saxton, whose methods are identical.
However, once you look beyond the style and verbal attacks (which are no worse than in the common Internet phenomenon called a flameboard), he makes a number of good points about the writers' ignorance of science and scientific principles in what started out, and supposedly still is, a science fiction show.
Accordingly, the approach he uses has a certain goal -- to imbue a show with realism, answer the question of "if what we see onscreen were real, how would it be understood?" To achieve objectivity, the object of analysis is not his own vision/remembrance of the show, but rather the exact visual and verbal contents of the footage which are measurable.
Accordingly, the simplest theory that explains all the measurements/observations is the best. True, that's one way to approach this hobby. It's goal is to make the show more rational and consistent with reality, to get the people to research the world around them. This was precisely the goal of Franz Joseph with his manual, who saw that fans of that time were getting too obsessed with Star Trek but didn't know the world around them well enough to expand on the show -- to write a proper technical manual. Gene Roddenberry and Paramount bought into it, because it matched the spirit of The Original Series, which was all about making the show consistent with the real world. It's what makes science fiction that as opposed to fantasy.
True, Franz Joseph wasn't that obsessed about making sure his details are correct, and did make some engineering corrections to what he saw as problems. Curtis Saxton does this likewise, although to a lesser degree, whereas Mike Wong uses these problems to make fun of the show, and then maybe find an explanation that reveals more of what Star Trek is as opposed to what it's supposed to be. For example, why doesn't Picard ever separate the saucer to protect the children of the Enterprise? Why do so few people have vessels of their own? Why are people of the TNG era so homogeneous? Where is personal freedom here?
I would also point out that I am not the only person on these boards to, at least in part, agree with this approach. Perhaps it's only one way, but it strives for objectivity, requires effort, and tries to make Trek into a better show than it already is. That's good enough for me.
Boris
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: and tries to make Trek into a better show than it already is
Oh of course it doesn't.
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
For the record, I love Mike Wong's site. Not only do I think that his scientific analyses are spot-on about 90% of the time, his characterizations of the rabid Trekkie debator are entirely correct. Read his "Hate Mail" section. If I had to put up with the losers Mike does, I'd hate Trekkies, too.
That said, I'm not at all objective when it comes to Star Trek, so I don't neccessarily care that much about scientific accuray for my own personal use. But it has it's place; specifically, for those who feel it neccessary to contrast Trek ships with Star Wars ships. In that context specifically, there is really no way to do a fair comparison than by being scientific. How can you figure out whose guns do more damage than to observe what they've done and compare?
Context is the key, though. When it comes to staying within a specific universe we're free to say, "Well, they screwed up here," or, "That's just visual effects for ease of viewing."
I don't think that Mike Wong's calculations and such reflect the "real" Star Trek universe because I don't think that Star Trek reflects the "real" Star Trek universe, as silly as that sounds. If I'm going to pretend there is a "real" Star Trek universe, I think of Star Trek the show as something like a 30th century program, subject to all the same dramatic effects and bloopers as a 20th century "historical" movie like Gladiator or Pearl Harbor. Nobody pretends that the events in those movies happened exactly as we see, but even in the mostly fictional Gladiator there are real elements.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
...the only real elements being the names of the characters.
I'm all for scientific accuracy. And as long as a show (including spinoffs) stays internally consistant, I'm happy. But at some point science ends and fiction kicks in. From there, it's up to the writers how to fill the void that exists outside the current framework of physics et all. Personally, I think the best option is to leave it entirely blank -- the less technobabble, the better. SF is not so much about technology as it is about personae.
quote:How can you figure out whose guns do more damage than to observe what they've done and compare?
See, this is where said obsessive and endless attempts to compare fall short. If we're going to argue over the credibility of dodgy calculations, which are fairly obtuse in their own right, then we might as well question the validity of the special effects themselves, since we're at the whim of those who create them. Using VFX produced by folks holding a degree in (digital) art as a basis for collating, is, to cut a long story short, an exercise in futility.
[ September 14, 2002, 10:59: Message edited by: E. Cartman ]
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
I tend to agree. I also think the whole ST vs. SW debate is an exercise in futility... but if you're going to do that particular exercise, you have to have an objective measure to compare them. Sadly, the only objective measure is the visual effects. Hence the aforementioned futility.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ryan McReynolds: For the record, I love Mike Wong's site. Not only do I think that his scientific analyses are spot-on about 90% of the time, his characterizations of the rabid Trekkie debator are entirely correct.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
I wanted to avoid a discussion about Wong's site but just for the record:
Part of his findings may be scientific as only details and mere data gathering are concerned, like his observations about power usage in several cases. But that does not change anything about the fact that he is betraying about every basic principle a scientist has to heed. And even if we accept his pretty much self-made "rules for scientific debates", I can easily prove that he systematically acts against every single of them. The scientific merit of Wong's site, even if we leave aside all verbal and style issues, is near zero. If people are willing to accept that he is following a scientific approach, that would give scientists a bad taste.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Sorry for taking this direction. It's my fault, Boris, that I mentioned (or hinted at) Wong. I should have anticipated that. But to me it was necessary for clarity as you already mentioned Curtis Saxton (whose analysis is sometimes inappropriate too, but at least he doesn't use it against anyone else).
Mike Wong is the perfect example of what we should *not* do. I hope that if I should ever become a pigheaded fanatic like him (there is a certain chance), that you will all hate me for that. He simply doesn't deserve that people listen to him.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Bernd, it's allright. I think we're getting somewhere:
It is essential that we separate the style of Mike Wong's pages (http://www.stardestroyer.net/ for those who may not know) from the method, which is not tied to any particular fictional universe. That's why a pure Star Wars page can serve as an example likewise, and there's also a B5 page using the same methodology (http://www.babtech-onthe.net).
In fact, one could also refer to a set of volumes called the Annotated Sherlock Holmes, where a number of people in the early 20th century discussed that particular canon as though they were real writings by John Watson, using real historical records to flesh out the universe. The idea was that since those stories were supposed to take place in Victorian England, why not use the real Victorian England to better understand them?
I found it interesting that they called their hobby a very specialized kind of literary analysis. It makes sense when you think about it -- this methodology, which may bother some as wrong or only one way of doing things, is nothing but a derivation of plain old literary analysis that most people have experienced in class.
What does it mean? You read a text closely, make notes about it, read the history of the author, any background materials, and, by knowing the psychology of humans and all the other aspects of the real world, the particularities of a country where a novel takes place, its history, etc -- you come to a conclusion about what it says, and then perhaps why it says what it does.
Now, if the writer didn't plan his stories in sufficient detail, the result will sometimes go against his intention. But this is also fine -- literary analysts frequently read things into stories that may never have been intended. For example, it has been argued that Shakespeare never intended Hamlet to be seen as delaying the murder of his uncle, but only acting according to the habits of his time -- yet this is what later analysts read into it, because they looked at the behavior and made conclusions that were unaffected by any overhead of the author's explict intention.
To use a Star Trek example, could a real human "evolve" into a kind of a communist without cultural brainwashing? Was Roddenberry a latent communist? That would've been a valid argument in a literary analysis class, and there are some essays independent of Wong's that have likewise discerned racism towards Worf in TNG, although this probably wasn't intended by the writers. But it may have been subconscious, and that is always acceptable in literary analysis.
Now, there is always the problem of reading too much into something, that is, seeing something that arguably wasn't intended consciously or subconsciously. But even this has to be argued over -- if we see ships always firing at close range despite the supposed 300,000km range, that's not necessarily reading too much into the VFX. One could just as well argue that the other person simply sees all of Star Trek through Okuda/Sternbach glasses, completely disregarding the writers, the VFX people, and everyone else who doesn't publish books. Considering the limited role of Okuda/Sternbach in Star Trek -- they're great artists but also tech advisors without sufficient qualifications -- such a view is arguably narrow. A literary analysis professor might give you a C for such a narrow view, and other professors who have looked into into this matter carefully might well agree.
On the other hand, if one wanted to do the same in a creative writing class because one has a particular vision of Star Trek, that would've been fine since reinterpretation of the existing canon is what creative writers do. Seeing a universe vaguely, or seeing the facts through an undefined mental cloud that one calls "vision" is creativity. Nothing wrong with that, but that's not analysis. Even if it has some aspects of an analysis, it still is creativity, and to me no different from posting fan-fiction or fan-designs on the other forum.
Hence, I'm not saying that there is one fixed canon policy that is unquestionable, that there won't be many competing theories, or that we can ever find the absolutely right conclusion. A theory isn't the ultimate proof, and it shouldn't be. Sometimes there are multiple theories to explain a certain phenomenon, and it's often difficult to choose the best. Mike Wong admits that his calculations are rough compared to what real scientists do; Curtis Saxton's are a lot more involved, but even his conclusions can change with new evidence. But the key point is, one cannot -analyze- out of thin air. That's all.
