What was the reason for this?
iggy17ren
during his operation and grabs Trapper(his surgeon). He's obviously in
extreme pain. The nurse puts him back under.
Anyway I was just wondering why was this put in since it doesn't match with
anything else and there's no other references to it at all. It only lasts
about five seconds, and its just "there" in an episode which otherwise has a
two complete specific stories.
I thought it might have been a leftover from "O.R.", since it would have fit
much better in that episode.
just wondering. I know these scenes come up every one in awhile.
ESolomonso
>Date: 5/6/2004 3:32 AM Eastern Standard Time
>a patient awakes
>during his operation and grabs Trapper(his surgeon). He's obviously in
>extreme pain. The nurse puts him back under.
>
>Anyway I was just wondering why was this put in since it doesn't match with
>anything else and there's no other references to it at all. It only lasts
>about five seconds, and its just "there" in an episode which otherwise has a
>two complete specific stories.
But it does lend credence to a hectic operating room in a war zone. Things of
that nature probably did happen. These people were working under very different
circumstances than they would have been in a hospital back home, where there's
one operation going on at a time with all the time needed to eliminate
mistakes. Doing "Meatball surgery" with time being a huge factor, there was
always the rush to get done to work on the next casualty. With all the pressure
and all the rush, mistakes will occur. Luckily, it wasn't a big one. Also,
remember, there was a tech advisor and lots of research. If this was too far
out of the realm of a war zone field hospital, they most likely wouldn't have
done that.
Eddie
======================================
If you need me, I won't be anywhere.
Vicky LaDoucer
clear." The scene with the otherwise unreferred to/unseen patient in
great pain is simply so that it won't look like the regular and guest
star central characters in the story are the only ones who have anything
important to say or do and the rest come off looking like extras. I
wonder if by some sort of traditional standard of writing stories this
is a violation of rules.
Anthony
huh??
buck rojerz
news:6e005c60.04050...@posting.google.com:
If you bring that sentence in for alterations, I can have it shortened for
you, by next Wednesday.
;)
buck
ESolomonso
>Date: 5/7/2004 12:56 AM Eastern Standard Time
>The scene with the otherwise unreferred to/unseen patient in
>great pain is simply so that it won't look like the regular and guest
>star central characters in the story are the only ones who have anything
>important to say or do and the rest come off looking like extras. I
>wonder if by some sort of traditional standard of writing stories this
>is a violation of rules.
What rules? They come off looking like extras because that's exactly what they
are ... extras.
All this does is show the difficulties of surgery in a war zone, as opposed to
regular hospitals with one operation at a time, plenty of help and no rush to
get the next casualty in. These people took every available shortcut to save
time, even if it meant the gas was set a notch lower than it should be. Even
before the patient was closed and ready to roll to post-op, the docs were
already working on the next casualty. Things of this nature, like the guy
waking too soon, are going to happen. Luckily, it wasn't often.
Vicky LaDoucer
in the 19th century) when they used to write fictional books it was
practically unheard of to put in moments where the central character
interacts with another character briefly and the latter is never seen
before or after this brief moment of interaction. Nor is the latter part
of the storyline of the book outside of dealing with the central
character for a moment on an unrelated bit. Let me give you an example:
a high school class in 1898. A student named Ned writes a fifteen page
fictional story all about a Civil War surgeon named Harold Phillips
interacting with a patient, a corporal named Dean. Ned hands his
composition in. He gets it back with a big fat "F" on it. He quickly
realizes why as the super-brief part of his story where Dr. Phillips is
talking to another patient, a private named Paul (who has nothing to do
with Dean), has been circled by the teacher as having zilch to do with
the plot and being very bad writing on Ned's part. Realism in our
fiction has indeed made for violations of old time standards of writing.
Anthony
Well, thanks for explaining that. But it leads to another question ...
HUH???
PAUL GADZIKOWSKI
: Well Anthony what I am essentially saying is this. In the old days (say
On the other hand, there's the chapter in 'Great Expectations' when the
protagonist's boss gets married, which has nothing to do with the rest of
the story except that Dickens was getting paid by volume.
Paul Gadzikowski, scar...@iglou.com since 1995
http://www.sff.net/people/scarfman/new.htm New cartoons most days
"Tries to be Virgil and can't do it."
Brad Filippone
That's one of my favorite novels. It's true that Dickens was being paid
by volume (his novels appears as serials in a periodical of the time), but
I'll defend the segment you mention.
It may seem like extra, unneeded material, but it adds considerably to the
entire atmosphere of the novel. The same could be said about the chapter
in which he gets to see an old friend play Hamlet. The novel would be
considerably lessoned, in more ways than one, if these segments were
removed.
Hmm, I can't remember a time when Dickens was mentioned in M*A*S*H. Is
there one? lol
The Other Brad
David Brunt
> Hmm, I can't remember a time when Dickens was mentioned
> in M*A*S*H. Is there one? lol
'A Christmas Carol' got mentioned a few times (Tiny Tim, "humbug"
etc). And the "Far far better thing I do" line from "A Tale of Two
Cities". Probably others...