posted
I thought I follow Timo's suggestion and take the nasty subject here.
I know that I am rather losing than making friends now, but this is an issue of utmost importance to me. My opinion on this issue may seem extreme as you read on, but I am sure that it's not me who has has a problem with my opinion here. I just feel the need to fight against manipulation and against ignorance.
For those who are not familiar with the site in question, please go here: http://www.stardestroyer.net (You *need* to read quite a bit to understand what is going on there)
Now I would be really interested to know what merit people may still find in that site. I felt like vomiting right on my keyboard the first time I went there already three years ago.
But it's even much worse than the first impression. Mike Wong, in a fascist manner (which refers not only to the style but even more so to the methods), is building an overall ideology "Star Wars rulez, Star Trek is weak, ST is also scientific crap, ST fans are morons, ST writers are communists". He stirs up real-world and fictional arguments at will. He always weighs the very same kind of evidence differently if it only helps his cause. He picks only the worst examples of Star Trek. He frequently misuses real science for his purposes where it just doesn't apply, just like Nazi scientists who strived to prove the superiority of the white race. He exposes his university degree and expects his critics to be scientifically qualified. He posts only the silly comments (and comments on them) on the issue, as if all ST fans were idiots (thereby acting against all silently accepted laws of internet privacy). At the same time, he vehemently supports the very same kind of dull people on the SW side with his "scientific" analysis and with a message board in which all resistance from the part of "trekkies" is immediately knocked down by his minions. This list could go on forever.
Mike Wong violates about every rule of scientific analysis, of weighing arguments, of equal treatment, of internet netiquette, of decency and empathy and, last but not least, even every rule he allegedly imposes on himself for a serious scientific debate and that he proudly posts on his site (of course, claiming that "trekkies" fail to fulfill them). He claims to be a scientist. But he is a demagogue. The bad thing is that certain people follow him and certain other people find at least some merit in his analysis.
I can prove every of my claims with plenty of evidence. I have absolutely no understanding for any attempt to defend this document of preconceptions and paranoia. Please tell me! How in the world can anyone who knows this abomination of a site and who is not out of his mind defend Mike Wong? Tell me!
P.S. I am pretty sure that, in normal life, Mike Wong is a pleasant guy and I know from some e-mails I exchanged with him that it *is* possible to discuss with him, only that he would never publish that (because I am not a stupid "trekkie" stereotype who would fit with the site's goal). This is only meant as personal as Mike Wong exposes in the web what I need to understand as his very own opinion. I am in no way questiong his sanity or his ability to have a social life, although the website may create the impression that it's a problem to him.
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
This personal crusade of yours is perhaps slightly less entertaining than the umpteen-billionth debate on Wars vs Trek.
I'd quote R. King, but I'm afraid the message would fall on deaf ears.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
If I wanted to entertain myself or anyone else, I would move as many light years away from that site as possible. The reason why I care about it is that some persons in whose abilities and opinions I use to trust have a soft spot for SD.net. I wouldn't give a damn about Wong and his minions, and I don't support the Star Trek site of this absurd war of the scifi universes either because it's beneath me. But here we have an issue where someone misuses science for propaganda (I have studied a scientific topic too and I wonder what they taught Wong), and too many usually sensible people are not critical about that.
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
What is there to defend??? He runs his place with his ideology, as does CC. Asking to attack, or defend, any site is based solely on ones view of life, there are hundreds, at least, or sites that I look at and think, 'What a fucking moron.", but other may look at and think, "Hey, that's cool.".
Then with a domain name such as it has, I can see that they are less likely to be willing to except ST ideas over those of SW. Like UP putting up a star destroyer....
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
A few days ago I read an essay by Joseph Stalin where he defines nationalism (in class). We read parts of Mein Kampf in high school and university, a book forbidden in Germany. Although some were worried that we were reading Nabokov's Lolita at the age of 17 (talking about a 40-year old having a relationship with a 13-year old), it was a good novel and we discussed it for what it is. Jerry Lee Lewis has had a weird life even for a rock star, yet I can play his music even though I don't drink a lot, wouldn't marry my thirteen-year-old cousin or accidentally shoot my drummer (he was wounded).
Does Stalin's history mean that some of his thoughts about nationalism aren't valid? What if he was the only person looking at nationalism in a certain way? If I accept some of his arguments, does that mean I'm defending Stalin as a whole? I would not be acting in the interest of Stalin, I'm acting in the interest of a particular argument. You seem to be suggesting that Saxton's method of analysis + Star Trek = Mike Wong.