Boris
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
BTW, Mike Wong and Curtis Saxton have also questioned whether their calculations can be relevant in a universe that wasn't as carefully produced as, say, Star Wars or 2001: A Space Odyssey -- one that wasn't meant to be as internally consistent. Failing that, one is reading too much into it.
That's why I'm suggesting corrections based on a -precise- understanding of how VFX are produced in a -specific- case. These corrections are not meant to be a personal vision, but rather something that should be argued over in every case. In the case of BoPs, we might have to ignore the shape. In the case of "Doomsday Machine", we might have to ignore the size. In the case of DS9, we also might have to ignore the shape (these are only temporary estimations of mine).
Boris
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
First of all (sorry again):
quote:It is essential that we separate the style of Mike Wong's pages (http://www.stardestroyer.net/ for those who may not know) from the method, which is not tied to any particular fictional universe.
But his style is the same as his methods. You can't separate them, as they are dependent on each other. The selection and generation of his evidence is all clearly aimed at a certain despicable goal. I can only compare that to Nazi "science" that strived to prove the superiority of the white race.
Although your partial fondness of Mike Wong's methods gives it a bad taste, back to your other comments.
Your insight into intention and outcome is much appreciated. Actually, we all may be subject to a wrong or incomplete interpretation if we don't know the circumstances under which something was created. So we shouldn't quickly call the VFX people morons or the writers racists only because they make certain errors, even if they occur repeatedly. (Mike Wong is not only quick with such judgements, he even knows how they turn out in advance.)
On the other hand, there is, like with an essay you write at school and you need to fill with content, the danger of over-interpretation. What did the author want to tell us? What did he write literally? What do we read without knowing anything about it? What do we read if we explore the whole historical background? It is always good to know a lot about an issue, but then again, I rather want to understand a fiction the way I perceive it the first time I read or see it. So if, for instance, a ship strikes me as being much too large, I can try to convince myself a hundred times that it may be actually a different type, but it won't change my impression only because this one of two explanations has a slightly larger probability if we know why and how the wrong scaling took place.
Of course, there may be also the other extreme, that of people who know too little and just don't notice or don't acknowledge that there may be a problem (need I mention Akiraprise). But since we are pretty much on the same level of understanding here (and a high level, I may say), we clearly have the right to say that we are already experts enough - except for a few necessary additions from the real world that Boris or whoever likes is welcome to contribute. But I would still plead in favor of allowing statements along the lines "My impression is...", being of equal value as "Based on real-world observations...".
quote:BTW, Mike Wong and Curtis Saxton have also questioned whether their calculations can be relevant in a universe that wasn't as carefully produced as, say, Star Wars or 2001: A Space Odyssey -- one that wasn't meant to be as internally consistent. Failing that, one is reading too much into it.
Exactly my point. This is why we must make up our minds what is supposed to be consistent with our real world and what not. Saxton and Wong do the same in the realm of natural science as someone who is interpreting a poem and is taking everything literally. I know why, at EAS, I don't take into account any power figures. They were just created out of the author's fondness for gigawatts or terawatts, not because they would be realistic for the technology used.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
quote: But his style is the same as his methods. You can't separate them, as they are dependent on each other. The selection and generation of his evidence is all clearly aimed at a certain despicable goal. I can only compare that to Nazi "science" that strived to prove the superiority of the white race.
If a hypothetical Green Race could fly around the galaxy in a day like Superman, while the Blue Race could only manage a light-year a day in spacesuits, the Green Race has a superior interstellar flight capability, and I wouldn't be a racist for saying that. That's all Mike Wong is trying to show to people who have an interest in proving that, for instance, Starfleet could always outrun the Empire even though the trips to the center of the galaxy are clearly an exception in Star Trek, but definitely a rule in Star Wars.
quote: Your insight into intention and outcome is much appreciated. Actually, we all may be subject to a wrong or incomplete interpretation if we don't know the circumstances under which something was created. So we shouldn't quickly call the VFX people morons or the writers racists only because they make certain errors, even if they occur repeatedly. (Mike Wong is not only quick with such judgements, he even knows how they turn out in advance.)
