Sfdebris.net

In my case, while I do have some thoughts on plausibility my ideas are more of a conditional "IF <X> happens THEN <Y> needs to follow" kind of thing.

A more relevant point to sci-fi and fantasy regarding the whole representation thing (including but not limited to disability) is that you need to make sure things fit the setting and if it doesn't, then don't do it. Not everything is going to fit in every setting, so don't shoehorn in something that doesn't work for the sake of hunting brownie points.

Nah. If you decide to put it in your setting, then it fits.

Not everyone will necessarily agree with how well it fits, but you put it there so there it is. You should absolutely consider what it means for your setting that there are certain types of people and you won't be doing your audience any favors by including only the bare minimum to acknowledge their existence, so if you're going to include something then it should be more than a token effort. But that's just regular old writing, the kind you should be doing for everything you include, no matter what your motivation.

Now, I do think pandering can be a problem, particularly if you're not familiar with the group you're representing. But if it's a group you're a part of, that is a problem you're less likely to have, and if it's a group you're not a part of, it's a problem that's extremely easy to get help on in the internet age. But honestly, your reasons for making a character a certain way can range from "the plot can't happen if it's not this type of person" to "eh, I just felt like it." it's after you make that decision that problems can arise based on your lack of knowledge or your fear at what the reaction might be.

I can't agree at all, it's absolutely possible to put things in your setting that don't fit or contradict other parts.

It's a big part of what Chuck's often pointed out in bad episodes or bad works, just for one example.

CrashGordon94 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 9:28 pm possible to fit things in your setting that don't fit

hmmm... honestly even if I'm being generous and not calling that a contradiction, it's basically one of the points I just made.

Essentially, what I'm getting at, is that everything included in the work is, in fact, in the work. Therefore it has a place. You can say that something being there is a problem, but you have to actually argue that, it's not just a given.

For example, in the episode Whom Gods Destroy, it is mentioned that mental illness has been almost entirely cured in the federation, with the exception of twelve individuals, who I guess have, like... super psychosis or something. Well, then why is it that later on there are characters like Commodore Decker, who clearly suffers from PTSD, or Lieutenant Barclay, who clearly has some sort of anxiety disorder? Clearly, they don't fit, they shouldn't have been written into this setting.

On the other hand, there is nothing in any episode of Star Trek to suggest that physical disabilities have been eliminated. You can say that they ought to have been, but that's something you, the viewer, is bringing to your personal reading of the franchise, just like when you, I am guessing, decided that just because Kirk says that mental illness is a thing of the past, he's ignorant of the truth, or exaggerating, or whatever reason it is that you think it's OK to allow for characters that have mental health disorders.

Also, your example is very broad so I can't really argue against it, other than to say that Chuck also doesn't bring up every contradiction in the work he reviews, and in fact I would argue that contradictions and other such continuity stuff is actually just a small part of his process of critique, and that he tends to focus more on characterization and plot. Plus, like... he's just a viewer with an opinion. He's not always correct 100% of the time, and I'm pretty sure he'd be the first to admit that.

I think I made a typo that screwed up what I was trying to say. Just edited to fix that now.

Meant to say it's possible to PUT something in that doesn't fit.

And something simply being there doesn't mean it fits, it just means it's there. Something can be present and unfitting.

I didn't really have any specific series or issue in mind, it was a general point.

Freeverse wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 12:20 am

CrashGordon94 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 9:28 pm possible to fit things in your setting that don't fit

hmmm... honestly even if I'm being generous and not calling that a contradiction, it's basically one of the points I just made.

Essentially, what I'm getting at, is that everything included in the work is, in fact, in the work. Therefore it has a place. You can say that something being there is a problem, but you have to actually argue that, it's not just a given.

For example, in the episode Whom Gods Destroy, it is mentioned that mental illness has been almost entirely cured in the federation, with the exception of twelve individuals, who I guess have, like... super psychosis or something. Well, then why is it that later on there are characters like Commodore Decker, who clearly suffers from PTSD, or Lieutenant Barclay, who clearly has some sort of anxiety disorder? Clearly, they don't fit, they shouldn't have been written into this setting.

On the other hand, there is nothing in any episode of Star Trek to suggest that physical disabilities have been eliminated. You can say that they ought to have been, but that's something you, the viewer, is bringing to your personal reading of the franchise, just like when you, I am guessing, decided that just because Kirk says that mental illness is a thing of the past, he's ignorant of the truth, or exaggerating, or whatever reason it is that you think it's OK to allow for characters that have mental health disorders.

