Re: ENT Forum Mediation Thread--Please Participate
Posted by Nephandus:
^^^
I addressed your point directly, and you have responded with another condescending dismissal, rather than responding to the rebuttal.
You are reading condescension into my response. There's nothing I can do about that.
You could have just not replied.
For me, that's inconsiderate. You took time to reply to my post, the least I can do is acknowledge that. I'm sorry you didn't like the reply, but intentions don't always translate effectively.
You know, for a moment I thought Reno might have been slightly out of line, but I can't blame him Reno or anyone else from getting snippy with you if you want to play that way.
You keep mentioning the word "play". I am not playing with you. Again, you read what you want in my posts, I have no control over your interpretation. However, it may make the experience a more pleasant one if you diminish the apparent hostility with which you are reading my words. I have no specific quarrel with you or anyone else. Why do you seem to have one with me?
This is tiresome for me to explicate the same idea time and again, as I would imagine it is for people to read it. But, since it seems you consider a compromise a "condescending dismissal", allow me to go through your post, point by point.
It really depends on how refined my taste is, how familiar with the material I am, and on the level of my investment in the event. There are wine, chocolate, music and drama aficionados or critics who are deeply knowledgeable of the products they sample – and who are more than capable of explaining, in detail, where the creator of the product went wrong, having even greater insight than the original creator. You think that all the people who know writing are practicing it?
I know where a creator of a product went wrong, having
perhaps even greater insight than the original creator. You do, too. I would suspect everyone does, at some point or another, with one thing or another. You are most certainly correct, you do not have to practice writing to know it. Critics are often better not to be a practicer of the product they critique, because their observations are unbiased, in that regard, and more clear picture of possible perfection is attained through those eyes. To state it again,
that assertion made by you, and others, is not the issue in question. Should you decide to argue this latest post with me again, please refer to the quote in bold, because that is my point. More to follow...
In this analogy, you assume two things:
1. That I feel righteous indignation
Not necessarily you. As I said, it was an allegory. The description "righteos indignation" referred to the apparent justification that posters may claim when launching personal tirades against those off the board. It neither says that is the only justification, nor does is specify it as the constant justification. Beyond that, take it as you will.
2. That the intended audience of my comments is the artist,
There is no assumption there. It was my allegory, I get to specify that the intended audience of "your" comments is the artist. If you want to put forth a different example, you may do so.
perhaps even you personally, if I take what you’ve written at face value.
I have to admit, I have no idea what you're talking about here. It has no connection to anything I was referring to.
No, I feel frustrated. And my audience isn’t really the people at the show, it’s all of the people who come to this BBS. If people from the show want to read and respond to what I’ve written, then wonderful, but based on what I’ve seen, I don’t expect that they will care one way or another. At least, that’s what they continue to say in their publicity – that they don’t care. Tell me SilveRisa:, is THAT respectable?
Ok, so for your commentary on the show, and its people (and since you brought yourself up, "you" here does in fact refer to you, and can be analagous to other posters as well), the TrekBBS is your intended audience for your criticisms. All well and good, that is why most of us probably come here, to read and share criticism on the show(s). Where my original issue arose was with exactly what is contained in some of those criticisms, no matter who your target audience is. (Now, "you" will again become a general all-inclusive term that does not necessarily describe or apply to you specifically.) A personal attack remains a
personal attack, no matter to whom or at whom it is directed. For some of us, it is disgusting and irritating to see such an attack. We would like to not see it anymore. If your criticism is couched in terms such as "Interregnum sucked, because Braga sucks *ss, and shouldn't have his job in the first place because he's a sorry-*ss writer who's lazy and incompetent, the story was terrible and had no point, just like his very existence" then that criticism, even if it's just meant for us here at this cozy BBS, is rude. The only words that really needed to make it to print there were "Interregnum sucked, the story was terrible and had no point." That is perfectly acceptable (though
Ptrope may disagree with the critique).
It's the extra touch of disrespect and baseless speculation that needs to go. If you disagree with that, please argue that if you argue this post.
You also assume, in your analogy, that I attend another concert. That singer should consider herself lucky if I do.
?? I'm sure she has other fans. You win some, you lose some. Those in the "creative industry" do have to follow their own creative vision. It's a foregone conclusion not everyone will tag along. Luck has little to do with that.
I don’t want to see another word of criticism or commentary from you on Enterprise until you can demonstrate that, like me, you have AT LEAST an MA specializing in English, Drama, or Cultural Studies – because unless you do, you aren’t qualified to talk in a BBS – whether you are a writer or not (in own my writing courses, I knew very talented writers who worked organically, and who couldn’t tell you why their stuff worked). How does that sound? Good forum idea?
Again, I have to admit, I have no idea where this is coming from. See below.
What you have in this BBS, is “the bleachers” – several thousand armchair quarterbacks of varying skill levels – and more of them than you know play or work in the same biz, if that’s important (it isn’t). I’m interested in ideas and discussions, not displays of educational pedigrees and writing credits.
I am confused by your statements above. If you're not interested in educational pedigrees and writing credits, why did you ask for mine? I never asked for yours. I don't recall asking for anybody's, actually. I certainly didn't produce mine for viewing. Allow me to intuit a bit here, though I may be mistaken in my interpretation of your responses to my posts:
Saying "You don't do what they do" and "Fans provide feedback, not instructions" and "Fans...don't walk through (paraphrase) the same day the producers/actors/writers do" somehow has been interpreted as "Unless you're working there, you can't say anything about the show." Pardon me for pointing this out so directly, but that interpretation is wrong.
Saying that you should not comment on the work ethics or personal lives and workings of the producers/writers/actors unless you are doing what they are doing in no way makes the leap to the broad generalization of "don't comment on the show". The show is the show. The show is not the people. The people make the show, and you can comment on the job they do in making the show, but unless you're doing it, you do not have any basis for criticisms directed at
HOW THEY DO WHAT THEY DO. This includes but is not limited to calling the above individuals "lazy", "unqualified", discrediting their positions on the staff, their place in the cast, their handwriting, their photo shoots, their motivation for either speaking to or ignoring the fans, their accents, or the type of jeans they wear. And this is not limited to people off the board. This includes addressing other posters here, too. But I have read enough crap about how Jolene Blalock "obviously isn't a lady because she swears like sailor and has sex all the time like a whore, and that explains why she's such a terrible actress and can't deliver her lines" to know that that's offensive. And it's the positive criticism too, BTW. "This ep was great, even if Braga did write it---I guess banging Jolene is helping his creativity, must be great to put your d*ck in two gorgeous hoes" is a really backassward way to say "you" liked the ep. Small worry that it slanders several people, for some individuals in this forum. You can say you hate the way Scott Bakula acts, but that
doesn't justify your ruminations into why that may be, if they play in personal territory of which you have no knowledge.
Rather, it appears the singer has instead gone out of her way to tap ME on the shoulder, here in this BBS. I don’t have the email addies of anyone on the ENT staff, though in my business, I could easily get them, since we are in largely the same industry. I haven’t tried. BTW, I presume the “your comments” is directed anonymously, toward some larger group of offenders – I don’t typically attack any ENT personality unless I’ve seen them bag on the fans – and even then, I mainly focus my attention on the apparently inept PR coaching – sending these actors and producers into interviews so unprepared.
Yet again, I have to admit, I have no idea where any of this fits into what we're discussing. I haven't observed any ENT staff seeking out commentary here on the BBS other than Mike Sussman. I'm sorry you don't have the email addy's, there's many people who don't either. (???) Yes, you are correct "your comments" was directed broadly. I am curious, however, as to why you would focus necessarily on the PR coaching. I would suggest perhaps that people say what they mean, and so they often mean what they say. It may offend you, it may hearten you, but I don't believe anyone has the right to dismiss the speaker's responsibility for their own words. That does them a distinct disservice, and it's kind of disrespectful. That's neither here nor there, however. Just an observation.
But to the point here, if you want garlands and applause, then make a better show. There’s more than enough good suggestions among the terrible ones on this BBS – just as I know there are around the ENT writer’s meetings. I even heard Braga and Berman cop to many of gaffes in the pre-ENT publicity – so I know they have the capacity, on some level to separate wheat from chaffe. IMO, they just don’t. But no artist is entitled to a life free of rotten tomatoes simply because it makes them feel bad. A bad performance deserves the hook – because it is disrespectful to the audience, and to the more capable artists who are waiting in the wings to take their place.
All absolutely true. And I never said otherwise. You are more than welcome to your opinion on the show, and the producers. Nothing you said there was personal assessment of the men named. So where is your argument with me?
The people who create Enterprise put THEMSELVES up as topics for discussion when they become part of the marketing/publicity machine for the show. They make comments – sometimes remarkably antagonistic, towards their critics. They make press releases and statements about “spasms of ecstasy” addressing fans directly. They use their comments, appearances, and personalities to drum up publicity for the show (though it is done so ineptly that it often backfires). Well, it cuts both ways. Tent barkers don't depend on repeat business - a weekly TV series does.
On a fine line, again, you are correct. Where ENT is concerned, they do indeed put themselves up as topics for discussion. Nowhere in the universe is there an absolute, however, that says cheap shots at them personally, and those associated with them, come with that territory. Eminem is a prime example of this in the music industry, Russell Crowe a prime example in the film industry.
Their personal lives and professional habits in no way relate to HOW THEY DO THEIR CRAFT OF WHICH THE COMMON CRITIC/FAN IS AWARE. If you're going to legitimately slam their efforts, you'd best do so based on their music, their writing, their acting or their method. Whether or not they incite riot in a bar or have affairs with other people, sing in a closed studio naked or lose their temper over a mistyped script should never wend its way into a critical discussion of their songs or films as a basis of tearing down their work. It is no different with ENT here.
But I have heard Braga doing his version of the SNL Evil Kirk on the fans, and he offers himself for review when he makes public statements from outside of the script, and in too many cases, the work itself is evidence enough to warrant speculation on the motivations and the qualifications of those involved with creating it.
Whatever he says in interviews, that doesn't warrant repeated personal attacks and slights here where people are tired of seeing them. "You" don't do any better than he does, at that point. And I do not believe that the work necessarily warrants baseless speculation on motivation and/or qualification concerning the individual who created it. No one is granted carte blanche rumination permits because they don't qualify the work as high or as low as someone else may. "Your" opinion is your opinion. It is not necessarily the truth, and it is not the only POV out there. Because you hate the writing doesn't mean the writer isn't qualified to write. It means you hate the writing. If you hate the comments, it means you and he have different points of view on the fans, the ep, whatever. Not that he is a damn fool, and you're a victim. If you don't see a story pulled together effectively enough for your taste, that doesn't make the writing staff necessarily lazy. It makes you dissatisfied with the way a story went. If you don't like the way an actor portrays a character, it doesn't necessarily make the actor an unqualified hack with no skills. It means you don't like the way they act for reasons a, b, and c. There is a difference between casting aspersions on things you only assume are going on, and stating your case for things you see for yourself.
I've covered your last two points earlier in this second novel of a post. There is little way to be more explicit than this. I have made no assumptions on who is or is not qualified to offer criticism. I have stated that those who aren't in those particular shoes shouldn't try to guess their size or judge their fit. That in no way has stated "People who aren't in the biz shouldn't say anything" -- it states "People who aren't in the biz and don't know anyone who is or what they go through habitually and on a daily basis shouldn't say anything about what goes on habitually and on a daily basis". Because then it's personal. Judge their gait, their speed, their stride, etc. You can see those things as well as they can, sometimes better, given your vantage point. But don't assume you know their feet better than they do. You only see the shoes.