Bernd, what if someone is particularily sensitive to racism (Mike Wong is quite open about his personal history, it's all on his website), and hence the only person in a large group who notices repeated racist comments? If they keep making such "errors," then their real intentions are not the same as their stated intentions. It's all perfectly within the scope of literary analysis.
quote:
On the other hand, there is, like with an essay you write at school and you need to fill with content, the danger of over-interpretation. What did the author want to tell us? What did he write literally? What do we read without knowing anything about it? What do we read if we explore the whole historical background? It is always good to know a lot about an issue, but then again, I rather want to understand a fiction the way I perceive it the first time I read or see it. So if, for instance, a ship strikes me as being much too large, I can try to convince myself a hundred times that it may be actually a different type, but it won't change my impression only because this one of two explanations has a slightly larger probability if we know why and how the wrong scaling took place.
I don't agree with first impressions being important because the more one looks at something, the more one gets out of it. However, I agree that it's important to try to watch the show without the overhead of background information, because the latter isn't canon and the show was meant to be seen without background information, mostly by viewers who know nothing about it. Only in the case of tricky problems should one reach into background information for a fix -- if there are serious VFX problems, let's fix them by understanding how the VFX would be created if the producers knew that somebody would look so closely.
quote: Exactly my point. This is why we must make up our minds what is supposed to be consistent with our real world and what not. Saxton and Wong do the same in the realm of natural science as someone who is interpreting a poem and is taking everything literally. I know why, at EAS, I don't take into account any power figures. They were just created out of the author's fondness for gigawatts or terawatts, not because they would be realistic for the technology used.
Well, let's take into consideration the fact that Lucasfilm accepted some of Curtis' analyses by letting him create Episode II background materials that will be used by other licensees, some of which ended up in a major tie-in book called the Incredible Cross Sections. Star Wars is meant to look the way it does, and Lucas has no problem with letting someone explain it in physical terms because that's how he sees the universe. The ships don't run on magical fuels; the Force is the only quasi-magical aspect in the movie.
There are a lot of weirdnesses in Star Trek, including units of energy that stand for units of power. I agree that some will have to be ignored as mistakes in favor of understanding just what it is we actually see. However, if any of those cases can be rationalized, then we cannot ignore the rationalizations. Again, I'm for precise analyses of specific instances, as opposed to a general statement such as "we will ignore the power figures", or "we will ignore the depicted sizes".
Boris
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
quote:Bernd, what if someone is particularily sensitive to racism (Mike Wong is quite open about his personal history, it's all on his website), and hence the only person in a large group who notices repeated racist comments? If they keep making such "errors," then their real intentions are not the same as their stated intentions. It's all perfectly within the scope of literary analysis.
Boris, assuming that you are familiar with Mike Wong's teachings, I can't help the feeling that you have already fallen for that propaganda. Go to the specific page where Wong "analyzes" the racism in SW and ST. Does he accept a single argument that SW may have only slightly racist tendencies? NO! Does he do anything to attribute very similar occurencies in ST to (latent) racism. YES! And now tell me again that this is "perfectly within the scope of literary analysis".
BTW, I didn't refer that only to his racism reproaches, but to most everything he is saying.
quote:If a hypothetical Green Race could fly around the galaxy in a day like Superman, while the Blue Race could only manage a light-year a day in spacesuits, the Green Race has a superior interstellar flight capability, and I wouldn't be a racist for saying that. That's all Mike Wong is trying to show to people who have an interest in proving that, for instance, Starfleet could always outrun the Empire even though the trips to the center of the galaxy are clearly an exception in Star Trek, but definitely a rule in Star Wars.
I agree that Mike Wong is disproving the silly claims from the ST side. This is already bad enough, as the discussion of SW vs. ST is absolutely pointless. In this respect, he himself, who picks up all the idiotic argukments, is the greatest idiot of all. But he is even worse than that since, at the same time, he ignores and even openly supports the very same kind of idiocy on the SW side. Oh, but only "trekkies" are so bad!
Boris, unfortunately I have the impression that you are taking the goal of scientific analysis too far or putting the standard too high. I see background information as helpful, but only in seldom cases it may be the decisive piece of information. I have been relying mostly on videotapes and screencaps, a lot of common sense, some physics and engineering knowledge, a ruler and a calculator for about five years now to create my view of the ST universe, and I'm content with it. I wouldn't say that I couldn't imagine something still better, but at some time even I have to draw a line and say, "It's only a show." And to get back to the whole nasty Wong topic, I think that Wong has become just like that, partly because he was looking into things too deeply. I for myself don't think that this would be desirable for any of us.
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
I like the scale Boris.
