View Single Post
Old July 24 2012, 11:49 PM   #345
Christopher's Avatar

iarann wrote: View Post
Christopher wrote: View Post
iarann wrote: View Post
But as Gene Roddenberry loved to point out, Starfleet isn't military.
Which was BS, because it's obviously military in its forms and structure.
Hey, don't get mad at me, I didn't make that up.
I wasn't directing any hostility at you. Of course you were just passing along Roddenberry's own well-known stance, and it was that stance that I was responding to.

What part of "lots of things in Star Trek" didn't you understand? My willing suspension of disbelief when watching a science fiction show far closer to fantasy than science is not going to fit how I would look at things on a jury in real life.

Here's the thing you seem to not understand, not all of us treat Star Trek as we would a religious text, trying to explain away inconsistencies and such. I understand it's your job and you wrote a couple of great novels doing so, but when I watch Star Trek I just assume continuity and science are going to be secondary concerns at best.
It's not about "religious text." Although it doesn't always live up to the ideal, Star Trek was originally conceived with the goal of being a more credible, well-thought-out science-fiction universe than something like Lost in Space. On the whole, it's generally tried to make at least a modicum of sense and not throw basic logic or credibility out the window. When it does do so, I consider that an error or a shortfall rather than an excuse to treat the whole thing as a pile of random nonsense.

Besides, in any good fiction, even fantasy fiction, there's an expectation that it stay consistent with its own internal rules. It doesn't matter if those rules are crazy compared to the rules of our world; they should still be consistent within the world itself. That's just basic storytelling competence. So it's not "religious" fanaticism to expect Star Trek to live up to the same basic standards of competence one would expect of any work of fiction.

It's not strong evidence, but it is evidence. They made an in joke about Admiral Archer's beagle.
But that's not proof, which is my point. Especially since pet preferences are often handed down through the generations. Is it so impossible to admit simply that it could have been a descendant of Archer's? That's all I want -- for people to acknowledge that there's more than one possible interpretation of that throwaway line. I don't understand why I always get such fierce resistance to even admitting the possibility.

The writers said that reference referred to the Jonathan Archer whose adventures were chronicled in Star Trek: Enterprise.
Asked and answered, days ago. Writer intent is not canonical; and Mike Sussman's writer intent from IaMD is that Archer didn't live that long and would be called "President," not "Admiral." With two conflicting, equally non-canonical writer intents, it is arbitrary to hold one up as probative and completely ignore the other.

I'm sorry that bothers you, but if you don't like it you can stick with your hypothesis of Admiral Archer the Third, and others of us will stick with the Jonathan Archer theory.
*sigh* All I'm trying to do is point out that it's ambiguous, that there's not enough evidence to prove either hypothesis. Why can nobody understand that? Why is it so hard to understand that "I don't know" is a valid answer?
Written Worlds -- Christopher L. Bennett's blog and webpage
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote