No, Roddenberry was just a sexist piece of crap pure and simple, from most accounts and based on a goodly portion of what he wrote.
Spoilers Discovery and the Novelverse - TV show discussion thread
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
No, Roddenberry was just a sexist piece of crap pure and simple, from most accounts and based on a goodly portion of what he wrote.
Memory Alpha rarely does that. Most of their articles are a mishmash of info from different book and comics series that were never supposed to fit together in the first place.
Missed that. Sorry.
Fair enough, but, unless you're going to George Lucas it (or spend forever tinkering with it and never finishing), there reaches a point where you have to let it go and let it be what it is.
I guess, although there is a fine line between allegory and applicability, to borrow from JRR Tolkien. I mean, one could interpret ENT as being set in the antimatter universe, not the prime one (or DSC not being canon or set in the prime universe, either), but there still the fact that those shows were not intended to be interpreted in that manner. Not sure if that makes any sense, but there it is,
Huh.
Eh, I don't think Roddenberry had a very good moral compass myself and honestly, the more I've learned about him, the more I can say that I like Star Trek in spite of him, not because of him. That said, while I do believe that humans are very, very flawed by nature (at best), I don't think the man was purely bad or that he didn't have any good impulses.
Of course he was, but that's not the point. The point is that if even creators see their own creations as imperfect and don't require their audiences to be slavisly literal about every detail, then there's no reason why audiences should require themselves to be slavishly literal about every detail. We're allowed to acknowledge things as mistakes and just ignore them, to pretend there's a "truer" Platonic reality underneath that doesn't include those mistakes.
I know I've made mistakes in some of my published works and made sure to cut them out of later collected versions. Most other writers do the same when they get the chance. We all make mistakes, but we have a right to correct them, put them behind us, and try to do better.
But "what it is," in the case of a long-running franchise, is a loose agglomeration of works from multiple different artists attempting their own respective approximations of the same underlying idea. If six painters do a portrait of the same model, every single one will look different, but that doesn't mean the model is different. It just means that the same idea is filtered through different artists' interpretations. John Romita, Jr.'s Peter Parker doesn't look like his father's Peter Parker, but the difference is in the artists, not the character. So if DSC's Pike isn't exactly identical to "The Cage"'s Pike, if DSC's writing is less sexist than TOS's writing, that doesn't mean they're in different universes, it just means they're different writers' interpretations of the same characters and world.
We as viewers do not "have to" do anything. We are not employees of the creators; we are their customers. So we don't "have to" accept every last element of the works they provide for our entertainment. We have the right to critique them, to challenge them, to revise them in our minds.
That actually makes my point. Discovery is not intended to be interpreted as an alternate reality from TOS. It's intended to be the same reality, but its portrayal of that reality is filtered through more modern sensibilities and techniques. Mistaking that for separate realities is confusing the technique of the artist with the nature of the subject.[/QUOTE]
Sorry. To clarify, I am aware that they can be nickname of a proper name, but because the words are so different, my base assumption is that they’re separate until proven otherwise.
In my native Germany, nicknames are usually just the main name minus a few letters at the end. My nickname is Mark, from the original Marko.
Whereas in English nicknames may share little or little to no structure with the name, e.g. William/Bill. It’s an error on my part, but I tend not to make a connection between such disparate forms. (My experience is based on my workplace in England.)
Oh, I see. I can understand how many English nicknames could be confusing for a non-native. Part of it is the spelling change, I guess. "Mike" is pronounced the same as the first syllable as "Michael," but its spelling is changed to reflect that pronunciation. (In the same way, "mike" is short for "microphone," though people these days are increasingly spelling it "mic" because that's the abbreviation used on audio equipment and computer jacks.) "Jim" or "Jimmy" being short for "James" is more of a stretch, though, since there's a change in pronunciation as well.
And then there are the ones that confuse even native speakers, like "Peg" or "Peggy" being short for "Margaret." Changes like that, William/Bill, and Richard/Dick apparently date back to a time when rhyming nicknames were common. Here are a couple of articles I found, mostly covering the same weird nicknames but not always agreeing on their origins:
https://people.howstuffworks.com/why-is-chuck-short-for-charles-and-dick-short-for-richard.htm
http://mentalfloss.com/article/24761/origins-10-nicknames
^ Wow, there are lot of names in those examples that I didn’t think of as nicknames, like Daisy and Jack.
Thinking of it, arriving at all these varying nicknames by rhyming and even translating (English marguerite/Margaret to French daisy) is actually quite clever.
Thinking of it, arriving at all these varying nicknames by rhyming and even translating (English marguerite/Margaret to French daisy) is actually quite clever.
There have been numerous discussions on here in the past where we've expressed frustration that Memory Beta does this--in a way that's impossible for users to change, because the one admin who could adopt a more adaptive system (as many other wikis for fictional franchises have) has a stranglehold on control (so to speak) of Memory Beta and refuses to accept any different practice.
