Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
A challenge: Defend SD.net!
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ryan McReynolds: [QB] Mike Wong's insistance of using real science to infer things about fiction is like the social contract in government. By attempting to analyze things, you are tacitly saying that the things you're analyzing are coherent and consistent; else there would be no point in analyzing it. You have to assume that things make some sort of sense before you start work. If we say, "anything goes," then why do we try to figure out the right size of the [i]Defiant[/i]? We do so because we willingly suspend our disbelief in the existence of the [i]Defiant[/i] and pretend, for the sake of analysis, that is is real. There is a real [i]Defiant[/i], and we can figure out how long it is by comparing it with other real objects of known lengths. Naturally, nobody believes this, but for the duration of a discussion, it is implied. Why do we stop at that level? Mike Wong argues that if you assume that things can be analyzed on a basic level then there is no logical reason why more detailed analysis isn't also appropriate. It is, in his mind, hypocritical to say, "Some things merit detailed analysis but some things do not." Particularly if the analysis is for the purpose of comparing two things that are otherwise impossible to compare. You [i]have[/i] to have an objective standard for comparison in that whole silly game, or else there's nothing to discuss. Mike Wong's way of doing things, when stripped of his insulting style, has it's merits. The discussions that we have (again, ignoring stylistic differences) are the same sorts of things that Wong discusses on his site, but to a much lesser level of detail. The only difference is that most of us only suspend our disbelief so far... we agree that the effects model makers added interesting details to their models, for instance, but we know that they aren't careful enough to get every shot accurate. I think it is important to seperate Wong's style from his substance. Even if his substance takes analysis to an extreme most disagree with, there is nothing inherently "wrong" with doing his so, if that's what gives him his jollies. There were times when I get that detailed, but I usually tired of it quickly and return to the broader issues. Now, while I enjoy reading some of Wong's site for the same reasons Boris does, my own take on things is diametrically opposed. I am all about creator intent nowadays, and I contend that behind-the-scenes information is [i]more[/i] important than canon, not less, especially when there's a debatable issue like the [i]Defiant[/i]'s length. And it doesn't stop at creator intent. Take the original [i]Enterprise[/i], for example. I figure she had to have visible RCS ports, docking hatches, phaser emitters, and torpedo tubes. In my personal universe she did. It makes sense to me, and that's most important. But that's just me, and if I were in a debate or something I wouldn't pretend it was fact. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3