Lynch's Spoiler Review: "Silicon Avatar"

16 views
Skip to first unread message

Timothy W. Lynch

unread,
Oct 19, 1991, 1:48:26 AM10/19/91
to
WARNING: The following article contains spoiler information regarding this
week's TNG episode, "Silicon Avatar". Those not wishing details surrounding
the show's plot, mood, characters, events, and small fish named Ethel should
perhaps consider moving on to another post at this time.

Well, *I'm* depressed.

Talk about your depressing endings...masterfully manipulated in that regard
(and a few others, though not all). More, after this synopsis from your local
station (well, okay, me):

While Riker, Data, and Bev are visiting the Melona Four colony, the
Crystalline Entity appears and utterly destroys it, although all but two of
the colonists are saved. The Enterprise is sent to track the Entity down,
with the help of xenologist Kyla Marr--a woman who, although capable, has no
trust for Data, due to Lore's previous assistance given to the Entity in the
past. Picard, realizing that if her attitude will be a problem, it's best to
know early, assigns her to work with Data in nearly every detail.

She doesn't take to it well initially--she accuses him of collaborating with
the Entity (thus "explaining" why this group of colonists wasn't killed like
all the other attacks in 20-plus years), and reveals that her interest in the
Entity began when her son was killed at Omicron Theta (Data's homeworld).
However, after Data has provided help in several occasions (including finding
a way to track the Entity by a method Dr. Marr had overlooked), she appears to
realize that he really *isn't* much like Lore.

As the Enterprise follows the Entity (which is apparently headed for the
Brechtian cluster), Picard has to point out to Marr that the intent is *not*
to kill the Entity unless they absolutely have to--he'd prefer to find a way
to communicate with it, and see if its needs can be supplied in some other
way. Marr is understandably skeptical, but agrees to work with Data to find a
method of communication.

They find one--and Marr further finds that through Data's programmed memories
and experiences of the Omicron Theta colony, she can, in some respects, hear
her son again. (After the Entity captures and "consumes" the inhabitants of
another ship, Data reads one of her son's journal entries aloud in his voice,
bringing tears to Marr's eyes.)

They eventually find the Entity and begin broadcasting a series of graviton
pulses to it. It appears to respond, and emits a pattern which is almost
undoubtedly a sign of intelligence, although they cannot yet decipher what the
pattern of pulses means. Picard is elated--but then Marr, who wrote most of
the program, alters it to emit a _continuous_ pulse of gravitons with rapidly
increasing amplitude, and locks the program in such a way that neither Data
nor Geordi can stop the emission before the Entity is shattered.

Data takes Marr back to her quarters, her mind virtually snapped. She asks
"Rennie", through Data, to tell her that he understands she did it for him.
Data demurs: from what he knows of her son through his journals and vivid
memories, he believes Rennie would be very sad at the loss of both the Entity
and of his mother's brilliant career.

That should do. (Yes, it's a bit shorter than usual--I think it was a little
more easily summarized than most. Besides, I'm tired. :-) ) Now, on to some
comments.

It's an interesting situation when the alleged blockbuster of "Redemption II"
(which, although riddled with holes and annoyances, did provide an interesting
enough ride that it got a 6.5) is the worst show of the season. But so far,
that seems to be the case--this was a pretty solid outing.

I'll get the gripes out of the way first, I think. So...

First, I'm a little bit annoyed that we rarely, if *ever*, see a scientist who
isn't somehow obsessed, or overbearing, or some other form of bad guy. It's
analogous to the "Admirals are all idiots" syndrome, but I don't mind that
one. I do mind this one--we're not *all* like that, after all! (I make no
claims as to which category I fall into, however. :-) ) That's just a
general gripe--Marr was written well enough that I'm willing to overlook it in
this case. But I *do* wish we'd see some non-Enterprise scientists who
weren't so unlikeable (when the first three I can think of are Marr,
"Evolution"'s Dr. Stubbs, and "Where No One Has Gone Before"'s Kosinski,
there's a clear trend).

Along vaguely similar lines--although Marr was a well-written and
well-motivated character (a bit of a surprise, actually; I didn't think so at
all in her first few scenes, but most or all of it was set right), Ellen
Geer's performance occasionally didn't hit things quite right. Most of her
"hostile" scenes in the second act didn't feel quite right to me, despite the
fact that they made perfect sense in context. And her final appeal to
"Rennie" was ever so slightly too over-the-top for me. It's a minor
point--her more important scenes (those in Data's quarters, and her final one
on the bridge) were well-played, and that's what really counts. But it's
worth mentioning.

Finally, I'm unsure about the Treknological aspects of the show. First of
all, gamma rays are *not* in the 10 keV range--that's X-rays. Second, I don't
believe proton-antiproton annihilation will make emissions at that
frequency--but I'm not at all sure about that, and I'm sure someone more
experienced can correct me on that. The prospect of using gravitons seems
marginally titchy, since I believe gravitons are theorized to move only at c
(i.e. they wouldn't work if you're broadcasting to something a few light-years
away), but since we know so little about them (like, we've yet to *actually
see one* :-) ), I'm not sweating that much.

Major plot problem: the only other time we saw the Entity, Lore *was
communicating with it*--and it was clear that the Entity understood in
"Datalore", based on its actions early in its appearance. This is a huge bit
of retconning that makes much of "Datalore" somewhat difficult to explain, and
I don't like it. I'm sure they could have come up with *something* to make
both fit (and I'm sure r.a.s. will before too long :-) ), but it needed to be
done. That's really my only strong objection to the show.

Now, on to some of the good points.

After two weeks of railing about Riker acting like a bozo (and a week before
where he got virtually no air time in an allegedly important role), it was
refreshing to see Riker done right. Yes, he was flirting outrageously with
Carmen in the teaser (if you haven't seen the show yet, the details of the
colony's destruction are *far* more extensive than I gave in the synopsis, and
are well done)--but it felt human for once. (In fact, I *actually* found
myself thinking a bit of Hawkeye Pierce in that scene, and Hawkeye almost sets
the standard for TV flirting. :-) ) His actions throughout the Entity's
attack on the colony were precisely as required, and were well played--it's
not often that I manage to empathize with Frakes's portrayal, but I did
here, both when Carmen was killed off and when he and Data emerge from the
cave to see the absolute wasteland that the colony has become...brr. Finally,
Riker took *exactly* the right tone when he was questioning whether they
perhaps *should* just kill the Entity--right down to ever so slightly
bristling when Picard suggested he was acting for personal reasons. A rare
congratulations to Frakes for a superb job this go-round.

It was also nice to see them make good work out of a development I don't
particularly care for, i.e. Data's professed complete lack of emotions. Based
on his actions in past shows ("The Measure of a Man", for instance), I don't
believe that it's particularly apt, but it was put to good use here. Only
someone as unfeeling as Data could avoid reacting to Marr's accusations
initially, and only someone as unfeeling as Data could have delivered a
condemnation such as the one Marr got at the end. Beautiful.

And this was definitely one of Cliff Bole's better directing jobs. While I do
tend to get into the show, it's rare that I have much of an emotional reaction
to it. Two different scenes managed to evoke precisely what the writers
intended--absolute shock and dismay at the scene of the ravaged colony (I'm
reminded of the current cover to Donaldson's _The Wounded Land_
there...obligatory Donaldson reference :-) ), and feeling Marr's pain when
hearing her son's journal in his voice. It wasn't all Bole's doing--in part,
one of the reasons the former scene worked so well was that Riker looked
_convincingly_ stricken by it, and another was the music there. But Bole was
responsible for much of it, no doubt. Nice work.

As to that music...it's definitely time to give Jay Chattaway as much work as
he can handle. First, he does a memorable job on "Darmok"; now, this. His
piece at the sight of the ravaged colony is probably the most powerful, and
vivid, piece I've heard from TNG since the sighting of the Borg ship in
BOBW1--enough so that it took a conscious effort of will not to stand. If he
keeps this up, I'm going to have to start agreeing with people who're bored by
the music from TNG's other musicmakers, since this is just so far above the
rest. (He's no James Horner or John Williams yet, but he's definitely doing a
solid job.)

The effects were generally excellent. There was one exception--the "shaking"
in the cave when the Entity attacked outside was pretty cheesy (reminded me of
"Devil's Due", in fact--and that's not a memory I cherish :-) ). But the
shots of the Entity were breathtaking, particularly those in the teaser--both
beautiful and menacing at the same time. Computer-generated effects or no, it
was a vivid image.

Let's see...what else is there. Oh, yes, Dr. Marr. As I said, I didn't find
her all that believable _initially_--and I didn't buy her sudden "okay, fine,
everyone's terrific--Data, the Entity, everything" conversion. However, the
conversion _wasn't_ quite legit--the part with Data was (and was not a part I
objected to), but she'd simply changed towards the Entity in order to better
have access to destroy it. Her clear obsession about her son was built up
rather slowly--nicely done, since that's the sort of thing that can *very*
easily be made a rotten plotline. About the only scene I didn't eventually
accept was her initial arrival--it was necessary to show how strong she was
there to show just how much she crumbles at the end, yes, but I couldn't
swallow it. She *almost* makes up for it with her offhand "of course, the
last person [her son] would tell [about a girlfriend] would be his mother,"
though. :-)

A few random notes:

--Nice use of Data's programmed memories. If there was ever a time and a way
to use them, this was it--it makes perfect sense that someone with a relative
at the colony should be avidly curious.

