[SA] Awful Link of the Day
Doomriser
TrekWars: The Furry Conflict (thanks Viking ) - People dress up in animal
costumes and live out their fantasy of piloting spaceships to Jupiter or
something. I don't get this whole Computer thing, why are they taking Star
Wars (which was all about Jesus) and combining it with a Star Track (which
was all about deviant sex), how do they expect this to work? Why are there
cheetahs in space? Are these muppets?
The Furry Conflict is a combination of Star Trek and Star Wars (not
necessarily in that particular order) in a 'Furry' setting. Everything in
TFC takes place in an alternate timeline of events for both Star Trek and
Star Wars, and primarily consists of original characters not found in
traditional Star Trek and Star Wars.
This Computer thing is not my cup of tea, let me tell you people. It is a
little troubling and it definitely is not for Christians. I think Captain
Jaguar of the Starship Pumapaw needs to take a long hard look at Acts and
Psalms and then get back to his job laying dry wall. Don't visit this
Computer page, really, please don't.
http://www.furryconflict.com/main.shtml
-Doomriser
--
"We'll reach Heaven, even if we have to climb a mountain of Dead." -- Brian
Patten
Doomriser
Kazuaki Shimazaki
Oh, Julius Harper's website! I've been there once. I stopped reading
after reading those ship stats, which by admission of Julius Harper was
made up less for accuracy than to make the story look good - in his
mind.
Chris O'Farrell
> after reading those ship stats, which by admission of Julius Harper was
> made up less for accuracy than to make the story look good - in his
> mind.
You take this whole trek wars thing WAY to seriously some times.
Iceberg
When somebody can, with a straight face, rate an Imperial Star
Destroyer at little more than half the strength of a Galaxy class
starship, they're definitely more than a little bit deluded.
-- Mark
"Well, how can it get any easier than to say,
'U R GH3Y'" - Betsy Tremaine (my Other Half), on flaming
Kazuaki Shimazaki
As if you _liked_ him...
Remember back when Charles Sonnenburg said something about retaining the
original character's characteristics (like Picard, which I think I did
twist too much out of proportion for my attempt at a plot) being
important in a good crossover? I agree, but personally I have one thing
more...
I believe the equipment's characteristics should also be retained. For
instance, if I worked out logically that the ISD can kill 100 GCS
without breaking a sweat, then that characteristic of the ISD _should_
be retained. Charles also said if you want to change some guy's
personality, you need to work it in slowly. And I feel the same also
applies to equipment - for instance, if you want an GCS to be a more a
match, at least fit in years of intensive weapons development during a
cease fire somewhere in the plot.
I know there are many perfectly logical calcs on this matter, and I
would not mind if he could _logically_ justify his numbers. I know I
enjoyed FTTE despite the fact that it was less pro-Wars than I was. By
the way, Graham does not justify Portal well, which is why the story
sucked.
It is, however, quite obvious that he set his numbers _purely_ as a plot
device - ignoring any attempt to define reality in favor of what makes a
good plot. That, in my mind, makes it even worse than Portal in some
ways.
Spyda
>
> "Chris O'Farrell" <rogu...@optushome.com.au> spake thusly:
>
> >> Oh, Julius Harper's website! I've been there once. I stopped reading
> >> after reading those ship stats, which by admission of Julius Harper was
> >> made up less for accuracy than to make the story look good - in his
> >> mind.
> >
> >You take this whole trek wars thing WAY to seriously some times.
>
> When somebody can, with a straight face, rate an Imperial Star
> Destroyer at little more than half the strength of a Galaxy class
> starship, they're definitely more than a little bit deluded.
If you can say the above passage with a straight face it's a good
indication that you need to get out more.
Sir Nitram
Simply being on ASVS is an indication of that, Spyda.
--
SirNitram
ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius
The most powerful attack of them all...
DALTONDOKEN!
Brought to you by cheese.
Iceberg
Spyda
>
> Spyda <sp...@paradise.net.nz> spake thusly:
>
> >Iceberg wrote:
> >>
> >> "Chris O'Farrell" <rogu...@optushome.com.au> spake thusly:
> >>
> >> >> Oh, Julius Harper's website! I've been there once. I stopped reading
> >> >> after reading those ship stats, which by admission of Julius Harper was
> >> >> made up less for accuracy than to make the story look good - in his
> >> >> mind.
> >> >
> >> >You take this whole trek wars thing WAY to seriously some times.
> >>
> >> When somebody can, with a straight face, rate an Imperial Star
> >> Destroyer at little more than half the strength of a Galaxy class
> >> starship, they're definitely more than a little bit deluded.
> >
> >If you can say the above passage with a straight face it's a good
> >indication that you need to get out more.
>
> And you don't?
Oh yeah, well at least my name's not "Mark"!
Iceberg
Steve Garrett Jr.
>
> As if you _liked_ him...
>
> Remember back when Charles Sonnenburg said something about retaining the
> original character's characteristics (like Picard, which I think I did
> twist too much out of proportion for my attempt at a plot) being
> important in a good crossover? I agree, but personally I have one thing
> more...
Yeah. Story (or plot, if you want). Even if GK got the
characterizations of the Trek and/or Wars characters correct (an
argument I've heard before), his story still sucked. It lacked meaning,
it had no purpose, it was basically "Star Trek kicks Star Wars' ass",
and that sucked.
The Story is just as important as the characters; perhaps more
important, for it is *the* core of what is being written. It is the
engine and the engine is what determines how well the rest is received.
> I believe the equipment's characteristics should also be retained. For
> instance, if I worked out logically that the ISD can kill 100 GCS
> without breaking a sweat, then that characteristic of the ISD _should_
> be retained. Charles also said if you want to change some guy's
> personality, you need to work it in slowly. And I feel the same also
> applies to equipment - for instance, if you want an GCS to be a more a
> match, at least fit in years of intensive weapons development during a
> cease fire somewhere in the plot
>
> I know there are many perfectly logical calcs on this matter, and I
> would not mind if he could _logically_ justify his numbers. I know I
> enjoyed FTTE despite the fact that it was less pro-Wars than I was. By
> the way, Graham does not justify Portal well, which is why the story
> sucked.
The story sucked because it had no meaning. It had no central purpose
other than "Trek kicks Wars' ass".
I must strongly disagree with you, the "technical" details are
completely subordinate to the plot/story and the characterization.
While it can be argued that technical CONSISTANCY within the work is
important to the plot, the technical stuff itself is pretty much
unimportant compared to the characterization and the story. You can
write the most technically accurate and consistant work in the world,
but if it doesn't have interesting and believable characters, characters
someone can relate to, or an appealing and attractive storyline, then it
sucks. Badly. That's why most Trek series can't hold a torch to B5.
JMS didn't hold the technical issues important, at least not as
important as his characters and his story. Compare that to Trek, where
Voyager had questionable stories and mostly boring characters (or
psychotic, mustn't forget Queen Janeway!), but the writers felt that the
technical details were so important that they have to explain every
little technical detail in the damned show! DS9 at least had some
characterization and plot...
If you write a story about a guy who travels across the country, what is
more important for the overall work, the appeal of the story that makes
people want to read it? His past experiences? His thoughts and
feelings? How events make him develop as a person? The progression of
events themselves and where his traveling takes him? Or the vehicle he
drives and how it works?
The first three questions are characterization. The fourth is the story
itself, the plot. The fifth is the technical issues.
Ideally, for detail maniacs, my sixth question would be "The exact size,
shape, and characteristics of every tree he passes and every hotel he
stays in, down to the smallest detail?"
> It is, however, quite obvious that he set his numbers _purely_ as a plot
> device - ignoring any attempt to define reality in favor of what makes a
> good plot. That, in my mind, makes it even worse than Portal in some
> ways.
Why is it worse than Portal? Because he does not try to "justify" the
technical side of his story? That's bullshit.
The plot is the engine of the story. It drives it. Technical issues
are always *secondary* to the plot, because without a good plot even a
story with excellent technical rationalizations is worth precisely
jackshit. I'm sure your compatriots here have raked you over the coals
for Star Destroyer Rampant, and it showcases my point exactly. You got
wrapped up by reading out every little technical detail but your
characterization was terrible, your story, well, I won't get into that
simply because I had to quit reading when the E-E was destroyed by a
single light turbolaser coupled with more unnecessary technical jargon
to save my sanity, and your execution was horrible (too many
exclaimation marks, some cases of bad grammar). It read out to be a
technical journal opposite of "Portal".
And BTW, which fanfic do you mean by "FTTE"?
--
Sorry, it's a character trait: I can't respect idiots.
"The weak shall inherit the earth - about ten cubic meters of it over
their coffins!" - Pirate phrase, BattleTech Field Manual: Periphery
Stephen Garrett Jr.
a.k.a. "Big" Steve, Spacebattles regular, and Slayer of Fools
I AM THE MECHWARRIOR. I PILOTS THE MECHS THAT MAKES ALL OF THE TANKS AND
PEOPLES FALL DOWN AND GO SQUISH!