Sort of a reverse Fujita Scale for Tornadoes. (F0 = least damage it causes, F5 = most damaging).
I hereby propose a twin canon scale, measuring two degrees of canonicity for Star Trek works. Henceforth to be known as the Canon/Damage Scale . ______________________________________________
A source (or bit of data) would be rated (by us, the fans):
CnDn
C denotes Canonicity on Source Absolute Scale. D denotes Damage of Material on Sliding Scale. n represents a number from 0-5. (The numbers should be in exponents, but I have no idea how to do that in this forum). ______________________________________________
The first category will be absolute canonicity - and is strictly based upon the source of the material. It would not be open for discussion, or changing its rating.
C0 = data from TV, Movies. C1 = data from Authorized Tech Books. C3 = data from Authorized Pocket Novels C4 = data from Authorized Games (ship names from Armada II). C5 = data from Authorized Models. C5 = fan-generated Tech Books or Unauthorized Models.
The second category will be a sliding scale of canonicity (open to vote/opinion) - and would be based upon the amount of damage the material does to the consistency, 'reliability', and 'verifiability' of existing, established Trek information.
DO = No damage. Fits in well, does not ignore, disagree, or oppose existing canon material, or accepted facts. D1 = Mild variation from accepted facts. D2 = Noticable variation from accepted facts. D3 = Appreciable variation from accepted facts. D4 = Unacceptable variation from accepted facts. D5 = Embarrassing variation from accepted facts. ______________________________________________
Let's look at some works when rated on this proposed double scale:
Star Trek V - The Final Frontier C0D4 (How the bloody hell did the Enterprise get to the galactic center and back?).
Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan C0D1 (Checkov wasn't aboard at this time. Or was he? Just because the actor hadn't been hired, doesn't mean the character wasn't on the ship. Room for arguement, but can't assign a D0 rating).
Star Trek IX - Insurrection C0D0 (I can't recall any gaffs - but the whole point is to get some discussion).
Star Trek Prorotype C5D0 (Sorry, couldn't resist. Certainly a fan-produced work, and so the 'lowest' Canon rating - but tried to be as consistent as possible to established Trek Tech). ______________________________________________
I think we could have some fun with this - rating every single datum we've ever encountered, from ships in the Wolf 359 background to episodes of TOS. Hell, we'd probably have to start a new site... And the nitpickers would get some well-deserved credit.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
I'm annoyed now because I didn't want to discuss those pages in the first place, and because you're implying that I'm an ardent supporter of Mike Wong, whereas I'm, if anything, more of an ardent supporter of Curtis Saxton and find Mike's pages at times interesting, funny, annoying and sometimes way too liberal for my taste. I still maintain that one can apply Saxton's method to Star Trek, without the need of www.stardestroyer.net to show me how to do it.
However, I'll finally say is that it's quite obvious he's almost never criticizing Star Wars, allegedly because the pages are supposed to be in the format of Imperial propaganda. They are quite obviously an extension of the extremism of SW vs. ST, meaning that one defends SW and attacks ST. That simple. Doesn't mean that a particular piece of analysis that goes towards the defense of SW is wrong or that a particular piece of analysis that goes towards an attack on ST is wrong likewise. Those pages clearly aren't supposed to represent a comprehensive analysis of any topic, because their author expects the other side to correct him on any misstatements.
For instance, I once pointed out that the Data could've phasered a hologram in "Insurrection" because some holograms are accompanied by forcefields that could've transmitted the shot into a generator. He conceded to this. That's how those pages are being generated -- the ST side is responsible for defending ST, the SW side attacks ST, and if there isn't enough defense of ST, the page ends up being one-sided, which happens to be consistent with the propaganda format.
I'm not saying I agree with everything he says either -- I think they're an interesting read. Why does it have to be black or white?
That's where I feel we must separate a particular website from the method. I've never, ever hinted that the style is even remotely what I would attempt to reproduce. I agree with you in that to me, it's likewise pointless to deal with people who can't grasp the obvious about either of the universa. That's why I'm not pointing there, I'm pointing elsewhere -> www.theforce.net/swtc/,www.babtech-onthe.net. If anything, you should be pointing out the flaws of these pages.
As for going too deeply -- the point is, you're only going too deeply into the real world. If you want to comment on stardates, it's relevant to know about real-world timekeeping systems first and you'll save a lot of time considering one or the other possibility. In the meantime, you've learned a lot about timekeeping systems. The other alternative is to speculate on them based on a partial knowledge of timekeeping and someone else's uninformed but official speculations. Obviously, since such researches take time, you're not going to comment on things that don't interest you. That's my approach on things.
