Seeing as how it's almost Friday, and this thread is off-topic and could be locked at any moment, I might as well get...
Aventine
- Thread starter 8of5
- Start date
This thread has been great. It's been polite and thoughtful and though it may have turned to more than aztec-ing, I hope the moderators show some largess and permit it to continue. Organic (polite, thoughtful) discussion like this is a joy and should be defended whenever it can be afforded.
The pattern of plating on the hull of starfleet ships is nicknamed an "Aztec Pattern." I never heard how it was coined, but apparently someone thought it resembled Native American art.
Good point. Here in this very country, that's where you get, for example, Cajun culture, the influencing of different cultures on one another.
On topic, since it's been noted, do we have any sense of what the Vesta-class primary mission is? As I understand, Lunas are deep-space explorers, and Defiants are dedicated warships. There was some mention early in ASD by Captain Dax that Aventine oughta be "out there" exploring, and the assignment of Vestas to the DQ Fleet would support that I think
The Vesta class was indeed mentioned as a "multi-mission explorer". I'm almost finished with the Ringship so in about 11 days from now I'm starting on the Aventine MKII version. I'm probably going to post "work in progress" images of the ship on my blog. (If allowed to.)
Wasn't it Bowers who wanted to be "out there", but Captain Dax explained how a ship fitted with slipstream drive is most useful for dealing with the problems the Federation is currently facing. If that logic did hold, why were the other two known Vesta class ships (Esquiline and Quirinal) sent to the Delta Quadrant? Wait... I haven't read the Voyager re-launch books yet.
There are four more names available: Caelian, Capitoline, Palatine, and Viminal. It's funny that one is close in name to the Caeliar, which could get confusing.
And there is also a question I put out here earlier: If the slipstream drive obviates a more streamline design, won't this cause a problem on some of the other ships that are supposedly being re-fit? I was stationed on an old Adams class destroyer that was re-fit, and that bucket of bolts was always braking down. It's like when you make a hot rod by putting a V8 in place of some smaller engine and it rips your tranny to iron filings. I suspect some of these experimental re-fits are not going to end pleasantly.
There are four more names available: Caelian, Capitoline, Palatine, and Viminal. It's funny that one is close in name to the Caeliar, which could get confusing.
And there is also a question I put out here earlier: If the slipstream drive obviates a more streamline design, won't this cause a problem on some of the other ships that are supposedly being re-fit? I was stationed on an old Adams class destroyer that was re-fit, and that bucket of bolts was always braking down. It's like when you make a hot rod by putting a V8 in place of some smaller engine and it rips your tranny to iron filings. I suspect some of these experimental re-fits are not going to end pleasantly.
^This.
In general Rosalind and I don't really have a big problem with conversations straying from topic as long as they aren't hostile and don't get too far off the deep end.
*Don't take this as endorsement of willy-nilly thread derailment though, lest we start needing to crack down on such things.
This thread is safe for now.
I double majored in Political Science and Theatre Studies. I daresay I spent a fair amount of time studying art.
Certainly. But if an artist uses her art to advocate for a goal, does she not have a moral obligation to also depict how that goal comes about? Isn't that a moral obligation of anyone advocating for any goal, whether through a work of art or through an essay?
And, especially with regards to what seigezunt was suggesting -- this idea that an artist shouldn't depict how those goals her artwork advocates for are achieved because doing so might offend someone. I really have to wonder about the moral courage of someone who refuses to say how a goal they supposedly believe in ought to be achieved if they refuse because they don't want to offend anyone.
No, I don't believe so. I think if you are the artist and you want to include the "how", then by all means, do so. But if you want to just imagine a utopia already in existence and ask the question "then what?", it's up to you whether or not you want to lay out how the utopia came into being. It's science fiction, not political theory. In science fiction especially you can generally ask people to suspend disbelief on your premise provided you don't ask them to suspend it for too many things (that's what Nancy Kress teaches in her workshops, anyway).
Anyway, your question is trying to frame the answer when you talk about "advocating for a goal". The premise of Star Trek isn't to advocate for a society that has put an end to war, hunger, and greed. That is a part of the zeitgeist of the 60's. There is no need to advocate for this goal, at the time. The kids of the 60's were all advocating for it. The premise is, say we did accomplish this, then what?
I don't think "not wanting to offend anyone" was behind any sort of refusal to say how it is accomplished. I think none of us who live within the structure of this society can say how something like that is accomplished. So I just think Roddenberry had no idea how such a thing might come about. But that was not the premise, as I keep saying. In no Roddenberry interview anywhere does he say that his intent was to show how humanity moved to the next level. He only draws a picture of a future society in which all the hopes of the present day are fulfilled, and asks "what next?"
He is proud to have had the first black woman bridge officer, and he wanted to keep Number One from the pilot, but he never said he felt any urge to draw his fellow Americans a roadmap to how this might happen.
And anyway, since you ask, it happens after we all believe it can happen. We have to free our minds first, to quote the Beatles song, and in that way Star Trek is part of the process of opening up and imagining the possibilities.
Last edited:
I suppose that's the fundamental difference between us, here. I do think that, ultimately, that's what Star Trek is about more than anything else.
I don't mean this as an insult to you, but I think that that answer is very pat and virtually meaningless. Asking, "How do you achieve a goal?" is a question that requests specifics, not generalities. If someone asks how to eliminate poverty, they're asking what economic models should be used to generate and distribute wealth, for instance. If someone asks how to end war, they're looking for peaceful and mutually acceptable solutions to violent conflicts. Saying "Free your minds" is a very easy answer that doesn't actually answer anything.