--So there's "no predetermined limit" on Data's existence, eh? I'm sure they
didn't actually *intend* for this to impact on those who just saw the
director's cut of "Blade Runner" in LA over the past few weeks, but...:-)

--Picard's "remarkable", complete with raised eyebrow. I think that's the
most Vulcan I have *ever* seen our friend the Captain. Interesting image.

So, that would seem to do it. Not quite a perfect outing, but a very strong
one. So, Da Numbers:

Plot: 7. It would've been an airtight 10, but for the "how the HELL did Lore
talk to it, then?" retcon.
Plot Handling: 10. Bliss.
Characterization: 9. A bit off for some of Marr's less believable moments,
but apart from that, everyone was in character, and *well* in
character.

TOTAL: 9.5, upping quite a bit for music/FX. Good work, guys.

NEXT WEEK:

"Disaster" strikes the Enterprise. I really hope those are the worst scenes,
'cos if they're the best...

Evenin', all.

Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)
BITNET: tlynch@citjuliet
INTERNET: tly...@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.ca...@hamlet.caltech.edu
"Travel...Arrival...years of an inch and a step toward a source..."
--Suzanne Vega, "Pilgrimage"
--
Copyright 1991, Timothy W. Lynch. All rights reserved, but feel free to ask...

Bill Wendling

unread,
Oct 19, 1991, 2:16:55 PM10/19/91
to
tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:

>WARNING: The following article contains spoiler information regarding this
>week's TNG episode, "Silicon Avatar". Those not wishing details surrounding
>the show's plot, mood, characters, events, and small fish named Ethel should
>perhaps consider moving on to another post at this time.

>Well, *I'm* depressed.

>Talk about your depressing endings...masterfully manipulated in that regard
>(and a few others, though not all). More, after this synopsis from your local
>station (well, okay, me):

It's about time they stopped sloving the problems of the universe in 1 hour
and let some problems continue. This is life.

[Summary Deleted]

>I'll get the gripes out of the way first, I think. So...

>First, I'm a little bit annoyed that we rarely, if *ever*, see a scientist who
>isn't somehow obsessed, or overbearing, or some other form of bad guy. It's
>analogous to the "Admirals are all idiots" syndrome, but I don't mind that
>one. I do mind this one--we're not *all* like that, after all! (I make no
>claims as to which category I fall into, however. :-) ) That's just a
>general gripe--Marr was written well enough that I'm willing to overlook it in
>this case. But I *do* wish we'd see some non-Enterprise scientists who
>weren't so unlikeable (when the first three I can think of are Marr,
>"Evolution"'s Dr. Stubbs, and "Where No One Has Gone Before"'s Kosinski,
>there's a clear trend).

These are the more interesting scientists. (In the theatrical sense :-).

>Along vaguely similar lines--although Marr was a well-written and
>well-motivated character (a bit of a surprise, actually; I didn't think so at
>all in her first few scenes, but most or all of it was set right), Ellen
>Geer's performance occasionally didn't hit things quite right. Most of her
>"hostile" scenes in the second act didn't feel quite right to me, despite the
>fact that they made perfect sense in context. And her final appeal to
>"Rennie" was ever so slightly too over-the-top for me. It's a minor
>point--her more important scenes (those in Data's quarters, and her final one
>on the bridge) were well-played, and that's what really counts. But it's
>worth mentioning.

I thought she did a fine performance as well. Her actions throughout gave
the impression of a obsessed scientist. Her final appeal to "Rennie" was
the coup-de-grace for the episode. It showed you just how obsessed she
really was.


>Finally, I'm unsure about the Treknological aspects of the show. First of
>all, gamma rays are *not* in the 10 keV range--that's X-rays. Second, I don't
>believe proton-antiproton annihilation will make emissions at that
>frequency--but I'm not at all sure about that, and I'm sure someone more
>experienced can correct me on that. The prospect of using gravitons seems
>marginally titchy, since I believe gravitons are theorized to move only at c
>(i.e. they wouldn't work if you're broadcasting to something a few light-years
>away), but since we know so little about them (like, we've yet to *actually
>see one* :-) ), I'm not sweating that much.

Wasn't there a problem in Einstein's view with gravitons travelling at the
speed of light? He thought that only light could travel that fast.

>Major plot problem: the only other time we saw the Entity, Lore *was >communicating with it*--and it was clear that the Entity understood in >"Datalore", based on its actions early in its appearance. This is a huge bit >of retconning that makes much of "Datalore" somewhat difficult to explain, and >I don't like it. I'm sure they could have come up with *something* to make >both fit (and I'm sure r.a.s. will before too long :-) ), but it needed to be >done. That's really my only strong objection to the

show. >Now, on to some of the good points.

I don't understand your problem here.

>After two weeks of railing about Riker acting like a bozo (and a week before
>where he got virtually no air time in an allegedly important role), it was
>refreshing to see Riker done right. Yes, he was flirting outrageously with
>Carmen in the teaser (if you haven't seen the show yet, the details of the
>colony's destruction are *far* more extensive than I gave in the synopsis, and
>are well done)--but it felt human for once. (In fact, I *actually* found
>myself thinking a bit of Hawkeye Pierce in that scene, and Hawkeye almost sets
>the standard for TV flirting. :-) ) His actions throughout the Entity's
>attack on the colony were precisely as required, and were well played--it's
>not often that I manage to empathize with Frakes's portrayal, but I did
>here, both when Carmen was killed off and when he and Data emerge from the
>cave to see the absolute wasteland that the colony has become...brr. Finally,
>Riker took *exactly* the right tone when he was questioning whether they
>perhaps *should* just kill the Entity--right down to ever so slightly
>bristling when Picard suggested he was acting for personal reasons. A rare
>congratulations to Frakes for a superb job this go-round.

Surprise for me as well. Frakes did a good job. Almost as good as in that
episode where he let that symbiant live in him.

>It was also nice to see them make good work out of a development I don't
>particularly care for, i.e. Data's professed complete lack of emotions. Based
>on his actions in past shows ("The Measure of a Man", for instance), I don't
>believe that it's particularly apt, but it was put to good use here. Only
>someone as unfeeling as Data could avoid reacting to Marr's accusations
>initially, and only someone as unfeeling as Data could have delivered a
>condemnation such as the one Marr got at the end. Beautiful.

I think he meant emotions in a different way this time.

>And this was definitely one of Cliff Bole's better directing jobs. While I do
>tend to get into the show, it's rare that I have much of an emotional reaction
>to it. Two different scenes managed to evoke precisely what the writers
>intended--absolute shock and dismay at the scene of the ravaged colony (I'm
>reminded of the current cover to Donaldson's _The Wounded Land_
>there...obligatory Donaldson reference :-) ), and feeling Marr's pain when
>hearing her son's journal in his voice. It wasn't all Bole's doing--in part,
>one of the reasons the former scene worked so well was that Riker looked
>_convincingly_ stricken by it, and another was the music there. But Bole was
>responsible for much of it, no doubt. Nice work.

KUDOS!

>As to that music...it's definitely time to give Jay Chattaway as much work as
>he can handle. First, he does a memorable job on "Darmok"; now, this. His
>piece at the sight of the ravaged colony is probably the most powerful, and
>vivid, piece I've heard from TNG since the sighting of the Borg ship in
>BOBW1--enough so that it took a conscious effort of will not to stand. If he
>keeps this up, I'm going to have to start agreeing with people who're bored by
>the music from TNG's other musicmakers, since this is just so far above the
>rest. (He's no James Horner or John Williams yet, but he's definitely doing a
>solid job.)

>The effects were generally excellent. There was one exception--the "shaking"
>in the cave when the Entity attacked outside was pretty cheesy (reminded me of
>"Devil's Due", in fact--and that's not a memory I cherish :-) ). But the
>shots of the Entity were breathtaking, particularly those in the teaser--both
>beautiful and menacing at the same time. Computer-generated effects or no, it
>was a vivid image.

Most excellent. Very chilling seeing those people just disappear in that
ray.

>Let's see...what else is there. Oh, yes, Dr. Marr. As I said, I didn't find
>her all that believable _initially_--and I didn't buy her sudden "okay, fine,
>everyone's terrific--Data, the Entity, everything" conversion. However, the
>conversion _wasn't_ quite legit--the part with Data was (and was not a part I
>objected to), but she'd simply changed towards the Entity in order to better
>have access to destroy it. Her clear obsession about her son was built up
>rather slowly--nicely done, since that's the sort of thing that can *very*
>easily be made a rotten plotline. About the only scene I didn't eventually
>accept was her initial arrival--it was necessary to show how strong she was
>there to show just how much she crumbles at the end, yes, but I couldn't
>swallow it. She *almost* makes up for it with her offhand "of course, the
>last person [her son] would tell [about a girlfriend] would be his mother,"
>though. :-)

She was excellent.

>A few random notes:

>--Nice use of Data's programmed memories. If there was ever a time and a way
>to use them, this was it--it makes perfect sense that someone with a relative
>at the colony should be avidly curious.

>--So there's "no predetermined limit" on Data's existence, eh? I'm sure they
>didn't actually *intend* for this to impact on those who just saw the
>director's cut of "Blade Runner" in LA over the past few weeks, but...:-)

>--Picard's "remarkable", complete with raised eyebrow. I think that's the
>most Vulcan I have *ever* seen our friend the Captain. Interesting image.