Spyda
>
> Spyda <sp...@paradise.net.nz> spake thusly:
>
> >Iceberg wrote:
> >>
> >> Spyda <sp...@paradise.net.nz> spake thusly:
> >>
> >> >Iceberg wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "Chris O'Farrell" <rogu...@optushome.com.au> spake thusly:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Oh, Julius Harper's website! I've been there once. I stopped reading
> >> >> >> after reading those ship stats, which by admission of Julius Harper was
> >> >> >> made up less for accuracy than to make the story look good - in his
> >> >> >> mind.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You take this whole trek wars thing WAY to seriously some times.
> >> >>
> >> >> When somebody can, with a straight face, rate an Imperial Star
> >> >> Destroyer at little more than half the strength of a Galaxy class
> >> >> starship, they're definitely more than a little bit deluded.
> >> >
> >> >If you can say the above passage with a straight face it's a good
> >> >indication that you need to get out more.
> >>
> >> And you don't?
> >
> >Oh yeah, well at least my name's not "Mark"!
>
> Um... well... HEYY!
>
> YER MOM'S UGLY!
Ha, I lied! My name is Mark! TAKE THAT!
Stuart Mackey
"Spyda" <sp...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:3C7751A4...@paradise.net.nz...
No its not, I know for a fact that its Snookums, your mum told me.
Kazuaki Shimazaki
>
> Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:
<snip>
> The story sucked because it had no meaning. It had no central purpose
> other than "Trek kicks Wars' ass".
That's the other reason, which no one needs to mention.
> I must strongly disagree with you, the "technical" details are
> completely subordinate to the plot/story and the characterization.
> While it can be argued that technical CONSISTANCY within the work is
> important to the plot, the technical stuff itself is pretty much
Perhaps what you consider "technical consistency" is closer to what I'm
talking about, not the use of technobabble, which _seems_ to be what you
_think_ I'm talking about.
> unimportant compared to the characterization and the story. You can
> write the most technically accurate and consistant work in the world,
> but if it doesn't have interesting and believable characters, characters
> someone can relate to, or an appealing and attractive storyline, then it
> sucks. Badly. That's why most Trek series can't hold a torch to B5.
Red herring. No one ever said the characterization is unimportant. In
fact, I fully acknowledge the importance of characters in the story.
> JMS didn't hold the technical issues important, at least not as
> important as his characters and his story. Compare that to Trek, where
> Voyager had questionable stories and mostly boring characters (or
> psychotic, mustn't forget Queen Janeway!), but the writers felt that the
> technical details were so important that they have to explain every
> little technical detail in the damned show! DS9 at least had some
> characterization and plot...
No one said anything about includign tons of technobabble, and no one is
demeaning the importance of character and plot.
> If you write a story about a guy who travels across the country, what is
> more important for the overall work, the appeal of the story that makes
> people want to read it? His past experiences? His thoughts and
> feelings? How events make him develop as a person? The progression of
> events themselves and where his traveling takes him? Or the vehicle he
> drives and how it works?
Umm, that's not what I meant when I said technicalities are important.
Imagine this story:
It happens in 1930s America. The characters are exquisitely designed.
The plot is beautiful. In fact, there is only one problem with the story
anyone can think of.
The main character (let's call him Steve) is in New York. His mother is
dying in a hospital in San Francisco (a few thousand km away). The plot
demands that her mother dies in an hour after Steve being notified, and
the author apparently wants Steve to make it to see his mother. To
achieve _this_ needed (or desired) development in the plot, the author
forcibly twists reality. Steve hops into a car, and actually MAKES it
(implying his car went 1000km/h+, which is of course impossible in the
30s - I doubt anything went that fast except for artillery projectiles
back then). Anyway, he bursts into the hospital room to see his mother,
they have a very touching conversation. Then his mother dies.
Worse, when you ask the author why the heck he puts this one in, he
says, "The plot is utmost, as are the characters. Technicality is not
important".
Personally, I find it hard to enjoy this story, at least as a 1930s
story. No one said "It is important to fill the story up with
technobabble". I am arguing it is important not to forcibly make such
scenarios as above without good cause.
<snip>
> > It is, however, quite obvious that he set his numbers _purely_ as a plot
> > device - ignoring any attempt to define reality in favor of what makes a
> > good plot. That, in my mind, makes it even worse than Portal in some
> > ways.
>
> Why is it worse than Portal? Because he does not try to "justify" the
> technical side of his story? That's bullshit.
In _that_ respect only. I still feel more pissed when I read Portal.
