Reminds me of a Simpsons moment:
You're never going to please everyone. It's nice that some people are embracing S2 after not liking S1, but I hope that the reverse is not true for a significant portion of those who enjoyed S1.
So far, do you think season 2 of Discovery is better than season 1?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
Reminds me of a Simpsons moment:
You're never going to please everyone. It's nice that some people are embracing S2 after not liking S1, but I hope that the reverse is not true for a significant portion of those who enjoyed S1.
They probably would have used a laser scalpel in sickbay, but all they had in engineering was a power drill.
I know that. Just interesting that in the future, even a fictional one they still exist.
Also that got multiple mentions. I was amused by that. Duct Tape is universal and will never die.
Actually that is not entirely the case. A well constructed building isn't just form and function if people are involved. Take a church for instance. Or a house. They are build differently than warefhouses or factory buildings to take into account of subjective human/intimate scale psychological and emotional needs, not merely form and function as a space strictly for functional requirements.
As well, in my writing, structure comes first, art fills that in. Without structure there is no form to hang that art on. But lets consider art themselves, painting perhaps, music, sculpting etc. looking at is one thing, but casual viewers of art don't generally have the intimate knowledge of what it takes to put a piece of art together compared to the people that actually make their art. And practice generally increases the ability for artists to understand their field in general and recognize talent and lack thereof in their particular field.
Last edited:
Its probably not as painful as you think since the brain does not have pain receptors and the actual drilling took a fraction of a second. I would think a stubbed toe would probably be more painful.
Reno did ask Stamets if he had a laser scalpel, but the drill was the only thing available in engineering.
No, not really. Just different.
It's very uneven and feels like a show designed to be binge watched, even though it's released weekly.
I think (so far, it's only 4 episodes in!) season one was more consistent. But it ended on the damp squib to end all damp squibs. We shall see.
I think (so far, it's only 4 episodes in!) season one was more consistent. But it ended on the damp squib to end all damp squibs. We shall see.
Nonetheless an architects' first priority is objectively measurable. A church is designed as a large space where a congregation have the means to focus on a single point for instance. A house as a space where people can live in close proximity but still have privacy and spaces to meet their physiological needs. Even the psychological elements are based around measurable principles and criteria. Churches are actually in many ways designed to intimidate and visually control the locality. Their size and shape is about authority, they place the preacher/priest as a focus of human authority overshadowed and licensed by the "greater power" of heaven/god/whoever. The methods used to create that impression are well established and are used in other buildings of a similar nature, they are by and large universal to humans. They can be experimentally observed in the behavioural responses of humans viewing or entering them (in fact they have been) and follow patterns which have existed in human responses based in deep pre history and our evolutionary background.
Anything beyond those practical intentions is absolutely secondary.
A book is not measured in those terms, not unless its' best quality is being formulaic. The individuals' responses and understanding of the text are paramount, they are the primary concern, not a footnote. All of the structure and story telling conventions in the world do not make a book great, equally their absence needn't detract from its' creativity or impact.
A structure that is built on a foundation of comma splices, apparently.
Their own work excluded, of course.
I write about as well as a woodpecker with a broken crayon stuck in its beak. (Draw about as well as one too. ) And I do very little outside my daily TBBS badinage. But that doesn't make my opinion about writing any less valid than that of one who does. One doesn't just magically don a special artists' protection ring that renders him immune to bias and subjective taste. Nor is there a set definition or rulebook that governs good writing. If there were, the bad stuff wouldn't exist.
It's like porn: you know it when you see it. And that's true for anyone.
Well, you could google my name for starters.
And non-funny people think they are comedians as well, it would seem. I bet you know when something is funny too. But do you know why its funny?
Last edited:
A book is not measured in any of those terms? You really think that the psychological effects, the size and shape of paragraphs and chapters, the ability to create a flow that affects readers impressions, to act on expectations? You really don't know much about writing it you think that text is all that matters. A mere collection of sentences does not a great book make.
Last edited:
Similar threads