Also, your example is very broad so I can't really argue against it, other than to say that Chuck also doesn't bring up every contradiction in the work he reviews, and in fact I would argue that contradictions and other such continuity stuff is actually just a small part of his process of critique, and that he tends to focus more on characterization and plot. Plus, like... he's just a viewer with an opinion. He's not always correct 100% of the time, and I'm pretty sure he'd be the first to admit that.

It is possible Kirk could be wrong, or he meant mental illness that need mental hospital. I mean Barclay could be fine if he had a good circle of friends and a good therapist. *Cough* Not Troy *cough*.

Link8909 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 3:09 pm I'm mostly just tired of the overall negativity that seems to dominate the franchise and series discussions as of late, and being a Star Trek fan these days just isn't fun anymore.

I agree. The dominant fandom for Trek, having tired of liking something unappreciated by existing fans, has increasingly (since 2009) taken the stance that only complete appreciation is allowed, and any criticism is a betrayal. Like everything else apparently, we've polarized and gatekeep things so harshly that we can't discuss our enjoyment or lack thereof in the works anymore and it's very tiring. I can't talk about what I want to see Discovery do to be a worthwhile show, or why Picard completely dropped the ball on its own progressivism, without being called negative. I'm supposed to just accept it regardless of quality and be happy about it, denouncing any detractors. Eventually, no matter how legitimate a criticism is, people get tired of hearing it and it either gets fixed (rarely), or those people are rejected and the criticism becomes accepted dogmatically as untrue.

And the frustrating thing is, this isn't an accident. The owner(s) of the franchise set out to do this on purpose, and now they have a split fandom. They wanted a break, and so they created divisions in the content itself that were not reconcilable thematically, hoping to dump the existing fans and build an audience of new ones. But you can't just accomplish that, so now you have multiple groups of people liking different entire chunks, and the corporate interests dictating which fans are "real" and which are "haters".

That's a straight road right into a giant pile of everyone feeling very unhappy trying to engage with the community around the works.

Thebestoftherest wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:16 am Have you seen Star Trek tech, the odds are 2 percent work, fifty percent fall apart fourty percent will try to strangle you with your own arms, and eight percent force you to river dance to death.

Your description sounds like a parody. Or these days, I suppose, Lower Decks.

Freeverse wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 12:20 amEssentially, what I'm getting at, is that everything included in the work is, in fact, in the work. Therefore it has a place.

When you get to that point, you've created something that is a collection of words and not a cohesive world. It's like saying "the work made you feel something and therefore I win" even if that feeling is disappointment. You've cast your net so wide it literally encompasses everything and has ceased to have any value whatsoever as a category.

CrashGordon94 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 2:31 am I think I made a typo that screwed up what I was trying to say. Just edited to fix that now.

Meant to say it's possible to PUT something in that doesn't fit.

And something simply being there doesn't mean it fits, it just means it's there. Something can be present and unfitting.

I didn't really have any specific series or issue in mind, it was a general point.

Right, and basically my point is that whether something fits or not is subjective. You can't "prove" that something doesn't fit by pointing to something that contradicts it, because that contradicting thing might be what doesn't fit.

Characters generally agree that Vulcans don't lie. (This doesn't fit because we sometimes witness Vulcans lying.)

Vulcan characters sometimes tell lies. (This doesn't fit because characters generally agree that Vulcans don't lie)

You can say that either of these things don't fit by pointing to the other, or you can synthesize them and say that they both fit, but no matter which of these options you go with you are making a value judgement that exists outside of the text.

Deledrius wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 10:51 pm
And the frustrating thing is, this isn't an accident. The owner(s) of the franchise set out to do this on purpose, and now they have a split fandom. They wanted a break, and so they created divisions in the content itself that were not reconcilable thematically, hoping to dump the existing fans and build an audience of new ones. But you can't just accomplish that, so now you have multiple groups of people liking different entire chunks, and the corporate interests dictating which fans are "real" and which are "haters".

What. That's ridiculous.

Who deliberately sets out to tank their brand like that? This is one of the most bizarre conspiracy theories I've heard in a while. I mean, I get that a lot of older fans were put off by the new stuff, and I doubt any CEO is losing sleep over the idea that the show they own might not have met some fans' expectations, but why would it even make sense to try and get rid of paying customers on purpose?

Maybe it's more likely that they just made a show you don't like? I mean, that's happened to me before, so maybe I'm used to it, but I've never thought that it was done on purpose specifically to make me stop watching it.