Because it gave a poor _result_. However, in terms of _method_ on this
issue _only__, even GK did better. It was a lame logical attempt, but it
is an attempt.
Using the above example, GK's (and the Trekkies that populate FanFix.com
a lot) response might be:
"I genuinely thought that cars in the 30s could go 1000km/h." - stupid,
but...
While Julius' response would be: "Because the plot needs it. To hell
with technical accuracy". That's laziness, and that's pathetic.
> The plot is the engine of the story. It drives it. Technical issues
> are always *secondary* to the plot, because without a good plot even a
> story with excellent technical rationalizations is worth precisely
> jackshit. I'm sure your compatriots here have raked you over the coals
> for Star Destroyer Rampant, and it showcases my point exactly. You got
> wrapped up by reading out every little technical detail but your
That's excess technobabble, which has nothing to do with my point. I
know SDR is horrible.
> characterization was terrible, your story, well, I won't get into that
> simply because I had to quit reading when the E-E was destroyed by a
> single light turbolaser coupled with more unnecessary technical jargon
It was a heavy turbolaser. Besides, if this is RL, and Weapon A really
can do that to Target B, would the story be good if I _forcibly_ said
Weapon A could _normally_ do that to Target B, but not in my story,
because that looks too biased (even though it is reality). I could have
said it in fewer words, without gloating, and all that, but should the
result change, simply because the plot needed it? I can change the flow
of the events. But once the HTL hits the SCS, death, according to the
rulebook (which was written logically, closely based on MW's book back
then and less attached, but still highly related now), is the only
result.
> to save my sanity, and your execution was horrible (too many
> exclaimation marks, some cases of bad grammar). It read out to be a
> technical journal opposite of "Portal".
Geez, you just repeated the entire SDR critique team's comments in a few
lines. That's a pure red herring.
> And BTW, which fanfic do you mean by "FTTE"?
Fist of the Empire, by Marina O' Leary. I understand the entire
position. Everything read well. I wondered whether the Feds can get a
gravwell moving that fast, but at least it didn't happen immediately,
they had a technical basis, and IMHO it is within the kind of variation
you can enter in for the plot.
Spyda
No she didn't. I did, remember?
Stuart Mackey
You told your mum that your name is snookums?, So you altered your birth
certificate?
Spyda
I don't wanna take on your name.
Stuart Mackey
And I dont want you to have it, I dont want to be up on charges of
beastiality because of you.
Doomriser
news:3C76F8...@netvigator.com...
> Doomriser wrote:
> > http://www.furryconflict.com/main.shtml
>
> Oh, Julius Harper's website! I've been there once. I stopped reading
> after reading those ship stats, which by admission of Julius Harper was
> made up less for accuracy than to make the story look good - in his
> mind.
"It has been determined that hyperdrive and transwarp are about equivalent"
"Hyperdrive can't possibly pull you into another dimension; if it did, then
it would not be possible to collide with a planet. But Han distinctly says
that they have to navigate so as to not hit anything. So, same dimension.
Also, hyperdrive is used interchangably with light-speed.
"Make the jump to light speed" is used, as well as "Punch the hyperdrive" is
also used. Same system (seeing as it always breaks down), but different
term. Therefore, hyperdrive uses a speed equivalent to that of the speed of
light. No extended universe there...just from the movies.
"
Re: ST vs. SW weapons
"It's subjective. The class of each weapon compared to the other needs to be
taken into account. I'm guessing that, for the purposes of TFC, the standard
class of each is about equal to the other."
These people give sad gits a bad name.
-Doomriser
--
"You put the geeks on the left and the stalkers on the right and you run for
daylight up the middle"
- William Shatner, discussing a Star Trek Convention on EW-
Kazuaki Shimazaki
<snip>
> Oh. God. I just looked at the forums.
>
> "It has been determined that hyperdrive and transwarp are about equivalent"
And how did they determine that?
> "Hyperdrive can't possibly pull you into another dimension; if it did, then
> it would not be possible to collide with a planet. But Han distinctly says
> that they have to navigate so as to not hit anything. So, same dimension.
That's Curtis Saxton's theory...only he could make it reasonable, and
these guys can't.
> Also, hyperdrive is used interchangably with light-speed.
>
> "Make the jump to light speed" is used, as well as "Punch the hyperdrive" is
> also used. Same system (seeing as it always breaks down), but different
> term. Therefore, hyperdrive uses a speed equivalent to that of the speed of
> light. No extended universe there...just from the movies.
Someone teach them science.
> Re: ST vs. SW weapons
> "It's subjective. The class of each weapon compared to the other needs to be
> taken into account. I'm guessing that, for the purposes of TFC, the standard
> class of each is about equal to the other."
Sigh...the craters and blasts can be objectively measured.
> These people give sad gits a bad name.
Don't tell me any more. I feel sick.
Spyda
Yeah, in your case I guess twice was enough.
Steve Garrett Jr.
> That's the other reason, which no one needs to mention.
One of those rules of the universe, I suppose. You've got gravity,
motion, and "the plot of Graham Kennedy's 'Portal' sucks Ewok cock".
> Perhaps what you consider "technical consistency" is closer to what I'm
> talking about, not the use of technobabble, which _seems_ to be what you
> _think_ I'm talking about.
When I mean technically consistant, I mean A) based on what we know of
real life (in sci-fi this gets stretched with things like FTL,
obviously) and such, and B) Technological capabilities don't fluctuate
radically. A race that can't build a 2km long warship won't suddenly
start commissioning Eclipse-sized battleships.
For fanfics, it means that the technologies act as we observe them.
Phasers vape things, lightsabers deflect blaster bolts, and wet Wookiees
reek something horrible. ;-)
> Red herring. No one ever said the characterization is unimportant. In
> fact, I fully acknowledge the importance of characters in the story.
*eye twitches*
I never said you claimed or said that characterization is unimportant.
I was explaining my points and views on good writing. How in the hell
can you call my explaination and elaboration of *my* views to be a "red
herring"?
> No one said anything about includign tons of technobabble, and no one is
> demeaning the importance of character and plot.
Again, I was using examples to elaborate on my own views, *not*
rebutting anything said by somebody else as if this were a debate!
> Umm, that's not what I meant when I said technicalities are important.
> Imagine this story:
>
> It happens in 1930s America. The characters are exquisitely designed.
> The plot is beautiful. In fact, there is only one problem with the story
> anyone can think of.
>
> The main character (let's call him Steve) is in New York. His mother is
> dying in a hospital in San Francisco (a few thousand km away). The plot
> demands that her mother dies in an hour after Steve being notified, and
> the author apparently wants Steve to make it to see his mother. To
> achieve _this_ needed (or desired) development in the plot, the author
> forcibly twists reality. Steve hops into a car, and actually MAKES it
> (implying his car went 1000km/h+, which is of course impossible in the
> 30s - I doubt anything went that fast except for artillery projectiles
> back then). Anyway, he bursts into the hospital room to see his mother,
> they have a very touching conversation. Then his mother dies.
>
> Worse, when you ask the author why the heck he puts this one in, he
> says, "The plot is utmost, as are the characters. Technicality is not
> important".
Such an author would be a fool. I said plot and characterization are
more important than technical realism, not that technical realism is
unimportant.
Besides, writing a story set in the 1930s in the "real world" is a
different animal to writing a science fiction/fantasy story.
> Personally, I find it hard to enjoy this story, at least as a 1930s
> story. No one said "It is important to fill the story up with
> technobabble". I am arguing it is important not to forcibly make such
> scenarios as above without good cause.
That is a flawed comparison to sci-fi writing. You are comparing a
fictional work set in a determined point in the past to writing science
fiction/fantasy, which has technical rules that are significantly looser.
But writing a fic where, say, a Dominion War-era Galaxy-class BB can
match an ISD1 is not the same as your above car example. In such venues
plot and characters *do* take precedence over technical issues
(obviously there is the presumption of reasonability on the part of the
author, outside of spoofs/comedies no good author would have things like
a shuttlecraft surviving the DS superlaser).
> In _that_ respect only. I still feel more pissed when I read Portal.
> Because it gave a poor _result_. However, in terms of _method_ on this
> issue _only__, even GK did better. It was a lame logical attempt, but it
> is an attempt.
But why does an attempt have to be made? This is science fiction, it
should be up to the author whether to rationalize tech information or
not and how far to go. Such information is subordinate to the plot and
characters.
> Using the above example, GK's (and the Trekkies that populate FanFix.com
> a lot) response might be:
> "I genuinely thought that cars in the 30s could go 1000km/h." - stupid,
> but...
Your analogy is again unsound.
> While Julius' response would be: "Because the plot needs it. To hell
> with technical accuracy". That's laziness, and that's pathetic.
Laziness? Maybe he just doesn't *give a damn*. I don't either. It's
not "pathetic" to put the plot before your "technical realism".
I suppose you'll bring up that 1930s analogy again, operating under the
assumption that it is an operational analogy, when it is not.
The excellence of science fiction writing should be determined by the
plot that drives it and the characters that make it up, not the
technical details or "technical accuracy".