I'm not even suggesting Mike Wong is remotely comparable to Stalin, because he's an ok guy creating an often humorous website about a fictional Evil Galactic Empire. Being not as liberal, I've become extremely uncomfortable with some of the contents, though, and once sent him an angry e-mail about it. But he happens to be the only person trying to use real science to explain what we see onscreen, which is why I find some of his conclusions unique and valid. If there were other sites using the same particular method on Star Trek, one which I find interesting because it reveals just about every writing flaw and demands a higher standard on the part of the writers, I would be mentioning those sites and not using Curtis' site which looks at Star Wars.
Boris
[ September 16, 2002, 08:12: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
I have sort of demanded a statement from you that you would completely dissociate from Mike Wong's site and all of its content. I think I have to apologize here.
The examples you mentioned are all valid, but wouldn't it be necessary to draw a line somewhere? I mean, would you quote Hitler or Stalin or any other despicable dictator as a positive example, and if only in a small side note, in an essay about bulding a modern democratic state? You are aware what would happen if you did.
I admit that Mike Wong's site has a few passages that are nice reading and reflect a correct understanding of science, but what are they worth for us, considering that they stand in the whole context of his ideologic debate? You could take Mike Wong as an example, let's say for exemplary web design, but not as an example for scientific analysis or for interpretation of fiction.
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
But I'm not. I'm taking Curtis Saxton as that example, because just as there are more politically correct ways to support an argument for a democracy, there are more politically correct ways to support an argument for explaining what we see onscreen in terms of real physics and real human behavior.
You seem to be implying that looking too close on a show will always result in an attack on the show. That Curtis Saxton + Star Trek = an attack on Star Trek in the Mike Wong style. It is quite possible that a conclusion based on such a deep analysis will be supported by the writers (let's keep in mind that a lot of DS9 writers such as Ron Moore also noticed the problems with the Prime Directive or Perfect Humanity, and finally made O'Brien say in a sarcastic voice "we believe we've evolved..."). I find the revealing of such flaws good for Star Trek, and good for viewers who might be misled by the ideology portrayed onscreen.
But, again, I wouldn't necessarily use Mike Wong as an example, knowing that this will become problematic. I would use Ron Moore or an arbitrary essayist from one of those Essays on Star Trek types of books. Or I would point to Curtis Saxton's methods and suggest to someone to, just for fun, try to play by those rules and see what the results are.
posted
I am the last person who would deny general flaws in fiction such as Star Trek and Star Wars. But as I already mentioned in the previous thread that is now locked through my fault, I think that Curtis Saxton takes the whole issue a step too far. Call it over-analysis or over-interpretation or looking too closely. At some point we have to admit that it's only fiction and that we can't apply all of the rules exactly how they are in our real world. Curtis Saxton and Mike Wong pretend that everything must be understood just the way we see it. But stepping through single frames of a tape is not a valid method, as we are not supposed to see it that way. In a wider sense, ignoring that things may have been exaggerated or otherwise altered for the sake of drama or are just errors in the scipt or are mispronounced or are due to lacking VFX is not a valid approach.
Have a look at Wong's arguments. As much as he seems to understand the principles of physics, as much as he pretends to take into account a background, he fails to grasp the very sense of the fiction. He is obsessed with quoting bad technobabble of Star Trek and with proving that all kinds of devices like the transporter are crap as depicted, but even if his analysis were fair or were true (which it isn't) would he make a point with that? Would the flaws of some concepts or even single statements in any way devalue Star Trek as science fiction?
Of course, Star Wars is free of such flaws in his view, and even turbolasers, "1.5 over light" or the reactor that works "like a little sun" find a perfect explanation. Fine. I don't complain about that. If I were an SW fan, it would be content with that, knowing that it's only a show, made by people who sometimes make errors. But Wong makes it a dogma that Star Wars is free of errors (or at least, that errors may be explained), whereas Star Trek is all crap because some details are flawed. That's what I call, besides the ideological one-sidedness, a total failure to understand (science) fiction.
Still, I know that his mis-assessment of fiction is intentional after reading a bit of his own novel which, surprisingly and paradoxically, is more balanced than the alleged scientifically correct parts of the site. Of course, he says he is doing Star Trek a favor by displaying it in a better light than it is. Must I be grateful now?
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Saxton and Wong don't hide the possibility that their conclusions will be different from what was intended, that it may not make sense to *impose* consistency on a universe. I've had this discussion with them, and Wong does seriously question whether it makes sense to apply such methods even to Star Wars (e-mail conversation). However, since they see it more as a scientific exercise than literary analysis, they don't care about the result.