Deledrius wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 10:51 pm

Freeverse wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 12:20 amEssentially, what I'm getting at, is that everything included in the work is, in fact, in the work. Therefore it has a place.

When you get to that point, you've created something that is a collection of words and not a cohesive world. It's like saying "the work made you feel something and therefore I win" even if that feeling is disappointment. You've cast your net so wide it literally encompasses everything and has ceased to have any value whatsoever as a category.

That's a terribly uncharitable interpretation that fails to acknowledge the words immediately following it...

Which honestly is a great example of exactly what I'm talking about. Cohesion isn't a physical property of story-telling. It's brought into the work by the person reading it. Like how you disagree with the idea that there are no inherently fitting or unfitting details because a story is, quite literally, a collection of words. That's the starting point, and I moved on from there to further elucidate my position, but because of your perspective, you've taken only part of what I said and reacted to that without synthesizing it in with the rest of the text.

You brought your own meaning to my work, which is something we all do whenever we read a text. And based on that meaning, we have differing opinions about how well certain details work within the setting.

Freeverse wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 12:20 am You can say that something being there is a problem,

Here I'm adding the information that while the text's mere existence is neutral, different aspects of it can be valued by you, the reader.

Freeverse wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 12:20 am but you have to actually argue that,

And here I'm making the case that while you have every freedom to take issue with something, it doesn't follow that all people will have the same issue.

Freeverse wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 12:20 am it's not just a given.

Finally, I close by insisting that the value you ascribe to a particular detail is not an inherent property of the text.

Put it all together, and you can create a new meaning by considering the work through each subsequent lens that I apply.

And that's critical analysis, baybeee!

Deledrius wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 10:51 pm

Link8909 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 3:09 pm I'm mostly just tired of the overall negativity that seems to dominate the franchise and series discussions as of late, and being a Star Trek fan these days just isn't fun anymore.

I agree. The dominant fandom for Trek, having tired of liking something unappreciated by existing fans, has increasingly (since 2009) taken the stance that only complete appreciation is allowed, and any criticism is a betrayal. Like everything else apparently, we've polarized and gatekeep things so harshly that we can't discuss our enjoyment or lack thereof in the works anymore and it's very tiring. I can't talk about what I want to see Discovery do to be a worthwhile show, or why Picard completely dropped the ball on its own progressivism, without being called negative. I'm supposed to just accept it regardless of quality and be happy about it, denouncing any detractors. Eventually, no matter how legitimate a criticism is, people get tired of hearing it and it either gets fixed (rarely), or those people are rejected and the criticism becomes accepted dogmatically as untrue.

And the frustrating thing is, this isn't an accident. The owner(s) of the franchise set out to do this on purpose, and now they have a split fandom. They wanted a break, and so they created divisions in the content itself that were not reconcilable thematically, hoping to dump the existing fans and build an audience of new ones. But you can't just accomplish that, so now you have multiple groups of people liking different entire chunks, and the corporate interests dictating which fans are "real" and which are "haters".

That's a straight road right into a giant pile of everyone feeling very unhappy trying to engage with the community around the works.

Indeed, I do feel that nowadays calm discussions and understanding and even empathy have been replaced by loud and angry rants fighting or defending one extreme with gatekeeping, conspiracy theories, and bullying tactics, I think Star Trek Discovery is ok and has good elements to it, and I love Star Trek Picard, and while only being able to watch the first episode I love Star Trek Lower Decks, but I also know they're not perfect and can improve on many things, and I do want them to get better and I want to hear what other people would like to see get better, but why would I want to listen to a person who called me an idiot for liking what they hate even if their criticism is valid, people can be right, but wrong at the top of their voice, and as Admiral Picard said in "The End is the Beginning":

Admiral Picard wrote:Nobody is thinking, nobody is listening, they're just reacting!

However I do agree with Freeverse, I don't think CBS or anyone working on Star Trek is deliberately trying to divide the fandom, in-fact going by Lower Decks and green lighting a Captain Pike series, as well as trying new things like with Discovery going into the future, they want to broaden the audience of the franchise, if anything I'd say those that spread misinformation like those that make click-bait videos or Reddit posted about rumours do more harm to the fandom, its ok if you don't like something, its another to get everyone else worked up because you didn't like something.

Freeverse wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 6:29 am Right, and basically my point is that whether something fits or not is subjective.[...]

Honestly this whole thing seems to be missing my point, whether deliberately or accidentally. Neither possibility particularly pleases me.