> That's excess technobabble, which has nothing to do with my point. I
> know SDR is horrible.
You have already complained about people not doing the exact same thing,
that they are lazy for not "explaining" it. You called a fanfic worse
than Portal not on the grounds of it's plot but because the author
didn't explain the technical aspects of the story to your liking.
In case you didn't realize it, technobabble *is* a method of explaining
the technical issues.
> It was a heavy turbolaser.
Oh really? This excerpt says otherwise:
" A single light turbolaser belched out a 400 terajoule beam,
effectively vaporizing the remnants of the Enterprise."
It was a light TL. An ion cannon had hit the ship, gone right through
the shields, and disabled it with one shot, causing the entire ship to
shut down (Save that one escape pod you had La Forge escape in).
> Besides, if this is RL
It is not.
> and Weapon A really
> can do that to Target B, would the story be good if I _forcibly_ said
> Weapon A could _normally_ do that to Target B, but not in my story,
> because that looks too biased (even though it is reality). I could have
> said it in fewer words, without gloating, and all that, but should the
> result change, simply because the plot needed it? I can change the flow
> of the events. But once the HTL hits the SCS, death, according to the
> rulebook (which was written logically, closely based on MW's book back
> then and less attached, but still highly related now), is the only
> result.
This rulebook you speak off is non-existant; it is only applicable to
technical debates and discussions, *not* writing fanfiction.
Again, I remind you; this is not real life. This is science fantasy.
There is no rulebook aside from internal technical consistancy/relative
realism and, most importantly, good plot and characters.
>>to save my sanity, and your execution was horrible (too many
>>exclaimation marks, some cases of bad grammar). It read out to be a
>>technical journal opposite of "Portal".
>>
>
> Geez, you just repeated the entire SDR critique team's comments in a few
> lines. That's a pure red herring.
Why? Because it hurts your feelings? Poor baby...
>>And BTW, which fanfic do you mean by "FTTE"?
>>
>
> Fist of the Empire, by Marina O' Leary. I understand the entire
> position. Everything read well. I wondered whether the Feds can get a
> gravwell moving that fast, but at least it didn't happen immediately,
> they had a technical basis, and IMHO it is within the kind of variation
> you can enter in for the plot.
Thank you for the clarification.
Let me give you a visual aid, hopefully it will sink in.
A story, a work of writing, is like a car. You have four aspects of the
car.
First is the detail. It is the outside of the car, it's appearance,
it's color, etc. Sure, it makes the car look nice, but it is still only
an appearance. Not essential to if the car is actually worth having.
Then we get to the technical aspects. They are the car's furnishings.
The seats, the radio, the air conditioner. You can run a car without
them, but it's so much better to have those aspects intact.
Now we have the characterizations. The frame of the car, the skeleton.
They give the car it's shape and support it's other attributes. A
poor frame will buckle under if you are not careful, even if the car is
running fine.
Finally, we have the plot. The engine of the car. It determines how
well the car runs. Every other aspect of the car could be excellent,
but if the engine is bad, the car won't run or won't run as well as it
should.
I think your POV is effected by the "debate" here. It has hardened you;
you cannot accept out of hand anything that does not coincide with what
you accept as technical fact in the debates. The author must explain it
for you to accept it (and his explaination must meet with your approval).
That is small-minded and pretty foolish. Most authors, good ones too,
do not hold technical explaination to be anything more than helping to
establish some of the setting, explain the universe if you will. Which
is actually unnecessary for a plot (although it adds to it).
Paradox
> > The main character (let's call him Steve) is in New York. His mother is
> > dying in a hospital in San Francisco (a few thousand km away). The plot
> > demands that her mother dies in an hour after Steve being notified, and
> > the author apparently wants Steve to make it to see his mother. To
> > achieve _this_ needed (or desired) development in the plot, the author
> > forcibly twists reality. Steve hops into a car, and actually MAKES it
> > (implying his car went 1000km/h+, which is of course impossible in the
> > 30s - I doubt anything went that fast except for artillery projectiles
> > back then). Anyway, he bursts into the hospital room to see his mother,
> > they have a very touching conversation. Then his mother dies.
> > >
IT would have made more sense if he was in LA or his mother was in, uhh,
some shitty town outside of NYC.
Kazuaki Shimazaki
<snip>
> IT would have made more sense if he was in LA or his mother was in, uhh,
> some shitty town outside of NYC.
Can't you see I'm trying for a quick analogy. Fine, her mother is in LA,
and Steve's in a little town thousands of km away from it. Does that
change the result any?
