posted
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.
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
posted
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).
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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".
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- 'One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.' - Lazarus Long
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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 ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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
Reading this thread is like making out with an x-ray machine. I think it has sterilized me. There should have been a warning.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
There aren't even this stringent classifications for real world things. Rocks are C0D2 because they are SOMETIMES CALLED STONES!
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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 ]
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic