Re: Vanguard: Reap the Whirlwind
Nothing. Sorry about parsing two things into that one paragraph: I was commenting on both the illogic of Starfleet actions such as failing to haul in more cruisers(which I did not consider implausible at all) and the illogic of the colonist actions (which I maintained was implausible).
I wished to blame the colonists and the colonists alone of idiocy, and idiocy of the sort that should have been weeded out of all Earth colonists during the first century of colonization already. We learned from Titanic, and even back then the world would not have tolerated the sort of callous waste of life that marked New World colonization. By the 2260s, the Trek folks should be inventing new mistakes, not rehashing old ones.
I most vehemently do not blame the author, as I do not think that writing an "idiot plot" element into a story implies that the author would be an idiot. Quite to the contrary, idiot plots are excellent vehicles for forwarding a story as long as
a) the audience isn't expected to hold the idiot characters in high esteem (and these particular characters did have "antagonist" written on their backs, just below the bullseye),
b) the story at large does not consist solely of idiot plots (which in this case hopefully goes without saying!), and
c) the use of idiot plot yields a tangible benefit, such as dropping a whole chapter of exposition, or skipping an awkward apology for what is about to transpire.
My most sincere apologies for letting you think I was using "idiot plot" offensively, David. I should have known better than to use a provocative term, thinking that it be taken as innocent jargon.
Finally, all that said, I withdraw the idiot plot accusation altogether. Thanks for pointing out the obvious timescale issue, Christopher and David both.
The colonists were stupid, but not idiotic enough to warrant the drama jargon...
(Frankly, I wonder whether separatist colonists would maintain any spacecraft in readiness, there being few offworld places for them to visit...)
Timo Saloniemi
Nothing. Sorry about parsing two things into that one paragraph: I was commenting on both the illogic of Starfleet actions such as failing to haul in more cruisers(which I did not consider implausible at all) and the illogic of the colonist actions (which I maintained was implausible).
I wished to blame the colonists and the colonists alone of idiocy, and idiocy of the sort that should have been weeded out of all Earth colonists during the first century of colonization already. We learned from Titanic, and even back then the world would not have tolerated the sort of callous waste of life that marked New World colonization. By the 2260s, the Trek folks should be inventing new mistakes, not rehashing old ones.
I most vehemently do not blame the author, as I do not think that writing an "idiot plot" element into a story implies that the author would be an idiot. Quite to the contrary, idiot plots are excellent vehicles for forwarding a story as long as
a) the audience isn't expected to hold the idiot characters in high esteem (and these particular characters did have "antagonist" written on their backs, just below the bullseye),
b) the story at large does not consist solely of idiot plots (which in this case hopefully goes without saying!), and
c) the use of idiot plot yields a tangible benefit, such as dropping a whole chapter of exposition, or skipping an awkward apology for what is about to transpire.
My most sincere apologies for letting you think I was using "idiot plot" offensively, David. I should have known better than to use a provocative term, thinking that it be taken as innocent jargon.
Finally, all that said, I withdraw the idiot plot accusation altogether. Thanks for pointing out the obvious timescale issue, Christopher and David both.
The colonists were stupid, but not idiotic enough to warrant the drama jargon...(Frankly, I wonder whether separatist colonists would maintain any spacecraft in readiness, there being few offworld places for them to visit...)
Timo Saloniemi