--
Bill Wendling :"I myself have a great empathy for inanimate
wcw2...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu : objects. Some of my best friends are Young
:-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-): Conservatives." --Alexei Sayle
"I am a jelly doughnut!" :

Timothy W. Lynch

unread,
Oct 19, 1991, 7:45:39 PM10/19/91
to
wcw2...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Bill Wendling) writes:
>tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:

>>WARNING: The following article contains spoiler information regarding this
>>week's TNG episode, "Silicon Avatar". Those not wishing details surrounding
>>the show's plot, mood, characters, events, and small fish named Ethel should
>>perhaps consider moving on to another post at this time.

>>The prospect of using gravitons seems
>>marginally titchy, since I believe gravitons are theorized to move only at c
>>(i.e. they wouldn't work if you're broadcasting to something a few light-
>>years away), but since we know so little about them (like, we've yet to
>>*actually see one* :-) ), I'm not sweating that much.

>Wasn't there a problem in Einstein's view with gravitons travelling at the
>speed of light? He thought that only light could travel that fast.

No, not quite. Anything massless will travel at c: photons, neutrinos,
gravitons (if they exist), etc.

>>Major plot problem: the only other time we saw the Entity, Lore *was
>>communicating with it*--and it was clear that the Entity understood in
>>"Datalore", based on its actions early in its appearance.

>I don't understand your problem here.

"Datalore" had no problems with communicating with the Entity. "Silicon
Avatar" had as part of its premise that no one knew how. Those two are
difficult to piece together.

Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)
BITNET: tlynch@citjuliet
INTERNET: tly...@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.ca...@hamlet.caltech.edu

"Travel, Arrival...years of an inch and a step toward a source..."
--Suzanne Vega, "Pilgrimage"

Tony Bruno

unread,
Oct 19, 1991, 10:50:52 PM10/19/91
to
I've stayed out of the episode discussions up to now, but this is just too
much to handle.

Tim Lynch described the plot handling of "Silicon Avatar" as "pure bliss."
I had to read that one twice to believe it. This was by far the worst
episode of the season.

Let's start with pacing. Yes, the teaser was interesting, as was seeing
the snowflake attack the colonists. Unfortunately, the flirting was so
heavy-handed that I had no doubt whatsoever that the lust interest was
crystal critters. Our Saturday evening group looked at each other just as
the sky darkened and said "well, SHE'S history." And it went from there.

That's okay; TNG is by far and away one of the most predictable shows to
come down the pike. I can handle that. But it was the plodding pace of
the story that just killed it for me. We had the standard character that
hates Data that learns to appreciate Data. We had the obligatory references
to seasons past that was supposed to lend continuity to the story.
Instead, all of our group said a. "But LORE spoke to it!" and b.
"Whaddya' mean, 'life's work'? The Crystalline (SP?) Entity was first
discovered in "Datalore"...which was only 4 years previous to this story.
Yich.

The character of Dr. Marr was both unsympathetic and uninteresting.
I wish I could say that a combination like that takes skill, but I can't.
She struck me as being unstable in the first few minutes of stepping aboard,
so I sat through the episode wondering why Picard even bothered with her,
ESPECIALLY when he "research" appeared to help in finding the CE not a whit.
As a result, every time she appeared on screen -- which was most of the
episode -- I couldn't bear it.

I understand what they were trying to do with this episode, but it failed
for at least four people I know. Also, as Tim rightly pointed out,
the pseudo-science was especially thick this episode. Scott and Dave --he
two of the Saturday Four -- were writhing in their seats a good deal of the
time. As One has his Master's in Physics and the other is finishing his
Doctorate, I'm inclined to be affected when one vomits in disgust. I would
be willing to dismiss it if it at least were interesting, but it wasn't so
it only hurt more. Yuck.

Okay, that's enough rambling for one night. I should KNOW that alcohol
and net.postings don't mix, but hey, it's a Saturday night and darnit,
I just FEEL like it. So there.
Tony Bruno ud118950@ndsuvm1 " 'My Country right or wrong' is like
Communications specialist saying 'My Mother drunk or sober.' "
University of North Dakota -- G. K. Chesterton
(701)-772-2599

Charles Lin

unread,
Oct 19, 1991, 11:45:55 PM10/19/91
to
spoilers


Tim Lynch writes:
>
> Major plot problem: the only other time we saw the Entity, Lore *was
> communicating with it*--and it was clear that the Entity understood in
> "Datalore", based on its actions early in its appearance. This is a huge bit
> of retconning that makes much of "Datalore" somewhat difficult to explain, and
> I don't like it. I'm sure they could have come up with *something* to make
> both fit (and I'm sure r.a.s. will before too long :-) ), but it needed to be
> done. That's really my only strong objection to the show.
>

That may have been the problem. It seemed that Lore was the *only*
person who could communicate with the entity. Who else knew how to?
Certainly not the rest of the crew, otherwise they may have tried to
convince the entity to move off in the first episode with Lore.
So, basically, Marr and Data had to start from scratch. True, Data
could have said that Lore knew how to communicate with the entitiy,
but that wouldn't have helped situations too much as Data didn't
know how Lore did it.

--
______ __ __ ___ ____
/ ____ \ | | |__| | \ | | Charles Lin
| / \_| | | __ | \| | e-mail: cl...@eng.umd.edu
| | | | | | | |\ |
| | _ | | |__| |__| \___| University of Maryland
| \____/ | | |____ "I hate big sigs." -- Moo
\______/ \_______|

Vince Taluskie

unread,
Oct 20, 1991, 3:33:08 PM10/20/91
to
In article <1991Oct19....@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> wcw2...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Bill Wendling) writes:

>
>>Finally, I'm unsure about the Treknological aspects of the show. First of
>>all, gamma rays are *not* in the 10 keV range--that's X-rays. Second, I don't
>>believe proton-antiproton annihilation will make emissions at that
>>frequency--but I'm not at all sure about that, and I'm sure someone more
>>experienced can correct me on that. The prospect of using gravitons seems

Sometimes I think that I should watch trek for purley the Treknological
comedy aspects...:-) I laughed out loud when I heard them say that gamma
rays are at 10keV - they seriously need some science advisors. Electron
Positron annihilation is at 510 keV, proton-antiproton annihilation should
be at least 900 MeV to 1.8 GeV....

--
Vince Taluskie /////////////////////////////// talu...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu

This is grain, which any fool can eat - but for which the Lord did
intend a more divine means of comsumption
- Friar Tuck; in "Robin Hood",
discussing beer

the trek witch

unread,
Oct 20, 1991, 5:13:01 PM10/20/91
to
In <1991Oct19.2...@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:

Potential Spoilers...

>"Datalore" had no problems with communicating with the Entity. "Silicon
>Avatar" had as part of its premise that no one knew how. Those two are
>difficult to piece together.

Lore wasn't gracious enough to pass along the particulars of how he
communicated with TCE?

--the trek witch


--
aka Cindy Tittle Moore

Internet: tit...@ics.uci.edu | BITNET: clti...@uci.bitnet
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucivax!tittle | Usnail: PO Box 4188, Irvine CA, 92716

Jose Gonzalez

unread,
Oct 20, 1991, 10:25:45 PM10/20/91
to
In article <1991Oct19.0...@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:

Lots and Lots(well, maybe not so much lots this time) of great summary deleted.

*SPOILERS*





>It's an interesting situation when the alleged blockbuster of "Redemption II"
>(which, although riddled with holes and annoyances, did provide an interesting
>enough ride that it got a 6.5) is the worst show of the season. But so far,
>that seems to be the case--this was a pretty solid outing.
>
>I'll get the gripes out of the way first, I think. So...
>
>First, I'm a little bit annoyed that we rarely, if *ever*, see a scientist who
>isn't somehow obsessed, or overbearing, or some other form of bad guy. It's
>analogous to the "Admirals are all idiots" syndrome, but I don't mind that
>one. I do mind this one--we're not *all* like that, after all! (I make no
>claims as to which category I fall into, however. :-) ) That's just a
>general gripe--Marr was written well enough that I'm willing to overlook it in
>this case. But I *do* wish we'd see some non-Enterprise scientists who
>weren't so unlikeable (when the first three I can think of are Marr,
>"Evolution"'s Dr. Stubbs, and "Where No One Has Gone Before"'s Kosinski,
>there's a clear trend).
>

I don't think that Brahms fit your description. Nor does Dr. Soong(sp?).
It also makes for a more dramatic show. I know a few scientists and they are
relatively dull (though there are exceptions). Nothing like a little obssesion
to spice things up.

>Along vaguely similar lines--although Marr was a well-written and
>well-motivated character (a bit of a surprise, actually; I didn't think so at
>all in her first few scenes, but most or all of it was set right), Ellen
>Geer's performance occasionally didn't hit things quite right. Most of her
>"hostile" scenes in the second act didn't feel quite right to me, despite the
>fact that they made perfect sense in context. And her final appeal to
>"Rennie" was ever so slightly too over-the-top for me. It's a minor
>point--her more important scenes (those in Data's quarters, and her final one
>on the bridge) were well-played, and that's what really counts. But it's
>worth mentioning.
>

I agree with your assesment of the actress. As I've stated before, I think
this character as written was possibly the best part a guest star has had.
It may also have been the hardest to play. Watching the episode again
yesterday, I think that Geer really had a handle on how to play the
character when she was angry at Data. She did a really good job of potraying
her disgust and dislike of him. Check out her expressions when Data starts
to speak in the ready room, really convincing. It's when the character has
a change of attitude towards Data that she doesn't convince me all the time
that she has a grip on the character. Hmmm... I think after my midterms are
over, I may do a scene by scene analysis of Geer's acting, just to make it
clearer in my mind. (Anybody else despise midterms?) Maybe I can find some
time to do it earlier.


