now I vomited on miranda kadohata

[Ben Sisko]

Not QUITE as bad as Klag but the TNG Relaunch folks sure wanted to remind us that that the now departed miranda kadohata has a "shangri-la \ london accent."

JEESH! We get it!




. Her dry, Port Shangri-la accent leached the emotion from her voice as she reported


Her Port Shangri-La accent was just similar enough to a Londoner’s inflections that Picard had to remind himself again that she wasn’t from Earth.

Her dry, Port Shangri-la accent leached the emotion from her voice as she reported,

“Sorry I’m late,” Miranda said. She spoke with a British accent, even though she was born and raised on Cestus III.

“Permission to come aboard?” she asked, with a British-sounding accent.

Her countenance of mixed Asian and European ancestry was the very portrait of calm, and her British-sounding accent conveyed the same unflappability that Worf had come to expect from the captain.

“A little,” Kadohata said, her London-like accent enhancing her gift for understatement.

“Still no response, sir,” she said, her accent redolent of a Londoner’s inflections.


A female voice with a vaguely British accent interrupted his pessimistic musings. “Excuse me, Captain.”

All eyes shifted to her, but the dark-haired woman with the crisp British accent didn’t appear at all intimidated...

 

[David Mack]

First, each instance you've cut and pasted is from a different book.

Second, each book has the potential to be some readers' first encounter with Star Trek fiction and/or this particular set of characters.

Third, one can never assume that every reader remembers all the pertinent details of each character from one book to the next.

Fourth, those of us who write professionally don't appreciate being harangued in this manner by someone who has no credentials that merit our respect.

Fifth, if you don't like the way the books are written, go read something else.

Lastly, all I ever see you do on these boards is bitch and denigrate the work of those of us who write the novels and other professionally licensed fiction. To be frank, it is petty, arrogant bullshit such as this that gives fandom a bad name, and that makes many writers cease interacting with fans on this and other boards.

You want me to take your opinion seriously? Offer thoughtful, serious reviews that consider works in their entirety, rather than cherry picking details and quoting content out of context. And if you can't do that, then shut the fuck up.

 

[Use of Time]

Wow. When I first joined this site I thought it was pretty cool that the writers would jump in and comment. That being said, as I read the comments it becomes a little less cool everyday. I think Ben Sisko's timing might be a little off seeing as his last topic was a criticism of literary redundancy but I still think that this response is a bit much. It's a harmless criticism. I don't think he is attacking the work as a whole. I'll admit that I am somewhat amazed that a professional would get that upset over a small criticism of someone that (I assumed) bought your work. Sometimes there is negative criticism as well as positive criticism. Such is life. Is it somewhat nitpicky? Sure, but this is a Star Trek board filled with fans who enjoy picking apart the nuances of the Star Trek universe. A thicker skin might be in order.

 

[Sho]

Not really a fan of bitch/rant threads either, and definitely there doesn't need to be an entirely new thread for every repetition you find irritating or they'll be an irritating repetition themselves.

 

[Biffette]

Hi Ben Sisko, it is interesting to see the repetition there but I imagine it isn't much worse than the number of times Kirk runs his fingers through his sandy-blonde locks or somesuch. I haven't gotten to the Star Trek books from the era you are discussing, would you mind citing the quotations? I'm just curious which books; page numbers are not necessary if you don't have them.

 

[MatthiasRussell]

JEESH! We get it!

Yes, JEESH, we get it! You don't like David Mack's books. Stop reading them then! You nitpick the silliest things then create a new thread for about each one.

I think this says more about you than Mr Mack.

 

[Ben Sisko]

JEESH! We get it!

Yes, JEESH, we get it! You don't like David Mack's books. Stop reading them then! You nitpick the silliest things then create a new thread for about each one.

I think this says more about you than Mr Mack.

That wasn't only mack. It was Bennett decandido Peter David as well

 

[Christopher]

And seriously, Ben Sisko, it's pretty hypocritical for you to complain about authors reusing phrases by spamming the board with two separate threads with the same offensive reference in their titles. Your title for this thread is disgusting and deeply mean-spirited. If you don't even understand how to participate in a polite conversation in a public forum, then you have no business judging how other people choose their words.

 

[BillJ]

Wow. When I first joined this site I thought it was pretty cool that the writers would jump in and comment. That being said, as I read the comments it becomes a little less cool everyday. I think Ben Sisko's timing might be a little off seeing as his last topic was a criticism of literary redundancy but I still think that this response is a bit much. It's a harmless criticism. I don't think he is attacking the work as a whole. I'll admit that I am somewhat amazed that a professional would get that upset over a small criticism of someone that (I assumed) bought your work. Sometimes there is negative criticism as well as positive criticism. Such is life. Is it somewhat nitpicky? Sure, but this is a Star Trek board filled with fans who enjoy picking apart the nuances of the Star Trek universe. A thicker skin might be in order.

While the threads are annoying, I agree with this post.

I'm interested to see how a moderator handles Mr. Mack's outburst. If it was one of the non-writer posters, I'm sure there'd be an infraction coming.

 

[David Mack]

^ Because God forbid a writer should ever dare to retort. Fans must be free to sling any mean-spirited diatribe they wish, without having to fear that some writer will ever be brash enough to respond with well-deserved dudgeon.

 

[BillJ]

^ Because God forbid a writer should ever dare to retort. Fans must be free to sling any mean-spirited diatribe they wish, without having to fear that some writer will ever be brash enough to respond with well-deserved dudgeon.

I didn't say that. But to tell another poster to "shut the fuck up" is really out of bounds and something I didn't expect from you.

 

[Use of Time]

Wow. When I first joined this site I thought it was pretty cool that the writers would jump in and comment. That being said, as I read the comments it becomes a little less cool everyday. I think Ben Sisko's timing might be a little off seeing as his last topic was a criticism of literary redundancy but I still think that this response is a bit much. It's a harmless criticism. I don't think he is attacking the work as a whole. I'll admit that I am somewhat amazed that a professional would get that upset over a small criticism of someone that (I assumed) bought your work. Sometimes there is negative criticism as well as positive criticism. Such is life. Is it somewhat nitpicky? Sure, but this is a Star Trek board filled with fans who enjoy picking apart the nuances of the Star Trek universe. A thicker skin might be in order.

While the threads are annoying, I agree with this post.

I'm interested to see how a moderator handles Mr. Mack's outburst. If it was one of the non-writer posters, I'm sure there'd be an infraction coming.

I will add for the record that I too find the trend of Mr. Sisko to be somewhat redundant. I'll be damned though if I didn't find it a little bit amusing when he posted the 20 or so references of Klag throwing his head back and laughing. He probably should have quit while he was ahead.

The irony is that I have enjoyed Mack's work.

 

[BillJ]

The irony is that I have enjoyed Mack's work.

David Mack is one hell of a writer, but he still went over the line.

 

[Use of Time]

^ Because God forbid a writer should ever dare to retort. Fans must be free to sling any mean-spirited diatribe they wish, without having to fear that some writer will ever be brash enough to respond with well-deserved dudgeon.

No, retort away but just realize that sometimes if you sling mud with someone who might be baiting you, it is you who might be the one to walk away dirty. If you want to engage in a flame war with a poster on a Star Trek message board who is criticizing a published author such as yourself, knock yourself out.

P.S. I'm a big fan.

 

[Sho]

FWIW, the key to a working community that encapsulates more than a single set of interests is to adopt a code of conduct that emphasizes consideration, respect and empathy for others. This applies to this subforum in that personally I'd rather it be an inclusive (i.e. open to the writers) place than a place that excludes anyone, and I think that's the majority opinion. That's why it's not OK to say the writers need to have a thicker skin and need to just take it when fans want to let off steam: It's inconsiderate given the makeup of our community. If you feel the need to be able to rant, you're simply in the wrong place.

I think Mr. Mack's reply is crappy in the sense that it's escalating the tone rather than deescalating, but he's the one who's had his buttons pushed unnecessarily here.

 

[BillJ]

That's why it's not OK to say the writers need to have a thicker skin and need to just take it when fans want to let off steam: It's inconsiderate given the makeup of our community. If you feel the need to be able to rant, you're simply in the wrong place.

I disagree.

The writers identify themselves as such and this is a good way to get word out about their work both inside and outside of Star Trek.

They're part of a community and their status shouldn't elevate them above criticism. Besides, the poster wasn't calling out a particular author just pointing out a general trend that they found annoying.

 

[Sho]

^ I have no idea how you read that in my post. Criticism is something different than inconsiderate ranting and opening a thread to display writer's work for the sole purpose of public ridicule. It is possible to criticise while being considerate and respectful. I had no qualms pointing out things I didn't like in Mr. Mack's books if you care to check out my reviews.

It's not about censoring yourself, it's about not being a dick.

 

[Use of Time]

FWIW, the key to a working community that encapsulates more than a single set of interests is to adopt a code of conduct that emphasizes consideration, respect and empathy for others. This applies to this subforum in that personally I'd rather it be an inclusive (i.e. open to the writers) place than a place that excludes anyone, and I think that's the majority opinion. That's why it's not OK to say the writers need to have a thicker skin and need to just take it when fans want to let off steam: It's inconsiderate given the makeup of our community. If you feel the need to be able to rant, you're simply in the wrong place.

I think Mr. Mack's reply is crappy in the sense that it's escalating the tone rather than deescalating, but he's the one who's had his buttons pushed unnecessarily here.

Well, we just saw the result of what happens when someone doesn't have a thick skin. Which do you prefer? How does that enter into a code of conduct? I don't want to make this all about David because I haven't seen him react this strongly to anyone else. He could've just had a crappy day and this was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Look, there are a lot of writer's on these boards and there is an entire thread section dedicated to these books. Community members shouldn't have to tip toe around in there in fear of being torn into because of a differing opinion. I do believe that members should treat each other with respect and keep civil discourse.

 

[shanejayell]

It should be noted that both threads are arguably confrontational to start with. Certainly using 'vomited' in the titles didn't encourage a pleasant discussion, y'know?

 

[BillJ]

^ I have no idea how you read that in my post. Criticism is something different than inconsiderate ranting and opening a thread to display writer's work for the sole purpose of public ridicule. It is possible to criticise while being considerate and respectful. I had no qualms pointing out things I didn't like in Mr. Mack's books if you care to check out my reviews.

It's not about censoring yourself, it's about not being a dick.

Honestly, while the thread title is simply dumb, the actual complaints were pretty damn mild. And Ben Sisko pointed to several different books done by different authors, yet didn't name a single author.

Mr. Mack simply took far more offense than what was necessary for this particular criticism. Hell, in his shoes, I wouldn't have wasted my time on a thread with such an unfocused complaint.