Yes, I am.You are under no obligation to understand people who see the world differently than you do. Though you will have to put up with us irrational people on the internet.
Thank you.
NCC -1701 (TOS).....
- Thread starter Dar70
- Start date
Thank you.
Glad you find it so amusing.
It's not acceptance that I am looking for. It is my own understanding of something that is outside of my experience. I feel that effort is a very human thing as well, and is routinely laughed at or denied.
It's not acceptance that I am looking for. It is my own understanding of something that is outside of my experience. I feel that effort is a very human thing as well, and is routinely laughed at or denied.
Accepting that humans are sometimes irrational beyond rhyme or reason is the rational choice.
One could argue that Spock's entire TOS movie arc is coming to that realization is true about himself.
There’s nothing irrational about it. If people didn’t have any sentimental attachments to inanimate objects, then no one would prize collecting things, or keep family heirlooms, etc.
The same idea holds true for science fiction spaceships, and the fans who love them. If nobody cared about the Enterprise, then the producers would just have the characters beam everywhere without a ship.
I see. So family heirlooms are now characters.
If not, then this is confusing two issues. It is not irrational to put emotional attachment to an inanimate object.
Treating it like a character? That's the irrational and confusing part.
Entertainment is not the real world. It is really that simple.
So it is to remain unknowable unless you already have it?
This is like a true Trek definition...
What remains unknowable? Entertainment and the real world are two distinct things. One allows for some folks to root for characters like Gul Dukat or Empress Georgiou, while no one in their right mind would be rooting for Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot in the real world.
How that makes an inanimate object a character.
It really doesn't answer the question.
I don't really consider the original Enterprise an inanimate object. It is no different than somebody who treats their pet(s) as human. I know our cats aren't human, yet everyday I talk to them like they are.
You're going to find out humans are chock full of these quirks.
I couldn't agree more.
In a sadistic way, now I want to see if this makes it to Page 20.
Because it is.
Hell, the TOS E even had a voice and probably had more lines during the run of the show than Uhura did.
I see.
Because it thinks, feels, and can respond to my wishes and desires like a regular character?
You know what? Don't answer. It's clear to me the irrational is preferred over the rational in this case.
In my opinion.
Exactly.
Thank you.
Lassie exhibited more agency in Lassie Come Home than the Enterprise did in the entire franchise, except when she was being possessed by a space anomaly like she was in "The Practical Joker". Being reprogrammed in "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" to talk like a seductress bestowed no agency; it was just annoying window dressing.
There's nothing wrong with having a sentimental attachment to a setting in a story, or a ship, or an inanimate object in real life. A thing doesn't have to be alive for a person to cry when it is destroyed, whether in real life or fiction. If it's not alive and it can't make choices, though, in the context of the story, it's not a character. Misapplying terms to the point that they lose all meaning, I guess that's what we do.
There isn't a direct analogy between how animals are treated in stories versus how they are treated in real life. An animal in a story can be a character because of the way that the narrative is constructed, but animals in real life are not people.
The Millennium Falcon almost had agency. When Han whacked her on the bulkhead to get going, the ship replied with an annoyed noise that felt like, "I'm doing the best I can." In the chapter of Solo that recounted the secret origin of the navicomputer, we know that a droid mind was uploaded into it. For a ship that less ambiguously had agency, and could be considered a character, see the Andromeda Ascendant.
The M-5 provided agency where there had been none; too bad it was a mirror of the mind of someone who harbored homicidal fantasies, that it acted upon.
There's nothing wrong with having a sentimental attachment to a setting in a story, or a ship, or an inanimate object in real life. A thing doesn't have to be alive for a person to cry when it is destroyed, whether in real life or fiction. If it's not alive and it can't make choices, though, in the context of the story, it's not a character. Misapplying terms to the point that they lose all meaning, I guess that's what we do.
There isn't a direct analogy between how animals are treated in stories versus how they are treated in real life. An animal in a story can be a character because of the way that the narrative is constructed, but animals in real life are not people.
The Millennium Falcon almost had agency. When Han whacked her on the bulkhead to get going, the ship replied with an annoyed noise that felt like, "I'm doing the best I can." In the chapter of Solo that recounted the secret origin of the navicomputer, we know that a droid mind was uploaded into it. For a ship that less ambiguously had agency, and could be considered a character, see the Andromeda Ascendant.
The M-5 provided agency where there had been none; too bad it was a mirror of the mind of someone who harbored homicidal fantasies, that it acted upon.
That they can't explain.
It's actually quite a bit different. A cat is alive. A ship is not. A ship is inanimate. A cat is not.
They act like people...
You're on.
And you can have the same feelings for that ship as you have for the real cat. I mean, you might not cry for the destruction of the ship like you would for the death of that cat, but you can still have an emotional response. And anyone who says they’ve never experienced an emotional response for an inanimate object has obviously never been to an art museum.
Yes, quite!They act like people...
I agree completely, have said so with examples (like, the Brady house), but that's not enough to make them characters.
Now, a story about a talking painting, that would be different.