Kazuaki Shimazaki
>
> Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote
<snip>
> > talking about, not the use of technobabble, which _seems_ to be what you
> > _think_ I'm talking about.
>
> When I mean technically consistant, I mean A) based on what we know of
> real life (in sci-fi this gets stretched with things like FTL,
> obviously) and such, and B) Technological capabilities don't fluctuate
> radically. A race that can't build a 2km long warship won't suddenly
> start commissioning Eclipse-sized battleships.
>
> For fanfics, it means that the technologies act as we observe them.
> Phasers vape things, lightsabers deflect blaster bolts, and wet Wookiees
> reek something horrible. ;-)
Agreed. But you seem to be only using qualitative terms, with nothing
quantitative. Watch this:
Instead of merely saying that phasers or TLs "vape things", we evaluate
them _objectively_ and give them a destruction rating. Mike Wong
objectively analyzes it and suggests HTLs can do 92 million TJ of
thermal damage (vape things) per blast, minimum. Instead of saying ST
shields "block things", let's evaluate them _objectively_ to work out
how _much_ they can withstand. Let's say MW is right (MG got some
complaints, but let's ignore them for right now) - the shields are about
100,000TJ strong (calculated mostly against EM, similar to thermal
damage, which is a lot of IR - EM)
According to "A" from you, what we know of real life is important. RL
suggests that if something can only block 100,000TJ and 92 million TJ
comes at it, it won't block. Assuming that both values are correct, the
ST shield failing is just about inevitable. The differenc is above the
uncertainty cones due to imprecisision. If somehow the ST shields blocks
it in your story, then you've violated Statute A, B or both.
<snip>
> Again, I was using examples to elaborate on my own views, *not*
> rebutting anything said by somebody else as if this were a debate!
Fine, my apologies, then.
<snip>
> Such an author would be a fool. I said plot and characterization are
> more important than technical realism, not that technical realism is
> unimportant.
So you agree technical realism is important.
<snip>
> But writing a fic where, say, a Dominion War-era Galaxy-class BB can
> match an ISD1 is not the same as your above car example. In such venues
> plot and characters *do* take precedence over technical issues
> (obviously there is the presumption of reasonability on the part of the
> author, outside of spoofs/comedies no good author would have things like
> a shuttlecraft surviving the DS superlaser).
So you're saying it is OK to have a GCS=ISD as long as it is good for
the plot, but _not_ OK to have a shuttlecraft shield=DS blast? That
sounds like a form of degree analysis, like saying stealing 100 dollars
is OK to save your mom but one million is not. The only thing different
between your two scenarios is _severity_ of the ignorance of the
calculated physics of the event.
<snip>
> The excellence of science fiction writing should be determined by the
> plot that drives it and the characters that make it up, not the
> technical details or "technical accuracy".
That's true if you're creating science fiction from scratch, however,
since it is a crossover, loyalty to the two side's real capabilities is
also important. Else, you aren't really discussing ST versus SW
scenarios.
For instance, in a current day War Fiction between the US and Russia,
suddenly the US gets a lot of extra abilities (ref: Dale Brown novels).
It can _still_ be an enjoyable story overall (with excellent everything
else), BUT IT IS REALLY NO LONGER ABOUT THE US VERSUS RUSSIA. It is a
story between a country that _looks_ like the US versus Russia. On a
scale of whether it is a good story about the current day US versus
Russia, I'll score it low. I enjoy Dale Brown novels, but only if I
think of it as close-range science fiction (especially Silver Tower, in
which both sides get so many extra abilities that...jeez, it feels a bit
like Star Trek). If I think of it as real US versus Russia or China,
well...
In other words, I might actually enjoy the Furry Conflict, but _only_ if
I think of it as not about Star Wars and Star Trek. Then I can evaluate
it on plot, and the relative power ratio between Side A and Side B,
_both_ sides invented by yourself is completely up to you. But however,
if A and B are defined values (by someone else), I disagree that you can
arbitrarily take their values on A and B (which results in a ratio) and
change the ratio because it is good fo the plot. You can say I've
observed A and B and think that the observable values of A is not the
same as my A and B is not what I read for B - and thus the ratio is
different. But _not_, "Even though I'm writing about A and B, I don't
care what A and B really is. I need A and B in ratio X, and that's more
important".
<snip>
> You have already complained about people not doing the exact same thing,
> that they are lazy for not "explaining" it. You called a fanfic worse
> than Portal not on the grounds of it's plot but because the author
> didn't explain the technical aspects of the story to your liking.
I am _not_ evaluating the plot, can't you tell? Any story can be better
than Portal if you compute by plot, probably anyway.