Anyway, this discussion was supposed to establish a rough precedence of sources, and we ended up discussing depth of analysis. Now I'm way too annoyed to continue.
Boris
[ September 15, 2002, 18:49: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Oh, lighten up. Just because someone disgrees with you doesn't mean that they hate you and your mum.
I actually have never been to Mike Wong's pages until today. Two things stick out:
1/ Most of the pages aren't written as "imperial propoganda" in the slightest. Unless the Empire says "fuck" a lot more in it's publications than it does in the cinema.
2/ He prefers the "The Last Outpost" Ferengi to Quark and co. Mental.
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
This may sound like backpeddling (and I doubt if anyone even cares), but I wanted to mention that the parts of Mike Wong's site that I enjoy are the actual Trek technical analyses. The phaser and power pages, especially, have some good stuff in them. Not being all that into Star Wars, I don't generally read that end of it. I do enjoy his hate mail page, though. Even if one thinks Wong is full of shit, compared to some of the people he's debated he's a genius.
I actually like the dual scale idea, though implementing it would be a monumental task. It also suffers from the sort of subjectivity that "canon" is supposed to avoid, being that one person's interpretation of the "damage" a given data point does may differ from another. For instance, I might think "Acquisition" is a D2, while Bernd might call it a D4 or 5.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Reading this thread is like making out with an x-ray machine. I think it has sterilized me. There should have been a warning.
Posted by Magnus de Pym (Member # 239) on :
There aren't even this stringent classifications for real world things. Rocks are C0D2 because they are SOMETIMES CALLED STONES!
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
I'm sorry again, Boris, for raising this issue here. I see that you rather wanted to point out that Curtis Saxton's methods than defending Mike Wong's site. But you can't expect from me to accept your arguments. I hope you don't see this as a personal feud.
Any attempt of any person to defend Mike Wong in any way will always meet my fierce resistance. Mike Wong may be a nice guy in the real world, but he shows his ugly face in what he is doing on the web. He is a "web fascist", his intention is fascist, his treatment of people is fascist, his methods are fascist, his language&style is fascist, his site is fascist. I don't mean that he is going to conquer the world or something like that, but that he spreads his semi-truths, his gloat and his insults just to hurt people. He strives to destroy something that we all have a lot of fun with - and takes great pleasure in that.
quote:Even if one thinks Wong is full of shit, compared to some of the people he's debated he's a genius.
That's symptomatic. By selectively picking the stupid comments, he creates the impression that all Trek fans are idiots. Of course, Wars fans are the brightest minds of all galaxies, as is proven in Mike Wong's message board.
quote:and if there isn't enough defense of ST, the page ends up being one-sided, which happens to be consistent with the propaganda format.
Oh yes, he really tries hard to find arguments in favor of ST. He is so objective. And as for the match between the content and the persentation format, hiding between a puppet or a mask is a perfidious form of propaganda.
[ September 16, 2002, 02:16: Message edited by: Bernd ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I am going to exercise what little "old man" status I have here and suggest that this thread has gone about as far as it can go, and I think we should move on.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
The scale, Treknophyle, is about what I have been subconsciously using all the time. Good idea to express it in categories and figures. Two comments:
1. Wouldn't authorized games, novels and models all be in the same category? They are different types of fiction, but essentially on the same level of canonicity.
2. I agree with Ryan that we won't agree in certain points. Taking the Ferengi example again, the difference in our assessments is that Ryan applies a rather strict definition for what is an error, whereas to me a chain of unlikely conditions is an error. This seems to be more than only a different perception of certain events. So if we are to classify events with this scheme, we may agree about the "C" rating, but should accept the contrast in the "D" ratings (rather than try to convince people who just have different ideas of how it should be seen), even if they vary considerably. Just my initial idea of the new SWDAO.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I hate weekends. They are the invention of hatemonging fundamentalists who only aim to keep me away from my net connection.
Aaaannyway. This thread has plenty of good elements in it, but enough is enough. Please branch it in two or something. "Serious Thread 02: Canon Policy NOT Mike Wong" might be a good idea for the first. The second should go to the flameboard now.
I think Boris and Bernd actually have a good rapport on the touchy subject, so there's no need to leave this one open even for apologies...
(waves hand) This is not the thread you are looking for. You don't need to see their arguments. You may go on. Go on, go on.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)