Yeah, I got into a massive fight with a bunch of the people there when I complained about them mashing everything together and tried to get them to change the way they did it.
It also looks like most of the cast besides Pike, Spock, and Number One will be characters from Discovery rather than the supporting cast from The Cage/The Menagerie.
What kind of wankers think it helps anyone to treat story details from Pocket Books and Star Trek Online under the same banner?
.....whyyyyyy???
Sense rarely applies when someone’s having a fit of ego and their little slice of a kingdom is “threatened” by those questioning how they rule.
This reminds me that I really need to get back to work helping build up Memory Omega.
I'm finally watching season 2 of Discovery, and I just saw "Saints of Imperfection" and how openly everyone talked about Section 31 as a known intelligence/covert ops division. So I finally took a look at Section 31: Cloak to see if it was irreconcilable, and it sure seemed to be, since the epilogue had Kirk and others talking about S31 as some hypothetical conspiracy they'd never even heard of before. But on further examination, I found that it's only in the epilogue that S31 is mentioned at all. So I think if you just disregard that one chapter, the rest of the book can still be reconciled with DSC continuity. Which is a relief to me, since I referenced Cloak directly in Ex Machina and at least indirectly in one or two later works (including a reference to its Centaurus class of starships in my upcoming The Captain's Oath).
Memory-Beta definitely needs a reformat. The biggest thing that bugs me is how they accept the Strange New Worlds short stories as EU canon, despite the fact that A): They were just written for fun and B): They are very incompatible with the rest of the novelverse.
That's probably one of the things that's bugged me and "fans" of S31 the most (not exactly "fans", but people who find the organization to be fascinating). The writers seemed to completely miss the point of '31 just to add it as layers to the already complicated time travel plot, and there will more than likely be a clumsy retcon to make it "fit" back into the way we saw it in ENT or DS9 (probably Ash and Evil!Georgiou will erase every trace of it - "It's like we never existed!') You know, the kind of thing people gave ENT a lot of shit for (the Ferengi, the Borg)
No, the SNW stories were not "written for fun." They were written for pay and for professional credit, plus an additional monetary prize for the three top winners. They were written in the attempt to get published in a professional market (the pay rate per word was more than enough to qualify, and Pocket is one of the biggest publishers in the nation) and to begin or advance a professional writing career. It wasn't amateur fiction, but an opportunity for amateurs to break into professional fiction. It started the careers of a number of pro writers, such as Dayton Ward, Ilsa J. Bick, R.S. Belcher, and Geoffrey Thorne.
And while most of the SNW stories were incompatible with the primary novel continuity, some of them did use concepts from it (for instance, "The Immortality Blues" uses the portrayal of WWIII established in The Lost Era: The Sundered), while others have no particular conflicts with it.
Besides, there never has been an overall "EU" in Trek Lit. Continuity between works has always been optional, not mandatory or universal. The main novel continuity has constituted the bulk of the prose tie-ins over the past couple of decades, but by no means all of them. And of course, the comics and games have their own separate continuities as well. Memory Beta's job should simply be to catalog all of them without bias, and without trying to create a single "correct" continuity out of them. They should all be presented separately and fairly without any ranking of worth or legitimacy. It's not the job of a reference work to impose an editorial bias.
To be fair, some of the MBeta articles do allow for different continuities, such as the entries for Sela and Alexander Rozhenko.
So looking forward to reading "The Enterprise War" now that i've seen the finale.
Pike referred to Number One as "Una" in the finale, and she gave her name in an official interview as "Number One," so that's exciting.
The closing minutes of the episode said that Section 31 was due for a reorg, and Kurtzman says in an interview a key part of the 31 series is going to be how they went from "fleet of ships and snazzy branding" to "illegal cabal that many audience members plausibly believe was, in fact, mostly Luther Sloan." They also wiped out the spore drive, the Sarek family's relationship with Michael, and even the existence of a ship called Discovery by pulling the Tamzarian Maneuver and classifying them all and forbidding any discussion of them on pain of torture... that is, treason, in order to prevent anyone from being tempted to go looking for data about the Red Memory Sphere or the future version of Control to gain an advantage through knowledge of future events.
The closing minutes of the episode said that Section 31 was due for a reorg, and Kurtzman says in an interview a key part of the 31 series is going to be how they went from "fleet of ships and snazzy branding" to "illegal cabal that many audience members plausibly believe was, in fact, mostly Luther Sloan." They also wiped out the spore drive, the Sarek family's relationship with Michael, and even the existence of a ship called Discovery by pulling the Tamzarian Maneuver and classifying them all and forbidding any discussion of them on pain of torture... that is, treason, in order to prevent anyone from being tempted to go looking for data about the Red Memory Sphere or the future version of Control to gain an advantage through knowledge of future events.
Subtitles actually had it as Noona - now I know that could be a mispelling but it's up in the air (Noona seems to be Korean for Older sister).