Then again, how deep is too deep? What is rational to me may be irrational to someone else used to analyzing TV while watching it, just as some people analyze a book while reading. With such a closer look, you find an explanation that is a lot more reasonable with respect to what you've seen onscreen or read, even if it completely perverts the original intention. George Lucas takes a peek, says, "Great, I can use this to tell people that my show makes as much sense as 2001, or that I've planned it out perfectly." He may ignore some aspects as overinterpretation and accept others.
For instance, it is now official that the visible parts of blaster beams are not what does the actual damage, but rather an invisible beam travelling at c that arrives at the target beforehand. The only reason for such a convoluted explanation were a few instances where the VFX people accidentally made things explode before the blaster shot arrived.
The truth is, some writers prefer to rationalize the observed flaws even if they seem ridiculous at first, rather than admit to errors, even if it changes their original intention (JMS of B5 is almost always like this, as it helps him improve the show). They may not agree with everything, but they may later make a few adjustments to communicate their intentions more clearly or simply accept that the show had a flaw and now it's better. I'm arguing that we should simply show the producers what they've given us, and let them decide which "perversions" they like and which they don't. If we restrict ourselves from analyzing something simply because of a sense that it wasn't intended, we're not being original or helping in any way.
As for the sense of science fiction -- well, science fiction is an extrapolation of the present day, with all of its laws of physics and human behavior. An invisible man in science fiction ideally behaves in the exact same manner he would if he were standing right here in front of me. Were it fantasy, on the other hand, one wouldn't need to go into the how's and why's that much, but simply say "humans have evolved, accept it". Science fiction would not resist attempts to explain how it happened.
Boris
[ September 16, 2002, 11:34: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
Wow.
I don't like reading that site at all.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Though I didn't read all his comparative comments, I do find some of his observations important to consider in his section on AOTC. When I see the film again, I will have a new perspective on the events that are portrayed. Now, as for his anti-Star Trek stance, I encountered one such instance when discussing the weapons of a particular battle droid. They were jarring and didn't seem to fit with the context of the paragraph.
How do I handle this situation? As I do with ancient Christian and Jewish writings, I take the more negative, us vs. them, statements as an opinion, an opinion I don't agree with. I don't dismiss them nor do I pay credence to them. Ultimately, for me, the most important criteria is, do I learn something new? If yes, then the knowledge I gained is deemed more valuable in my estimation than any slight by the author against any group or organization.
Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
Um, I don't need to defend visiting it. Nor SWTC. I go there to look, that's my excuse, just like on all other webpages I'm visiting.
Saxton? Ideology? Stalin? Hitler? High horses? You?
J/k, but about the criticism of Wong's and Saxton's chosen approach to ST/SW physics, isn't it just that you felt slightly worried that the letter-faithful crowd would outgrow our more generally-seeing crowd, not that we'd ever get to see an exact estimate of the real size of them two "crowds"?
Well if THAT notion scares you, Bernd, go out and get a shovel, dig three ten-foot holes in the ground somewhere for no reason (well you can say to improve the ballistical properties of the planet, similar to the dimples on golfballs), go back inside, take a shower, have hot meal and then go to bed, satisfied with the rust on your brain somewhat rubbed off.
Chooping wood is great too, but you can hurt your legs if you miss a swing with the herring.
-------------------- "I'm nigh-invulnerable when I'm blasting!" Mel Gibson, X-Men
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
More examples -- we've seen the Empire destroy an inhabited planet, but the rebels did kill a great number of people on the Death Stars likewise, and we're talking about a lot of their former fellow citizens. How many Ewoks have been killed after the latter blew up over Endor, poisoning the atmosphere?
I'm not sure Lucas would ignore this. Although he tried to soften it, he didn't ignore the fact that the Republic was the Empire, and to some completely destroyed the seemingly intended simplistic story of good vs. evil by creating the prequels. Likewise, one thing that's interesting about B5 is that it sometimes portrays things just as one-sided, but then suddenly goes out and attacks the original POV.
For instance, in "Shadow Dancing" we learn of the whole thing where Delenn has to watch Sheridan sleep for three nights in order to see his "true" face, allegedly revealed only in sleep. Allegedly, someone from the B5 crew said "So a man's true face is all mushed up against the pillow and drooling?"
Although it was unplanned, JMS gave this line to Sheridan in a later episode, because it was a real human reaction. Most of the current Star Trek writers would've probably laughed about it, but said, "hey, let's get serious, Gene Roddenberry wouldn't have wanted his perfect humans saying that."
This wouldn't have necessarily been the case in TOS, so we must ask the question of what is Star Trek? Science fiction or fantasy? Is TNG supposed to be a fantasy show or while TOS was science-fiction, and hence, should we have different criteria for looking at either?
Boris
[ September 16, 2002, 13:47: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