>Now, on to some of the good points.
>
>After two weeks of railing about Riker acting like a bozo (and a week before
>where he got virtually no air time in an allegedly important role), it was
>refreshing to see Riker done right. Yes, he was flirting outrageously with
>Carmen in the teaser (if you haven't seen the show yet, the details of the
>colony's destruction are *far* more extensive than I gave in the synopsis, and
>are well done)--but it felt human for once. (In fact, I *actually* found
>myself thinking a bit of Hawkeye Pierce in that scene, and Hawkeye almost sets
>the standard for TV flirting. :-) ) His actions throughout the Entity's
>attack on the colony were precisely as required, and were well played--it's
>not often that I manage to empathize with Frakes's portrayal, but I did
>here, both when Carmen was killed off and when he and Data emerge from the
>cave to see the absolute wasteland that the colony has become...brr. Finally,
>Riker took *exactly* the right tone when he was questioning whether they
>perhaps *should* just kill the Entity--right down to ever so slightly
>bristling when Picard suggested he was acting for personal reasons. A rare
>congratulations to Frakes for a superb job this go-round.

As I've stated earlier, I think that this episode may have been even better if
it had centered around Frakes, and his particular feelings toward the Entity.
Not that I mind this, but Star Trek did break one of its own rules. This
episode centered around mostly Dr. Marr, not a main character.

>
>
>And this was definitely one of Cliff Bole's better directing jobs. While I do
>tend to get into the show, it's rare that I have much of an emotional reaction
>to it. Two different scenes managed to evoke precisely what the writers
>intended--absolute shock and dismay at the scene of the ravaged colony (I'm
>reminded of the current cover to Donaldson's _The Wounded Land_
>there...obligatory Donaldson reference :-) ), and feeling Marr's pain when
>hearing her son's journal in his voice. It wasn't all Bole's doing--in part,
>one of the reasons the former scene worked so well was that Riker looked
>_convincingly_ stricken by it, and another was the music there. But Bole was
>responsible for much of it, no doubt. Nice work.
>

Agreed. That scene where Data was talking in Renny's voice really worked, and
Geer at least did a good job acting there. And that whole scene in the
beginning, if taken simply by itself without the rest of the episode is one of
one of the best scenes TNG has ever done. I felt like "I" was being chased
by the Entity and I could feel Riker's agony as he watched Carmen die. Frakes
did some great acting there.

>
>
>TOTAL: 9.5, upping quite a bit for music/FX. Good work, guys.

I gave it an 8.5, but I might raise it to a 9 by the time it comes around
in repeats. One note, now everybody knows just how good a spec script has
to be to get accepted.

>
>NEXT WEEK:
>
>"Disaster" strikes the Enterprise. I really hope those are the worst scenes,
>'cos if they're the best..

What did you find so wrong with them? The only one that bothered me was the
cliched "woman giving birth in crisis scene". And by the way, I HOPE that
Keiko and Miles have been married for 9 months. Maybe now we know why they
got married. Hmmmmmm....

--
Jose Gonzalez
"It's not safe out here. It's wonderous, with treasures
to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's
not for the timid." - Q in "Q Who"

Timothy W. Lynch

unread,
Oct 20, 1991, 11:10:16 PM10/20/91
to
UD11...@NDSUVM1.BITNET (Tony Bruno) writes:

>I've stayed out of the episode discussions up to now, but this is just too
>much to handle.

Apparently so much so that you forgot a spoiler warning, too...


>Tim Lynch described the plot handling of "Silicon Avatar" as "pure bliss."
>I had to read that one twice to believe it. This was by far the worst
>episode of the season.

I disagree. But that's no surprise--as I recall, you also loathed "The Mind's
Eye" with a passion, and thought "Redemption II" was well thought out, so the
odds of our opinions ever converging are probably slim at best.

>Let's start with pacing. Yes, the teaser was interesting, as was seeing
>the snowflake attack the colonists. Unfortunately, the flirting was so
>heavy-handed that I had no doubt whatsoever that the lust interest was
>crystal critters.

My immediate reaction here would have to be "so?" I was willing to bet halfway
through "Darmok" that Dathon would die on the planet--it didn't impact the
power of that death in the least. I'd argue the same for Carmen's death. (And
the flirting may have been intense, but it was probably the most realistic
flirting sequence TNG's ever had.)

>But it was the plodding pace of
>the story that just killed it for me. We had the standard character that
>hates Data that learns to appreciate Data.

Marr was hardly standard, IMHO.

>We had the obligatory references
>to seasons past that was supposed to lend continuity to the story.
>Instead, all of our group said a. "But LORE spoke to it!" and b.

That's a major objection, and one I pointed out.

>"Whaddya' mean, 'life's work'? The Crystalline (SP?) Entity was first
>discovered in "Datalore"...which was only 4 years previous to this story.

That we don't know for certain. Picard and company didn't know about it pre-
"Datalore"...but that doesn't mean the whole Federation didn't. The attack
on Omicron Theta took place close to thirty years previous, which would be an
appropriate length of time for a "life's work".

>The character of Dr. Marr was both unsympathetic and uninteresting.

I disagree with both claims. I'm not hugely surprised that a lot of people
have had this reaction--neither the character nor the actor was *comfortable*
to watch, and Geer didn't quite pull off all that she should have. But the
important parts worked, at least for me.

Tim Lynch

Timothy W. Lynch

unread,
Oct 20, 1991, 11:12:26 PM10/20/91
to
cl...@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin) writes:

>spoilers

[on the "Lore talked to the Entity before!" problem]

> That may have been the problem. It seemed that Lore was the *only*
>person who could communicate with the entity. Who else knew how to?
>Certainly not the rest of the crew, otherwise they may have tried to
>convince the entity to move off in the first episode with Lore.

The problem with this is that Lore seemed to be talking to it in plain ol'
ordinary English, and it understood. If so, the Universal Translator should
have had no difficulty now. (And if it had been something as involved as
graviton pulses, the Enterprise sensors would have *had* to have picked it
up during Lore's visit, no?)

Tim Lynch

Timothy W. Lynch

unread,
Oct 20, 1991, 11:17:26 PM10/20/91
to
wom...@eng.umd.edu (Jose Gonzalez) writes:
>In article <1991Oct19.0...@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:

>*SPOILERS*

[Jose answering my annoyance at scientists being so obsessive]

>I don't think that Brahms fit your description. Nor does Dr. Soong(sp?).

There's a pair I'd forgotten, yes. It just seemed to get to me at the time.

>It also makes for a more dramatic show.

Oh, I realize that, certainly--it's just a classification I think gets
overdone. (Hey, it could be worse--my wife always gets annoyed that lizards
are always the villains...:-) )

>yesterday, I think that Geer really had a handle on how to play the
>character when she was angry at Data. She did a really good job of potraying
>her disgust and dislike of him. Check out her expressions when Data starts
>to speak in the ready room, really convincing. It's when the character has
>a change of attitude towards Data that she doesn't convince me all the time
>that she has a grip on the character.

That about sums up my assessment, yes. Her expressions in the scenes you
first mention are a good example--some of her others falter a bit.

>Not that I mind this, but Star Trek did break one of its own rules. This
>episode centered around mostly Dr. Marr, not a main character.

True, but since that particular rule is one I don't care for, I didn't object.
(I mean, "First Contact" centered quite a bit on Mirasta, and worked beauti-
fully in my estimation.)

>>NEXT WEEK:

>>"Disaster" strikes the Enterprise. I really hope those are the worst scenes,
>>'cos if they're the best..

>What did you find so wrong with them? The only one that bothered me was the
>cliched "woman giving birth in crisis scene".

That and everything else. It just looks very cheesy--like a "TNG meets the
Poseidon Adventure" or something. I hope I'm wrong.

>And by the way, I HOPE that
>Keiko and Miles have been married for 9 months. Maybe now we know why they
>got married. Hmmmmmm....

Heh. Well, if 1 season = 1 year as has been implied, then it's not quite
nine months, no. Then again, maybe it's the stress of the situation that
inspires a premature birth. :-)

Tim Lynch

Dave Roy

unread,
Oct 20, 1991, 11:30:23 PM10/20/91
to
*SPOILERS*
(40 lines to help with most monitors)

(ok, 45)
There is a question going around about how TCE can be Dr. Marr's life's
work when it was only discovered 4 years ago. Tim said that we don't
know if the Federation knew about it before that, just that the Enterprise
crew didn't know about it. (Is that right, Tim? Correct me if I'm wrong.
I can't quote your article.)
Anyway, I watched the episode again tonight, and I noticed two lines that,
when taken together, might make a person think that TCE was Marr's life's
work. But when looked at separately, don't. (Sorry, one line).
It is (and I can't quite quote it, but I'll give a good paraphrase):
When gathering information is one's life's work, you learn your way \
around a computer."
This might make you think that TCE was her life's work, but doesn't a
scientist gather information, no matter what he/she is studying? I think
she just meant meant that she's been a scientist for many years.
What do you all think of this? (Sorry if this is incoherent, but it is
kind of late for me.)

Dave

****************************************************************************
* Disclaimer: All opinions expressed above are mine and do not represent *
* the opinions of Iowa State University. However, they are *
* for sale. Write or post for a free catalog. *
****************************************************************************
* Dave Roy "We're all just monkeys with car keys." *
* Grandma Woody, Northern Exposure 10/14/91 *
****************************************************************************

Timothy W. Lynch

unread,
Oct 21, 1991, 12:26:14 AM10/21/91
to
tw...@isuvax.iastate.edu (Dave Roy) writes:

>*SPOILERS*
>(40 lines to help with most monitors)

>There is a question going around about how TCE can be Dr. Marr's life's
>work when it was only discovered 4 years ago. Tim said that we don't
>know if the Federation knew about it before that, just that the Enterprise
>crew didn't know about it. (Is that right, Tim? Correct me if I'm wrong.
>I can't quote your article.)

That's about right, yes.

>Anyway, I watched the episode again tonight, and I noticed two lines that,
>when taken together, might make a person think that TCE was Marr's life's
>work. But when looked at separately, don't. (Sorry, one line).

I'm afraid not. Marr explicitly says that she started pursuing TCE as a
career right after her son was killed at Omicron Theta. And I believe Picard's
introduction of her says she's devoted her life to the Entity, although I'm
not sure about that.

Tim Lynch

Charles Lin

unread,
Oct 21, 1991, 1:40:32 AM10/21/91
to

Well, one could chalk it up to the error of the 'DataLore'. I think
Lore mentions in the show that he had discovered the secret of
communicating with the creature, though I don't recall whether
he had a universal translator on the planet or not. I don't
think it was ever mentioned.

In any case, Lore didn't appear to be manipulating a translator
to make himself better able to communicate with the entity. There's
something a little fishy in that show too. If Lore could speak
with the entity, why didn't they shoo it away soon afterwards?

But, point noted. Maybe there are two ways to communicate to
that thing. Obviously a problem in Silicon Avatar. Could be the
difference between language and something like music.

Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth

unread,
Oct 21, 1991, 1:42:00 AM10/21/91
to
In article <1991Oct21.0...@cco.caltech.edu>, tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes...

>wom...@eng.umd.edu (Jose Gonzalez) writes:

>>And by the way, I HOPE that
>>Keiko and Miles have been married for 9 months. Maybe now we know why they
>>got married. Hmmmmmm....
>
>Heh. Well, if 1 season = 1 year as has been implied, then it's not quite
>nine months, no. Then again, maybe it's the stress of the situation that
>inspires a premature birth. :-)
>
Well, I hope that by the 24th century, such silly morality has been totally
overcome. What difference does it make whether or not she was pregnant when
they got married? Hell, even if she was, what difference would it have made
had they never gotten married? Remember, having a child is not necessarily
a good reason for tying the know (nor vice versa! :-). As for why Keiko
and Miles got married, perhaps it was for some silly old-fashion reason like
they were in love, hmmm?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Horowitz |"Suppose they went nowhere?"-McCoy
Astronomy Department |"Then this will be your big chance
California Institute of Technology | to get away from it all!"-Kirk
ir...@iago.caltech.edu | from STII:TWOK
i...@deimos.caltech.edu |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth

unread,
Oct 21, 1991, 2:01:00 AM10/21/91
to
In article <20OCT199...@iago.caltech.edu>, ir...@iago.caltech.edu (Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth) writes...

>Well, I hope that by the 24th century, such silly morality has been totally
>overcome. What difference does it make whether or not she was pregnant when
>they got married? Hell, even if she was, what difference would it have made
>had they never gotten married? Remember, having a child is not necessarily
>a good reason for tying the know (nor vice versa! :-). As for why Keiko
^^^^
I of course meant "knot" here (damn editor...:-)

Timothy W. Lynch

unread,
Oct 21, 1991, 2:18:32 AM10/21/91
to
cl...@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin) writes:

Spoilers for "Silicon Avatar"


>> [on the "Lore talked to the Entity before!" problem]

> Well, one could chalk it up to the error of the 'DataLore'.

That's certainly an option--I'm not certain there's an easy way to combine
the two concepts. But this just felt like retconning for the sake of retcon-
ning (see "Sela" for another vivid example :-) ).

>I think
>Lore mentions in the show that he had discovered the secret of
>communicating with the creature, though I don't recall whether
>he had a universal translator on the planet or not. I don't
>think it was ever mentioned.

The UT? No. Lore just said that he "learned to communicate" with the
beastie, that's all. The ease of doing so there doesn't gibe with the near-
impossibility here.

> But, point noted. Maybe there are two ways to communicate to
>that thing.

No doubt there are--I just wish the "Datalore" situation had been brought up,
that's all.

Tim Lynch

Mr. Smiley Face

unread,
Oct 21, 1991, 3:36:17 AM10/21/91
to
tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:

:)WARNING: The following article contains spoiler information regarding this
:)week's TNG episode, "Silicon Avatar". Those not wishing details surrounding

:)Well, *I'm* depressed.

:)Talk about your depressing endings...masterfully manipulated in that regard
:)(and a few others, though not all). More, after this synopsis from your local
:)It's an interesting situation when the alleged blockbuster of "Redemption II"
:)(which, although riddled with holes and annoyances, did provide an interesting
:)enough ride that it got a 6.5) is the worst show of the season. But so far,
:)that seems to be the case--this was a pretty solid outing.

Hmm... we finally disagree... :)

:)I'll get the gripes out of the way first, I think. So...

:)First, I'm a little bit annoyed that we rarely, if *ever*, see a scientist who
:)isn't somehow obsessed, or overbearing, or some other form of bad guy. It's

That's cause we only see the special guests who need to be that way for a
plot twist... :)

:)general gripe--Marr was written well enough that I'm willing to overlook it in

Uh oh... Am I gonna be the only one who didn't think she was well written?

:)this case. But I *do* wish we'd see some non-Enterprise scientists who
:)weren't so unlikeable (when the first three I can think of are Marr,
:)"Evolution"'s Dr. Stubbs, and "Where No One Has Gone Before"'s Kosinski,
:)there's a clear trend).

Hmm.. how about Timisin? You know... from the episode where Troi's mom falls
in love? I thought he was great! (I'm assuming you agree and he just
slipped your mind... :)

:)Along vaguely similar lines--although Marr was a well-written and
:)well-motivated character (a bit of a surprise, actually; I didn't think so at
:)all in her first few scenes, but most or all of it was set right), Ellen

Actually, I didn't think she was well written the entire show. But then
again, this is my first time complaining about the writint, I think...

:)Geer's performance occasionally didn't hit things quite right. Most of her
:)"hostile" scenes in the second act didn't feel quite right to me, despite the
:)fact that they made perfect sense in context. And her final appeal to

That would be the way the show was written, right? :)
(You sort of gettin the idea I didn't like the way her parts were written? :)

:)point--her more important scenes (those in Data's quarters, and her final one
:)on the bridge) were well-played, and that's what really counts. But it's

Yeah.. I agree she acted well, but I really don't think she was given
much material to do that well with in the first place...

:)all, gamma rays are *not* in the 10 keV range--that's X-rays. Second, I don't
:)believe proton-antiproton annihilation will make emissions at that
:)frequency--but I'm not at all sure about that, and I'm sure someone more

Hmm... my guess would be that it would depend on the initial energies of
the particles to begin with, making it possible. Then again, I just dropped
physics as my major...

:)Major plot problem: the only other time we saw the Entity, Lore *was
:)communicating with it*--and it was clear that the Entity understood in
:)"Datalore", based on its actions early in its appearance. This is a huge bit
:)of retconning that makes much of "Datalore" somewhat difficult to explain, and
:)I don't like it. I'm sure they could have come up with *something* to make
:)both fit (and I'm sure r.a.s. will before too long :-) ), but it needed to be
:)done. That's really my only strong objection to the show.

Could you explain this a little better... Lore was able to communicate with
TCE, but nobody else seemed to know how...

:)It was also nice to see them make good work out of a development I don't
:)particularly care for, i.e. Data's professed complete lack of emotions. Based
:)someone as unfeeling as Data could avoid reacting to Marr's accusations
:)initially, and only someone as unfeeling as Data could have delivered a
:)condemnation such as the one Marr got at the end. Beautiful.

I agree with you on what you say, but I really didn't see this as much as
a stupendous work as you seem to...

:)shots of the Entity were breathtaking, particularly those in the teaser--both
:)beautiful and menacing at the same time. Computer-generated effects or no, it
:)was a vivid image.

Yeah... I really like that shot a lot... wish it could have lasted a little
longer, but that may have been what added to make it so good.

:)Let's see...what else is there. Oh, yes, Dr. Marr. As I said, I didn't find
:)her all that believable _initially_--and I didn't buy her sudden "okay, fine,
:)everyone's terrific--Data, the Entity, everything" conversion. However, the

Agreed... that annoyed me quite a bit.

:)have access to destroy it. Her clear obsession about her son was built up
:)rather slowly--nicely done, since that's the sort of thing that can *very*
:)easily be made a rotten plotline. About the only scene I didn't eventually

Which I sort of thought it was :)

:)Plot: 7. It would've been an airtight 10, but for the "how the HELL did Lore
:) talk to it, then?" retcon.

That's the only thing limiting it? Wow...

:)Characterization: 9. A bit off for some of Marr's less believable moments,
:) but apart from that, everyone was in character, and *well* in
:) character.

That is if you accept Riker's character of liking to destroy things lately. :)

:)TOTAL: 9.5, upping quite a bit for music/FX. Good work, guys.

Okay, I can understand I minor difference of opinion, but this was
definitely not one of the top shows there's been.

-Josh Laff :)
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
| Josh Laff: e-mail to: |
This is nothing but a consistently | smi...@uiuc.edu | # #
pathological display of inconsistent |smi...@gnu.ai.mit.edu____| _ _
consistencies. |_____________________| | |#\_____/#|
| (217) 384-6227 | \#######/

Jose Gonzalez

unread,
Oct 21, 1991, 10:22:39 AM10/21/91
to
In article <20OCT199...@iago.caltech.edu> ir...@iago.caltech.edu (Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth) writes:
>>wom...@eng.umd.edu (Jose Gonzalez) writes:
>
>>>And by the way, I HOPE that
>>>Keiko and Miles have been married for 9 months. Maybe now we know why they
>>>got married. Hmmmmmm....
>>
>Well, I hope that by the 24th century, such silly morality has been totally
>overcome. What difference does it make whether or not she was pregnant when
>they got married? Hell, even if she was, what difference would it have made
>had they never gotten married? Remember, having a child is not necessarily
>a good reason for tying the know (nor vice versa! :-). As for why Keiko
>and Miles got married, perhaps it was for some silly old-fashion reason like
>they were in love, hmmm?

I hesitate to respond to this, but I feel compelled. It makes a lot of
difference to me whether they were married or not. I was joking up there
but maybe I should not have. I agree that getting pregnant because of a
baby is a horrible reason. And if she was married, what difference would it
have made if they had never gotten married? A big one. If they were so in love
that they were willing to raise a child together, but not willing to marry, I
think that they would have to have a serious look at their relationship.
And I doubt that all the countless pregnant teenagers would agree that
these dicisions are simply "silly morality".

Mr. Smiley Face

unread,
Oct 21, 1991, 11:02:11 AM10/21/91
to
wom...@eng.umd.edu (Jose Gonzalez) writes:
:)but maybe I should not have. I agree that getting pregnant because of a
:)baby is a horrible reason. ^^^^^^^^
^^^^

Not only a horrible reason, and not only a disgusting reason, but an
almost impossible reason at that! :)

Timothy W. Lynch

unread,
Oct 21, 1991, 11:43:32 AM10/21/91
to
jal4...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mr. Smiley Face) writes:
>tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:

>:)WARNING: The following article contains spoiler information regarding this
>:)week's TNG episode, "Silicon Avatar". Those not wishing details surrounding

>Uh oh... Am I gonna be the only one who didn't think she was well written?

{"She" being Dr. Marr)

Not the only one, no. But you're not gonna get any agreement from me. :-)

[on unlikeable vs. likeable scientist types]

>Hmm.. how about Timisin? You know... from the episode where Troi's mom falls
>in love? I thought he was great! (I'm assuming you agree and he just
>slipped your mind... :)

So he did, as did many others people have brought up. :-)

>:)Geer's performance occasionally didn't hit things quite right. Most of her
>:)"hostile" scenes in the second act didn't feel quite right to me, despite

>:)the fact that they made perfect sense in context. And her final appeal to

>That would be the way the show was written, right? :)

Nope. If her action made objective sense, but didn't feel right, that's
probably an acting problem, not a writing problem.

>:)Major plot problem: the only other time we saw the Entity, Lore *was
>:)communicating with it*--and it was clear that the Entity understood in
>:)"Datalore", based on its actions early in its appearance. This is a huge bit
>:)of retconning that makes much of "Datalore" somewhat difficult to explain,

>:)and I don't like it.

>Could you explain this a little better... Lore was able to communicate with
>TCE, but nobody else seemed to know how...

Lore's "ability" appeared to be as easy as hitting a comm panel and saying
"howdy". It certainly wasn't as involved as the whole rigmarole they went
through here. Perhaps they haven't figured out how he did it--fine. *Make
that clear* to the audience, so they don't think it just slipped your mind.

>:)Characterization: 9. A bit off for some of Marr's less believable moments,
>:) but apart from that, everyone was in character, and *well* in
>:) character.

>That is if you accept Riker's character of liking to destroy things lately. :)

No...this time it was believable. Riker had good motivations for being slight-
ly vengeful this go-round.

>Okay, I can understand I minor difference of opinion, but this was
>definitely not one of the top shows there's been.

It worked nicely for me. What, you expect perfect agreement?

Tim Lynch

Jose Gonzalez

unread,
Oct 21, 1991, 2:13:49 PM10/21/91
to
In article <1991Oct21.1...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> jal4...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mr. Smiley Face) writes:
>wom...@eng.umd.edu (Jose Gonzalez) writes:
>:)but maybe I should not have. I agree that getting pregnant because of a
>:)baby is a horrible reason. ^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^
>
>Not only a horrible reason, and not only a disgusting reason, but an
>almost impossible reason at that! :)
>
You ever feel really, really stupid? *Sigh* I meant "married" of course.
(Just proves I need to proofread a little more and babble little less.)

Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth

unread,
Oct 21, 1991, 2:08:00 PM10/21/91
to
In article <1991Oct21.1...@eng.umd.edu>, wom...@eng.umd.edu (Jose Gonzalez) writes...

>In article <20OCT199...@iago.caltech.edu> ir...@iago.caltech.edu (Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth) writes:
>>>wom...@eng.umd.edu (Jose Gonzalez) writes:

>>>>And by the way, I HOPE that
>>>>Keiko and Miles have been married for 9 months. Maybe now we know why they
>>>>got married. Hmmmmmm....
>>>
>>Well, I hope that by the 24th century, such silly morality has been totally
>>overcome. What difference does it make whether or not she was pregnant when
>>they got married? Hell, even if she was, what difference would it have made
>>had they never gotten married? Remember, having a child is not necessarily
>>a good reason for tying the know (nor vice versa! :-). As for why Keiko
>>and Miles got married, perhaps it was for some silly old-fashion reason like
>>they were in love, hmmm?
>
>I hesitate to respond to this, but I feel compelled. It makes a lot of
>difference to me whether they were married or not. I was joking up there
>but maybe I should not have. I agree that getting pregnant because of a
>baby is a horrible reason. And if she was married, what difference would it
>
I assume that you just got pregnant and married mixed up in these two sentences.

>
>have made if they had never gotten married? A big one. If they were so in love
>that they were willing to raise a child together, but not willing to marry, I
>think that they would have to have a serious look at their relationship.
>And I doubt that all the countless pregnant teenagers would agree that
>these dicisions are simply "silly morality".
>
I realize that we are not going to see eye-to-eye on this point, however I
too feel compelled to respond. My point was that there are certain aspects
of 20th century cultural mores which need not propagate into the 24th
century. One of these is the assumption that in order to raise a family,
a man and a woman need to make a commitment of marraige to one another. If
it is how they feel, then it is the right reason...but it should not be the
role of "society" to impose their moral and ethical standards on individuals
who choose to follow a separate path. Basically, if Miles and Keiko are in
love and want to get married (irrespective of whether or not she is pregnant),
then that is the right decision for them...if they are in love and want to
have a child, but don't want to get married, then that should be an acceptable
solution as well, 20th century mores notwithstanding. For certain people,
marraige is a joy, a blessing and an "honorable estate." For others, however,
it appears to be a living hell!

Jose Gonzalez

unread,
Oct 21, 1991, 3:06:50 PM10/21/91
to
In article <21OCT199...@iago.caltech.edu> ir...@iago.caltech.edu (Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth) writes:
>>
>I realize that we are not going to see eye-to-eye on this point, however I
>too feel compelled to respond. My point was that there are certain aspects
>of 20th century cultural mores which need not propagate into the 24th
>century. One of these is the assumption that in order to raise a family,
>a man and a woman need to make a commitment of marraige to one another. If
>it is how they feel, then it is the right reason...but it should not be the
>role of "society" to impose their moral and ethical standards on individuals
>who choose to follow a separate path. Basically, if Miles and Keiko are in
>love and want to get married (irrespective of whether or not she is pregnant),
>then that is the right decision for them...if they are in love and want to
>have a child, but don't want to get married, then that should be an acceptable
>solution as well, 20th century mores notwithstanding. For certain people,
>marraige is a joy, a blessing and an "honorable estate." For others, however,
>it appears to be a living hell!

Let me try explaining my argument from a sociological point of view. As much
as we would like to believe otherwise, much if not most of who and what we
are is what society defines us as. Assuming this is true, marriage has been
around for an extremely long time and has been used to represent the ultimate
commitment between a man and a woman. This is a fact that is ingrained into
us at an early age. Marriage, or some form of it, is a part of most if not
all cultures around the world. We are what society makes us and I think that
it is impossible to seperate it from us. In my opinion, when two people say
that they do not want want to get married in order to "buck the system" of
society, they are merely afraid to make that final commitment to each other.
So even if these two people are deeply commited to each other, but not enough
that they feel they should get married, attempting to raise a child together
just adds to the problem. They are not willing to make the final commitment
that society has defined for them, most likely what they also believe, and
are therfore probably not ready to raise a child together, which takes
complete and utter commitment. Now pehaps if there were no notion of
marriage in the 24th century, then perhaps marriage would no longer be
the final form of commitment. But we've seen that this is not the case
in Star Trek and IMHO, will not be the case when and if we get there.

Michael Rawdon

unread,
Oct 21, 1991, 1:44:40 PM10/21/91
to
In <91292.2150...@NDSUVM1.BITNET> UD11...@NDSUVM1.BITNET (Tony Bruno) writes:
>I've stayed out of the episode discussions up to now, but this is just too
>much to handle.

And you're so excitied you forgot a ^L :-)



>Tim Lynch described the plot handling of "Silicon Avatar" as "pure bliss."
>I had to read that one twice to believe it. This was by far the worst
>episode of the season.

Well, not really "by far", but I'd say it's the worst to date, yes. I don't
think it was godawful bad so much as routine. It didn't have me wanting to
go play on the Interstate like "Qpid" or "In Theory" did. And I rather liked
the first act.

>Let's start with pacing. Yes, the teaser was interesting, as was seeing
>the snowflake attack the colonists. Unfortunately, the flirting was so
>heavy-handed that I had no doubt whatsoever that the lust interest was
>crystal critters. Our Saturday evening group looked at each other just as
>the sky darkened and said "well, SHE'S history." And it went from there.

Let's start with the pacing? WHAT pacing? The show switched directions
radically between Riker and company being rescued and Marr coming on board
(which were adjacent scenes with a commercial break in-between, I think).
The story totally changed direction, and shifted focus from Riker to Marr
and Data. I would have been more interested if Riker had been the focus, the
one on the revenge kick. The revenge kick in this case could have been
interesting because Riker didn't seem to know the woman who was killed all
THAT well, which would have lent an air of "why's he doing this" to the
episode, which might have made for an interesting resolution.

>That's okay; TNG is by far and away one of the most predictable shows to
>come down the pike. I can handle that.

I can handle that *sometimes*. :-)



> But it was the plodding pace of
>the story that just killed it for me. We had the standard character that
>hates Data that learns to appreciate Data.

Snooze.



> We had the obligatory references
>to seasons past that was supposed to lend continuity to the story.
>Instead, all of our group said a. "But LORE spoke to it!" and b.
>"Whaddya' mean, 'life's work'? The Crystalline (SP?) Entity was first
>discovered in "Datalore"...which was only 4 years previous to this story.
>Yich.

Moreover, the crystal entity is near the very bottom of TNG creatures I'd
want to base a story on.

>The character of Dr. Marr was both unsympathetic and uninteresting.

Right.

>I wish I could say that a combination like that takes skill, but I can't.
>She struck me as being unstable in the first few minutes of stepping aboard,
>so I sat through the episode wondering why Picard even bothered with her,
>ESPECIALLY when he "research" appeared to help in finding the CE not a whit.
>As a result, every time she appeared on screen -- which was most of the
>episode -- I couldn't bear it.

Me either. The writers didn't seem to know how to give her any verisimilitude,
and the actress didn't seem to have a clue what to do with the hash of a
character she's was playing.

>I understand what they were trying to do with this episode, but it failed
>for at least four people I know. Also, as Tim rightly pointed out,
>the pseudo-science was especially thick this episode.

Especially cliched, too. "Can we find a trail to track the entity which
no one in the last several decades of studying the beast hasn't found yet?
And can we do it in three minutes? Well, yes, we can, because everyone
else's work was done off-camera, and ours isn't."

> Scott and Dave --he
>two of the Saturday Four -- were writhing in their seats a good deal of the
>time. As One has his Master's in Physics and the other is finishing his
>Doctorate, I'm inclined to be affected when one vomits in disgust. I would
>be willing to dismiss it if it at least were interesting, but it wasn't so
>it only hurt more. Yuck.

>Okay, that's enough rambling for one night. I should KNOW that alcohol
>and net.postings don't mix, but hey, it's a Saturday night and darnit,
>I just FEEL like it. So there.

I think I liked it a little more than you did, since I liked the beginning,
but this one seemed about as disjointed as "The Neutral Zone".

--
Michael Rawdon raw...@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI
What's a life?

John T. whelan

unread,
Oct 21, 1991, 4:10:07 PM10/21/91
to

PEOPLE! Can we PUH-LEASE not disguise full-blown discussions
of next week's show based on the trailer as discussions of this week's
show?? Half of this thread has degenerated into a debate over one of
"Disaster"'s plotlines, under the same subject header. I prefer to
have as little a priori knowledge as possible, so can y'all just leave
Tim's Control-L in before the trailer summary, or change the subject
line? Thanx.
John Whelan
"You pull no punches / You need a damsel in distress
Who'll play your hunches / Who'll be a virgin more or less
You'll spring for candy / You'll have some secrets to confess
You'll pour the brandy / And pull the body from my dress"
--Uncle Bonsai, "Bedroom Eyes"

the trek witch

unread,
Oct 21, 1991, 5:05:11 PM10/21/91
to
In <1991Oct21.0...@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:

>tw...@isuvax.iastate.edu (Dave Roy) writes:

>>*SPOILERS*
>>(40 lines to help with most monitors)

>>Anyway, I watched the episode again tonight, and I noticed two lines that,
>>when taken together, might make a person think that TCE was Marr's life's
>>work. But when looked at separately, don't. (Sorry, one line).

>I'm afraid not. Marr explicitly says that she started pursuing TCE


>as a career right after her son was killed at Omicron Theta. And I
>believe Picard's introduction of her says she's devoted her life to
>the Entity, although I'm not sure about that.

Of course, at the time the Omicron Theta colony was destroyed, they
probably didn't know who or what did it. But if she begins her
research then, it *is* her life's work regardless of when they find
out that it was the TCE responsible for those deaths and others.

Stephanie da Silva

unread,
Oct 21, 1991, 2:44:13 PM10/21/91
to
In article <1991Oct21.0...@cco.caltech.edu>, tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:

> wom...@eng.umd.edu (Jose Gonzalez) writes:
>
> >And by the way, I HOPE that Keiko and Miles have been married for
> >9 months. Maybe now we know why they got married.
>
> Well, if 1 season = 1 year as has been implied, then it's not quite
> nine months, no.

I know this has been mentioned a zillion times before, but I'm sure
things like that don't *matter* anymore in the 24th century.

--
Stephanie da Silva Taronga Park * Houston, Texas
ari...@taronga.com 568-0480 568-1032
"Let us not be the hasty puddings!" -- Don Karnage

Kyle Jones

unread,
Oct 22, 1991, 1:42:32 AM10/22/91
to
wom...@eng.umd.edu (Jose Gonzalez) writes:
> [...]

> I agree that getting pregnant because of a baby is a horrible
> reason.

Only Monday and already a howler like this. I think this one has
the "r.a.s best line of the week" honors sewn up. :-)

Kyle Jones

unread,
Oct 22, 1991, 2:40:30 AM10/22/91
to
[ This departed the Trek theme a few articles ago, but since one of
the best things abot Trek is that it is thought provoking, let
the discussion rage on... ]

ir...@iago.caltech.edu (Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth) writes:
> I realize that we are not going to see eye-to-eye on this
> point, however I too feel compelled to respond. My point was
> that there are certain aspects of 20th century cultural mores

> which need not propagate into the 24th century. [...] For


> certain people, marraige is a joy, a blessing and an
> "honorable estate." For others, however, it appears to be a
> living hell!

wom...@eng.umd.edu (Jose Gonzalez) writes:
> [...]


> In my opinion, when two people say that they do not
> want want to get married in order to "buck the system" of
> society, they are merely afraid to make that final commitment
> to each other.

Merely? There's nothing merely about it. I'd wager that at
least 75% of the people who stand in front of the altar and say
"for better or worse" haven't seriously contemplated how bad
"worse" can get! There are certainly situations in which no sane
person would remain, and it doesn't require a stretch of the
imagination to visualize them, either.

If you're going to marry you might as well do it logically,
instead of basing it on fickle emotion. Start with a reasonable
fixed-length term, with an option to renew. Spell out the
conditions for continuance of the marriage and default.
Unromantic I know, but "till death to us part" assumes a race
that is civilized. Humanity is not even close.

kyle jones ky...@uunet.uu.net ...!uunet!kyle

"You pick a man and a woman at random from the grab-bag, utterly
incompatible in a thousand subtle ways, and force them to live
indefinitely in the closest most persistent contact... No wonder
marriage is a farce. It's ridiculous. It has always been
ridiculous." -- from "The Compleat Consummators"

Jose Gonzalez

unread,
Oct 22, 1991, 10:06:10 AM10/22/91
to

I'm honored. Really. *Long Sigh*

Jose Gonzalez

unread,
Oct 22, 1991, 10:28:43 AM10/22/91
to
In article <1991Oct22....@uunet.uu.net> ky...@uunet.uu.net (Kyle Jones) writes:
>[ This departed the Trek theme a few articles ago, but since one of
> the best things abot Trek is that it is thought provoking, let
> the discussion rage on... ]

Indeed.

>If you're going to marry you might as well do it logically,
>instead of basing it on fickle emotion. Start with a reasonable
>fixed-length term, with an option to renew. Spell out the
>conditions for continuance of the marriage and default.
>Unromantic I know, but "till death to us part" assumes a race
>that is civilized. Humanity is not even close.
>

As ridculous as that might sound, its probably true. My twelfth grade English
teacher revealed to us that after twenty years of marriage, the love for his
wife, although certainly not completely gone, was very diluted. It was
the commitment and the compatability that remained. The divorce rate in
this country would seem to suggest that love is not everlasting. Now before
you think me an unfeeling icecube, you should know that the primary reason
I plan to marry will be love. I'm saying that if that was the only reason
I did it, I doubt that I would be very happy for very long.

John A. Burns

unread,
Oct 22, 1991, 12:44:39 PM10/22/91
to
`ky...@uunet.uu.net (Kyle Jones) writes:

`>[ This departed the Trek theme a few articles ago, but since one of

`> the best things about Trek is that it is thought provoking, let
`> the discussion rage on... ]

`>If you're going to marry you might as well do it logically,


`>instead of basing it on fickle emotion.

`>Unromantic I know, but "till death to us part" assumes a race


`>that is civilized. Humanity is not even close.

wom...@eng.umd.edu (Jose Gonzalez) writes:

`My twelfth grade English


`teacher revealed to us that after twenty years of marriage, the love for his
`wife, although certainly not completely gone, was very diluted. It was
`the commitment and the compatability that remained. The divorce rate in
`this country would seem to suggest that love is not everlasting.

I think it's a mistake to think of "love" as something unrelated to
commitment and compatibility. What you seem to call "love" I would
probably call "passion". Finding someone you can live with forever
("compatibility") is pretty rare and sublime, judging from my experience
with roommates and family before I married. And it's awfully difficult
to be committed to something or someone you don't care about.

Maybe the divorce rate in this country comes from defining "love" in
a way that stresses immediate sensations and ignores the substantial
relationship. Calling those feelings "love" is settling for too
little.
--
John A. Burns (bu...@thurifer.harvard.edu)

Jose Gonzalez

unread,
Oct 22, 1991, 1:39:55 PM10/22/91
to
In article <7...@hsdndev.UUCP> bu...@thurifer.harvard.edu (John A. Burns) writes:
>
>I think it's a mistake to think of "love" as something unrelated to
>commitment and compatibility. What you seem to call "love" I would
>probably call "passion". Finding someone you can live with forever
>("compatibility") is pretty rare and sublime, judging from my experience
>with roommates and family before I married. And it's awfully difficult
>to be committed to something or someone you don't care about.
>
>Maybe the divorce rate in this country comes from defining "love" in
>a way that stresses immediate sensations and ignores the substantial
>relationship. Calling those feelings "love" is settling for too
>little.

I was thinking of love as that purely emotional state we all go through
early on in a relationship. Perhaps it would be best to classify "love"
as something that has no "one" specific meaning, but as something that
can evolve into containing commitment and compatibility. It's just that
that is a different kind of love. I can agree with your definition. Perhaps
I did cut it a little short.

Janis Maria Cortese

unread,
Oct 22, 1991, 5:14:23 PM10/22/91
to
In article <1991Oct22....@eng.umd.edu> wom...@eng.umd.edu (Jose Gonzalez) writes:
>In article <1991Oct22....@uunet.uu.net> ky...@uunet.uu.net (Kyle Jones) writes:
>>[ This departed the Trek theme a few articles ago, but since one of
>> the best things abot Trek is that it is thought provoking, let
>> the discussion rage on... ]
>
>Indeed.
>
>>If you're going to marry you might as well do it logically,
>>instead of basing it on fickle emotion. Start with a reasonable
>>fixed-length term, with an option to renew. Spell out the
>>conditions for continuance of the marriage and default.
>>Unromantic I know, but "till death to us part" assumes a race
>>that is civilized. Humanity is not even close.
>>
>As ridculous as that might sound, its probably true. My twelfth grade English
>teacher revealed to us that after twenty years of marriage, the love for his
>wife, although certainly not completely gone, was very diluted. It was
>the commitment and the compatability that remained. The divorce rate in
>this country would seem to suggest that love is not everlasting. Now before
>you think me an unfeeling icecube, you should know that the primary reason
>I plan to marry will be love. I'm saying that if that was the only reason
>I did it, I doubt that I would be very happy for very long.
>

In all but one case of divorce among my friends and family, and there
have been about six, mostly among friends, everybody but the bride and
groom could see it was a mistake from the outset. I think what with
the incredible emphasis put on the WEDDING and lack of such put on the
MARRIAGE, most people just like the tux or white dresses and let it
blind them to the fact that it's essentially a rubber stamp; after it's
over, there are dishes to be washed and so forth.

I think that a lot of people who are married and shortly divorced simply
weren't honest with themselves; at least among the friends I have who
have been married and VERY shortly divorced, it sure seems that way.

Regards,
Janis C.

Neil P.G.

unread,
Oct 22, 1991, 9:40:37 AM10/22/91
to
wom...@eng.umd.edu (Jose Gonzalez) writes:

>I agree that getting pregnant because of a
>baby is a horrible reason.

Intriguing.....
--
--------------------------- "I do not feel obliged to believe that the
| Neil Perret-Green __ | same God who endowed us with sense, reason
| ne...@ccl.umist.ac.uk \/ | and intellect has intended us to forgo
--------------------------- their use." (Galileo Galilei)

Neil P.G.

unread,
Oct 22, 1991, 9:38:41 AM10/22/91
to
wom...@eng.umd.edu (Jose Gonzalez) writes:

>In article <20OCT199...@iago.caltech.edu> ir...@iago.caltech.edu (Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth) writes:
>>Well, I hope that by the 24th century, such silly morality has been totally
>>overcome. What difference does it make whether or not she was pregnant when
>>they got married? Hell, even if she was, what difference would it have made
>>had they never gotten married? Remember, having a child is not necessarily
>>a good reason for tying the know (nor vice versa! :-). As for why Keiko
>>and Miles got married, perhaps it was for some silly old-fashion reason like
>>they were in love, hmmm?

>I hesitate to respond to this, but I feel compelled. It makes a lot of
>difference to me whether they were married or not. I was joking up there
>but maybe I should not have. I agree that getting pregnant because of a
>baby is a horrible reason. And if she was married, what difference would it
>have made if they had never gotten married? A big one. If they were so in love
>that they were willing to raise a child together, but not willing to marry, I
>think that they would have to have a serious look at their relationship.

Commitment to a relationship, whether to the extent of having a
child/children or not, does not automatically mean that a couple have
to get married.
Marriage is a social construct, based in part on a dubious part of the
Judaeo-Christian tradition.
I think it is somewhat petulant to suggest that a relationship is less
worthy if there has been no marriage ceremony.

>And I doubt that all the countless pregnant teenagers would agree that
>these dicisions are simply "silly morality".

That's a different matter. Primarily due to a lack of suitable
precautions (caused in part by inadequate sex education?)

jim holmes

unread,
Oct 22, 1991, 6:06:20 PM10/22/91
to
wom...@eng.umd.edu (Jose Gonzalez) writes:

> but maybe I should not have. I agree that getting pregnant because of a

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


> baby is a horrible reason. And if she was married, what difference would it

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What?!?! (Sorry, couldn't resists :-))
-jlh

jim holmes is jho...@mcb.com or {whatever!}uunet!mcb!jholmes
Message Center of Hartford, CT
------
The above comments do not necessarily reflect
the opinions of MCB or Message Center

Jose Gonzalez

unread,
Oct 22, 1991, 10:34:28 PM10/22/91
to
In article <1991Oct22.1...@cns.umist.ac.uk> n...@cns.umist.ac.uk (Neil P.G.) writes:
>wom...@eng.umd.edu (Jose Gonzalez) writes:
>
>>I agree that getting pregnant because of a
>>baby is a horrible reason.
>
>Intriguing.....
>--
Would anyone else like to push my foot a little farther down my throat?
Sheesh! I don't even like leather. (Well, maybe with some barbecue
sauce...) What am I saying?!? I don't even like barbecue sauce.

Peter Thompson

unread,
Oct 22, 1991, 10:59:48 PM10/22/91
to
In article <1991Oct21.0...@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>u>
>Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
>Lines: 67

>
>tw...@isuvax.iastate.edu (Dave Roy) writes:
>
>>*SPOILERS*
>>(40 lines to help with most monitors)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>There is a question going around about how TCE can be Dr. Marr's life's
>>work when it was only discovered 4 years ago. Tim said that we don't
>>know if the Federation knew about it before that, just that the Enterprise

>
>>Anyway, I watched the episode again tonight, and I noticed two lines that,
>>when taken together, might make a person think that TCE was Marr's life's
>>work. But when looked at separately, don't. (Sorry, one line).
>
>I'm afraid not. Marr explicitly says that she started pursuing TCE as a
>career right after her son was killed at Omicron Theta. And I believe Picard's
>introduction of her says she's devoted her life to the Entity, although I'm
>not sure about that.
>
Well, if she started pursuing TCE immediately following her son's death, that
seems like a healthy part of a career to me.
A) Data was found on Omicron Theta some unknown period of time after the
colony was destroyed. For arguments sake, let's say it was the next
day, but it could have been years.
B) Data, if I remember from various shows, though Red. II springs to mind,
has been a Star Fleet officer for 26 years (I think that's correct).
Not sure if this includes time spent in the Academy.
So at the bare minimum, her son was killed 26 years ago, and she has quite
probably spent the majority of her career pursuing it.

>Tim Lynch

Later,
PeterT

Roger M. Wilcox

unread,
Oct 24, 1991, 9:53:47 PM10/24/91
to
In article <59...@ut-emx.uucp> talu...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Vince Taluskie) writes:

>
>Sometimes I think that I should watch trek for purley the Treknological
>comedy aspects...:-) I laughed out loud when I heard them say that gamma
>rays are at 10keV - they seriously need some science advisors. Electron
>Positron annihilation is at 510 keV, proton-antiproton annihilation should
>be at least 900 MeV to 1.8 GeV....

Somewhere I read that proton-antiproton annihilations don't go straight to
gamma rays, but first yield 5 short-lived pions which then go on to
spontaneously decay into lower energy gamma rays. Could some subatomic
sci.physicist out there enlighten me/us on this mystery?

--
Jeff Boeing / Roger M. Wilcox cbcsc063@ma
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is forbidden to interfere with the development of less
sophisticated cultures" -- the Prime Directive, more or less

Ivan Gonzalez

unread,
Oct 23, 1991, 7:38:32 PM10/23/91