> In case you didn't realize it, technobabble *is* a method of explaining
> the technical issues.
It is a method of _explaining_ technical issues. It is not the point of
our argument, which is how closely a sci-fi FanFiction should adhere to
"reality" in the two universes.
<snip>
> It was a light TL. An ion cannon had hit the ship, gone right through
> the shields, and disabled it with one shot, causing the entire ship to
> shut down (Save that one escape pod you had La Forge escape in).
Your Quote is out of context. There wasn't much left of the Enterprise
by the time I sent that 400TJ beam out. In fac,t the only part that was
really intact left was the escape pod, which was what was really
destroyed, had you been reading the whole story (it is a farce, but
still) rather than picking out little parts.
But yeah, it wasn't a heavy TL, it is a heavy ion cannon. Sorry.
<snip>
> This rulebook you speak off is non-existant; it is only applicable to
> technical debates and discussions, *not* writing fanfiction.
No, your words suggest that it exists, just that you feel it shouldn't
be used for writing sci-fi FanFiction. But with suspension of disbelief
active, sci-fi is reality, so you're really saying that, in a way
> Again, I remind you; this is not real life. This is science fantasy.
> There is no rulebook aside from internal technical consistancy/relative
> realism and, most importantly, good plot and characters.
It is not real life, all agree on that. Read the second last section.
<snip>
If Charles Sonnenburg and Phong Nguyen can't hurt my feelings, you can't
either. I'm just expressing my opinion that it is unrelated.
<snip>
> Thank you for the clarification.
>
> Let me give you a visual aid, hopefully it will sink in.
Nice analogy, but I disagree. I think it is more like this:
The technical aspects is the car frame. If it was genuinely your own
story, from head to tail, you get to build the car frame as large and in
whatever shape you want. If you are writing ST/SW, crossover or not, the
car frame design is fixed, by the graces of Paramount and/or Lucasfilm
canon and official material. Same as FanFiction about Robotech,
Battlestar Galactica, or even Sailormoon, though different companies
gave you the frame.
You're probably correct to say the plot is the engine and other
propulsive linkages. And you can choose whatever engine you want,
there's a lot of freedom, but it _must_ be within the car frame. If you
built the car frame yourself, you've got no problems (hoepfully, you've
designed a car frame that would accomodate your engine and everything
else). If you _didn't_ build the car frame yourself, as in ST-SW
crossover, then your engine is restricted.
The characterization are the control linkages. The propulsion system and
the controls should be well harmonized, but again, they must not exceed
the frame.
The details are everything else, like the air-con. The details must tie
in to the rest of the system, but they must still obey the restrictions
of the frame! Hell, details must obey all others.
The technobabble is the piece of paper stuck on the car's windshield,
listing all its features and functions in boring detail. I hadn't seen
cars with engines that the frame won't accomodate work well.
> I think your POV is effected by the "debate" here. It has hardened you;
> you cannot accept out of hand anything that does not coincide with what
> you accept as technical fact in the debates. The author must explain it
> for you to accept it (and his explaination must meet with your approval).
In fact, I do not exactly expect everyone to meet my requirements. I
frowned a _bit_ on Andrew Thorpe's decision to make the HTLs only 100MT,
but since it was fairly logical, on the whole I still liked the story.
Besides, it wasn't _exactly_ Star Wars versus Star Trek there, which
gave him even more room.
If I needed everyone to meet my full and unreserved approval before
enjoying their story, I wouldn't have enjoyed a single story. I enjoyed
Eliminator, despite the fact that MJ decided to allow phasers and
disruptors about a 28% (IIRC) free pass through the shields, so they can
begin to hurt the ISD without bringing the shields down. Of course, the
ISD doesn't get that advantage. SW deflectors _are_ often depicted to
leak somewhat, and so technically it is within the uncertainty zone
(even though I feel a 28% leak rate was way to the edge of that cone)
Kazuaki Shimazaki
>
> Kabuki Shimazaki wrote:
>
> > It is, however, quite obvious that he set his numbers _purely_ as a plot
> > device - ignoring any attempt to define reality in favor of what makes a
> > good plot. That, in my mind, makes it even worse than Portal in some
> > ways.
>
> make and it makes it hard to enjoy the story.
>
> Or in my case, being a programmer and watching people use computers in
> TV and movies. If we see the screen the text is usually so large it's
> readable from 10 feet away. (Which is how far the camera is.) But how
> many people have there font size that big?
>
> Such a large discrepancy can destroy suspension of disbelief.
Thanks for making my point :)