I gathered that the Aventine's primary mission was as a testbed for experimental technologies. But I'm not sure whether that applies to the whole class or if that's still the case post-Destiny.
Thank you very much for your reply, Sci.
I'm not insulted at all. I can understand your point of view. I just don't agree.
I think, first you have to believe that you can do something before you can ever really try. It helps to have a depiction of the possibility. It isn't the burden of an idealist to say how her ideals can be met. Ideals exist to motivate. We don't need to have a plan for peace in order to say we want it. Peace happens when people stop fighting. Since that means someone has to be the first to put down his weapon, he has to believe he won't be killed.
You know, the phrase "it takes all kinds" is a good thing, too. We need visionaries to brainstorm free of constraint, and if we decide to try to bring someone's vision to fruition, then we ask "how". That job is often not handled by the visionaries but by people who think in terms of practicalities.
I'm not insulted at all. I can understand your point of view. I just don't agree.
I think, first you have to believe that you can do something before you can ever really try. It helps to have a depiction of the possibility. It isn't the burden of an idealist to say how her ideals can be met. Ideals exist to motivate. We don't need to have a plan for peace in order to say we want it. Peace happens when people stop fighting. Since that means someone has to be the first to put down his weapon, he has to believe he won't be killed.
You know, the phrase "it takes all kinds" is a good thing, too. We need visionaries to brainstorm free of constraint, and if we decide to try to bring someone's vision to fruition, then we ask "how". That job is often not handled by the visionaries but by people who think in terms of practicalities.
That's fair enough -- I have a different idea of what I think art ought to do, and what I think Star Trek ought to do, and that's probably a reflection of my own bent towards political issues and questions, my own desire to see art inspire genuine change in the world and to see real problems solved and ideals put into practical effect. But you are absolutely right in noting that having art that insists that a better world is possible is itself a powerful statement that shouldn't be ignored.
My primary objection, though, was to the idea that an artist should avoid going into specifics for fear of offending anyone or causing disagreement, which is how I interpreted what seigezunt seemed to be saying. If a work of art avoids going into details about how its fictional society accomplishes something, it should be because that was the artist's choice, not because the artist was afraid of offending anyone or prompting disagreement.
And I will admit that my own art (poetry) suffers too much from wanting to change the world. I never could sing "life is but a dream". Oh well...
thanks again... great discussion
I think this could serve as an object lesson of what happens when you do something like that: it changes a song into a rant...
http://home.comcast.net/~snakespeare/poetry/itmoves.html
thanks again... great discussion
I think this could serve as an object lesson of what happens when you do something like that: it changes a song into a rant...
http://home.comcast.net/~snakespeare/poetry/itmoves.html
You know that a discussion is good when it takes you a minute to realize that the other guy was talking about the song "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" rather than the English translation of the 17th Century play La vida es sueño by Pedro Calderón de la Barca.
(Oh, that History of the Theatre course...)
thanks again... great discussion
Agreed, and thank you.
That is a really good poem! I especially like the "History is a trail of blood up the stairs" image. Very vivid.
I double majored in Political Science and Theatre Studies. I daresay I spent a fair amount of time studying art.
On that note, although I'm not double majoring, I have had a great deal of school drama-team experience, in high school (homeschool co-op, actually), and in college.
It would seem, Sci, that ironically enough, we have much in common. For behold, I am...a man of the theatre....
For "All the world's a stage...and all the men and women, merely players...."
That, indeed, is an excellent atitude to posses--and that's what makes our country so fantastic: the fact that we have the right to disagree--and indeed, agree to disagree.
Last edited:
^No. It's a sad fact that the majority of people out there would rather watch a dozen people locked in a house smelling each other's farts.
Anyway, that's besides the point! An absolutely sexy design!
I double majored in Political Science and Theatre Studies. I daresay I spent a fair amount of time studying art.
On that note, although I'm not double majoring, I have had a great deal of school drama-team experience, in high school (homeschool co-op, actually), and in college.
I don't mean to be in any way rude towards you, but that really isn't the same thing. I have extensive theatre experience at a university with a well-respected theatre program, studied it for four years, and worked in a professional theatre.
I'm not saying your experiences are invalid or disrespecting them. But, by the same token, there's a sort of attitude out there that anyone who's ever been on stage in high school or community theatre or did a few shows is as much of a theatre practitioner as someone who's dedicated years of their life to the thing. And I'm not as much of a theatre practitioner as, say, the graduate students who were getting MFAs in acting or dramaturgy -- I realized about mid-way through university that my talents were better suited towards political science and that my theatre training, though I'd spent years on it, would be better suited as a complement to my political science education than as a career in its own right.
Again, I'm not trying to disrespect your experiences, Rush -- I just think that the art and the craft of theatre and the expertise needed to become a professional theatre practitioner are often disrespected by equating them with amateur experiences, and I want to establish that the work I've done is quite a bit more extensive than that. I spent years on my Theatre Studies B.A.
It would seem, Sci, that ironically enough, we have much in common. For behold, I am...a man of the theater....
Sorry to put on my theatre snob hat, but no one who is serious about the theatre spells it ending with an "E-R." It's "R-E."
It's part of what makes many countries so fantastic, not just the United States.
