Torturing s word's definition to appeal to some irrational sentiment is the height of fandom absurdity.
NCC -1701 (TOS).....
- Thread starter Dar70
- Start date
Welcome to humanity.
And the height of fan absurdity is one fan looking down on another for not seeing things their way.
Humanity is absurd.Welcome to humanity.
Don't expect me to blindly accept this as sone inviolable trait. It's absurd and should be called out as such.
So is one fan looking down on another, yet you seem to have no issues with it, calling people irrational for not seeing things your way.
Never mind.
On a message board about a fictional universe? Cut people some slack. The world has too many people telling others how they should act and feel, that has definitely gotten us to a solid place.
It can be, depends on how you use it.
Wilson from Castaway comes to mind.
The fact Wilson is an inanimate volleyball is not what is important. It's that Wilson reflects the emotions and needs of Chuck (Tom Hanks) that makes Wilson a distinct character within the movie. The audience isn't crying because Wilson really "dies" at the end. They're crying because they're invested in how much Wilson means to Chuck in that moment in this situation.
Same thing goes for the Enterprise. The ship is a reflection of the main characters' desires and wants. It's a symbol of what humanity has achieved with Starfleet and the Federation. And the threats to it and its destruction speak to how much the ship means to these characters. It's as real and distinct as the characters within the story treat it.
Ok...but that doesn't make it a character.
See above.
Thus far there are other terms to describe this effect, including cipher, symbol, sentiment and having characteristics.
That's not a character.
Oh for crying out loud, is this still going on?
Setting as character is not something new.
There's a TVTrope page about it.
And many, many, many different websites geared toward writers give tips on how to make the setting a character.
But I'm going to assume those folks are also wrong in not having such a narrow definition of character as some posters in this thread do.
Setting as character is not something new.
There's a TVTrope page about it.
And many, many, many different websites geared toward writers give tips on how to make the setting a character.
But I'm going to assume those folks are also wrong in not having such a narrow definition of character as some posters in this thread do.
People who are called and labeled as irrational often end up being right.
Language is malleable, always has been, always will be. What something meant yesterday, may not be what it means today or tomorrow. So, I stretch the definition of character to include the Enterprise from TOS. So what? Who am I actually harming to the point of being called irrational? It isn't the language, because it changed numerous times since the rise of humanity.
As far as knowing what someone means, I think you're a bright person (who I do enjoy virtually sparring with), I think you can decide pretty quickly in your head whether or not the Enterprise fits your definition of character.
Yes.
Fascinating.
Spock would probably have something to say about that. So being right is more important?
Indeed, yes.
More importantly calling it not a character does not diminish the ship's importance. In fact, in my opinion, it is more important as a symbol than trying to mash it in to a character. @Citiprime did an excellent job of noting what the Enterprise represents. It is far more than just a setting but it is symbolic of human achievement.
Far greater than a character, in my humble opinion.
Depends on the situation/subject. Like most things in life.
In this instance?
