View Single Post
Old May 21 2013, 09:59 AM   #39
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
Re: Updating FJ's technical manual?

Passion can just as easily cloud judgement and a dedication to telling the truth. You love something so you overlook anything that casts the thing you love in a negative light. You are so passionate about something that you construct an idealized vision of the thing in your mind and tell about that instead, the truth be damned.

Oh, waitaminute. That sounds like what ended up in the Technical Manual and Booklet of General Plans.

If you are documenting something, the only thing you should be passionate about is the truth. But that isn't what Franz Joseph was doing. He was constructing an idealized, consistent vision of Star Fleet. He tells us as much in his interviews. And yet you don't seem able or willing to absorb what he said. You have your own passion that has led you to your own sanitized version of TOS.

Sanitized? How?

When you replace this book that topped the bestseller lists in the 1970s with your own remake, are you going to show the distinctions between high collared early first season tunics designed not to mess up make up and regular first-second season tunics and polyester third season tunics? Are you going to explain how they are made from polyester and velour but Starfleet tells us they are made from algae? The differences in the eleven foot model from first to second pilot to series? From 33" model to eleven foot? An unfinished and undetailed side with wiring hanging out? Are you going to provide the "in-universe explanation why K-7 just so happens to look just like a Douglas Aircraft inflateable space shelter from 1960? What about all those non-hero props that look undetailed and misshapen? What's the in universe explanation with that? Rocks that look like paper mâché? Plywood textured sets? Star Fleet officers that all wear makeup? I'm sure that your "passion" will lead to a clear, unvarnished view of these things, no?


But if not, how do you choose what to leave out?

You let your passion guide you in sanitizing the inconsistencies. Oh...

Just like what Franz Joseph did.

Your choices will be different because your passions are different. So, what we are discussing here isn't a lack of fidelity to truth. It is differences in an artistic vision guided by different passions about the subject matter. One guy wants to make it all fit together to portray what he thinks will make the TV production appear more like a realistic future space navy, so he ignores things he doesn't think fit that vision. HOWEVER, respecting the fact other fans may think differently, he creates a story whereby the book produced is represented as just a tiny fraction of the total number of pages a total view would have. And provides an organizational framework whereby if your vision differs you can add it and everybody else's varying visions to the book. IDIC and all.

The other wants just what was on the show. He spends years tracking down surviving props and sets and costumes and make up appliances, etc. and draws them, blemishes and all, in his commitment to canon.

The interesting thing is, this second vision can fit within the first one. And fanon crap like the UFP articles you don't like? You can create your own fanon article saying they were superceded at some point.

Or, you can continue to degrade the vision that appealed to hundreds of thousands if not millions of fans at the time it was written. You can denigrate it despite the fact it appealed to them sufficiently to motivate them to buy this thing portraying this stuff that was in the show... stuff they were so passionate and obsessive about that they wanted to know everything about it and yet knowing everything they did, still bought despite it being portayed so "inaccurately". You will do this despite the fact he has provided you a means, built into his work, to correct what he did.

I can only guess that your unwillingness to follow the route provided stems from a need to tear down this vision entirely so you can replace it, not amend it, with your own.

Not very IDIC, that.

Last edited by aridas sofia; May 21 2013 at 10:20 AM.
aridas sofia is offline   Reply With Quote