I eat boring sandwiches, trust me. Nobody is ever going to write a thriller about them.
Mine are usually made of bees with tiny machine guns.
But surprisingly nobody wants to option the rights to the movie either.
Number One, captain of the Enterprise
- Thread starter dahj
- Start date
Mine are usually made of bees with tiny machine guns.
But surprisingly nobody wants to option the rights to the movie either.
I eat boring sandwiches, trust me. Nobody is ever going to write a thriller about them.
Easily explained:
An author can not chew up his heroes and have them, too.
Mine are usually made of bees with tiny machine guns.
But surprisingly nobody wants to option the rights to the movie either.
The Syfy Channel will be in touch.
Seriously, though, I just had a roast beef sandwich and you know what? I didn't run into a single ninja, alien, pirate, or time-traveling amazon mermaid on the way. It's as though reality wasn't even trying to throw in any surprising new twists and just went with the "simplest" and most believable scenario instead . . .
Last edited:
Sure they do. Metaphysical naturalism is a thing, and people have been writing about it for centuries. We have the handy word "supernatural" precisely to describe things that don't fit within it. "A wizard did it" (which is really just a variation of "God did it") falls pretty decisively in the latter category.
it's not a subjective judgment so much as a simple observation. If you don't have some reasonable degree of consensus about the scope of a discussion, you're not going to get anywhere.
Certainly. No argument there!
When talking about how to devise a story yet unwritten, you're absolutely right: imagination prevails (within the range of whatever passes for in-universe plausibliity, at least). But I think it's important to consider the scope of this discussion: so far as I'm aware we're talking about the most reasonable way of interpreting events from stories already told, not devising new ones.
Last edited:
I don't know. I think even when extrapolating from pre-existing material, you have to take the "cool" factor into account. That matters in a big way.
"Well, we can go with the simple, boring explanation, or we can come up with something more fun."
I know which way I usually lean . . .
1) Again, that is akin to attempting to describe everything about the box from the position of being inside the box.
2) That's an opinion. Neither more nor less valid than the opinion that wide-open scope may bring new and interesting ideas to the table in a discussion. The term "reasonable" is subjective.
Reason isn't entirely subjective; there are certainly empirical criteria one could apply. Still and all, you say "subjective" like that's some kind of deal-breaker, and it's certainly not. All it means in the context at hand is that the scope of the discussion (about weighing and analyzing evidence of something or other) is determined collectively by those involved. Umpty-zillion court cases have hinged on what some small group of informed people agree to be "reasonable."
As for arguing over metaphysical naturalism, that's outside the scope of this discussion. If you think it's somehow up for debate, that the "wizard did it" approach to things is ever a viable one, hey, have fun with that.
As for arguing over metaphysical naturalism, that's outside the scope of this discussion. If you think it's somehow up for debate, that the "wizard did it" approach to things is ever a viable one, hey, have fun with that.
I think you are too hung up on the framework of law. Everything in life, every discussion people have, is not a court case.
You bring something into a discussion when it suits you and then you take it back out again when someone doesn't agree with you. I would also advise against attempting to put words in someone's mouth that they didn't say and then digging yourself in deeper by being flippant about that.
For the record, I agree that Occam's Razor is a fine tool in real life. When it come to the real world, I'm Scully, not Mulder.
But when it comes to storytelling, I think the "simplest" answer is not always the most entertaining--and not just in science fiction. This applies to, say, thrillers and murder mysteries as well.
"C'mon, lieutenant, you don't seriously expect me to believe that the killer is actually Norman Bates dressed up as his own dead mother? What are the odds of that? Chances are, it's just a jealous ex-boyfriend or a drug thing. Something ordinary like that."
But when it comes to storytelling, I think the "simplest" answer is not always the most entertaining--and not just in science fiction. This applies to, say, thrillers and murder mysteries as well.
"C'mon, lieutenant, you don't seriously expect me to believe that the killer is actually Norman Bates dressed up as his own dead mother? What are the odds of that? Chances are, it's just a jealous ex-boyfriend or a drug thing. Something ordinary like that."
I literally have no idea what you're talking about here. Look back through the thread; the context in which all came up was simply my response to @Timo about what assumptions are and aren't reasonable to make about the characters' backstory. I think I've been eminently reasonable, consistent, and civil throughout. FWIW I think Timo's one of the best on these forums at coming up with clever explanations for otherwise confounding glitches in Trek continuity (even when I disagree with his conclusions!)... I just thought he was a little off the reservation in this particular case.
1) You bring it in to bolster your position.
2) You take it back out again when your use of it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
That's not a laudable tactic.
I did indeed mention metaphysical naturalism to bolster my position, by way of rebutting a counterclaim I saw as preposterous. I did so because its merits are self-evident; it hardly needs me to defend it. The notion that it "doesn't stand up to scrutiny" is laughable. I didn't "take it out again," I merely avoided sending the thread off on a pointless tangent.
As I already posted: If you think metaphysical naturalism is somehow up for debate, that the "wizard did it" approach to things is ever a viable one, hey, have fun with that! ...But it'll have to be with someone else, somewhere else; this just isn't the discussion for it.
As I already posted: If you think metaphysical naturalism is somehow up for debate, that the "wizard did it" approach to things is ever a viable one, hey, have fun with that! ...But it'll have to be with someone else, somewhere else; this just isn't the discussion for it.
"I saw"---subjective.
"Merits are self-evident"---no, because as I stated before you are attempting to see everything about the box from a position inside the box.
"Pointless tangent"---subjective. The norm on this board is for threads to digress at times to things that are subjectively relevant....while the discussion remains worthwhile and involving I think the mods do a very good job in not being too heavy-handed in constantly pushing things back exactly on point. They give us a lot of leeway, because they see that good discussion, even if a bit off topic, is not thoroughly "pointless".
Benny, Bernie...easy to confuse the two.This guy?
So he'll be around for the whole season. That might be a year of in-universe time -- but it might also only only be 6 months of in-universe time (or even less). And we don't know if he'll be commanding the Discovery for the entire season.
Similar threads
