I wouldn't write a piece just to bash them (that's a d*ck move), but if someone's being a sanctimonious hypocrite, I'm perfectly comfortable with calling them out in-universe.
That's a d**k move too, even writing in a minor bash would be, and that is what hfmudd and myself have been trying to point out... You might not see that it is, but it is... That's all I'm trying to help you see here.
Well, here's the thing; I WOULD tell JJ Abrams, to his face, that there are blatant plot holes in his movies. Then I'd point out said holes and offer a few possible solutions for each one.
I doubt that such comments would be well received Equally, both Orci and Pegg have been less than gracious over commentaries of their works... Again, it's simply a matter of manners...
Point two: OK, here's our difference. You see writing something that attempts to change or comment on the stupidity of canon, no matter how stupid that canon is, as inherently a bad thing. I think that it's perfectly OK to point out when writers dropped the ball.
As above... It's not. It is simply arrogant and rude.
I will admit that suspiciously laser-guided AUs can raise eyebrows, but note that I'm accepting canon here. We never got an official psych eval for Janeway, I'm accepting that she somehow made Admiral and wasn't court-martialed.
Oh she would have been court-martialed, just not thrown out of the service for political reasons, so instead, she got a token promotion and a desk job where she couldn't do any more harm. From a production perspective, there wasn't any other character who would have fit the role of Mission Giver...
There's also no way in hell I'm having my character who's explicitly stated to be a strongly moral person despite her trauma NOT remark on Janeway when she comes up. That would ruin the character concept.
- What makes you think that your character gets to supercede a canon character (even if you are writing it)? That's not meant as a challenge, but a thought experiment/rhetorical question.
- The fact that you would be writing the piece, would mean an unfair and unbalanced medium where you place your own character above a canon character. The only fair way you could have such an interraction, would be to have Jeri Taylor* go through a draft line by line so she gives responses as you pose them.
This is why I not only don't like using canon characters beyond cameos, but try and remain as consistent to the canon appearances as I can, without allowing my own judgements to influence the writing (wether I succeed or not, as I've said before, I leave up to others to decide...)
*
I say Jeri Taylor, simoly because Janeway was originally her character, not the two stooges'...
Third, I feel that if a writer writes a Mary Sue like Jeri Taylor did, he or she should be told a bluntly as possible that they are doing so. I feel that calling such a character out for their reprehensible actions in fanfic is not only acceptable, but the responsible thing to do.
There's no need to be a jerk about it, and definitely no reason to go into ad hominems about the writer's mother or whatever, but having a character call Janeway or whatever other bad character who's being criticized a genocidal maniac or whatever based on their crimes is just pointing out the character's actions and the consequences they should have had.
Let me try a different approach.
- Why do you feel that it is an acceptable and responsible thing to do?
- Why do you feel that the writer should value your critique?
As before, this presumption comes across (intentionally or otherwise) as incredibly arrogant...
To use a personal example: I wasn't upset when your JAG guy called Three out for being a monster; in fact, I LIKED it. I LIKE it when people call my characters out on their d*ck moves. I welcomed it when you pointed out the jarring nature of the turak sign-language dialogue in that Kobali Prime story I wrote. I think that listening to and responding to such criticism makes me a better writer, and I honestly kind of prefer getting reviews that point out flaws in my work to reviews that contain nothing but praise.
The point was not so much to call Three for her behaviour, but an illustration of why he was a JAG officer, and to put him in a more sympathetic light than when he tried to prosecute Amanda. However, that exchange was different in tone than the exchange between Harry and the person he bad-mouthed Janeway to (at least, I certainly hope it was different in tone)
When the fraternity shuts the f*** up I'm hopefully finally going to get some sleep...
First off, the only reason I'm considering this is that you're the one telling me this.
Ear plugs...
And as before, I'm not saying this to be a d**k but to try and help you see the bad habit for what it is, and hopefully be able to overcome it... I'm not trying to flame you for the lols, but to highlight an area in which you could improve :cool:
MDK and Worffan, the last 20+ posts between you have been all the same words, stated in a slightly different order. Give it a rest, please.
Worffie, the point I was trying to help you see with Garak, is that you're trying to promote what you see as "objective truths" when in reality there is no such thing. From another man's point of view, your objective truth could be the ravings of a madman. Your perspective defines your truths.
And for the love of Q, get some sleep. Stuff pillows under the door, play classical music over headphones, turn your TV on to C-Span loud enough to cover the noise, or - here's a thought - go somewhere else. Find a friend or classmate who will let you crash at his place.
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
That's a d**k move too, even writing in a minor bash would be, and that is what hfmudd and myself have been trying to point out... You might not see that it is, but it is... That's all I'm trying to help you see here.
And here's the thing; to me, it isn't rude. In fact, I think it's polite, in a way.
- What makes you think that your character gets to supercede a canon character (even if you are writing it)? That's not meant as a challenge, but a thought experiment/rhetorical question.
- The fact that you would be writing the piece, would mean an unfair and unbalanced medium where you place your own character above a canon character. The only fair way you could have such an interraction, would be to have Jeri Taylor* go through a draft line by line so she gives responses as you pose them.
This is why I not only don't like using canon characters beyond cameos, but try and remain as consistent to the canon appearances as I can, without allowing my own judgements to influence the writing (wether I succeed or not, as I've said before, I leave up to others to decide...)
*
I say Jeri Taylor, simoly because Janeway was originally her character, not the two stooges'...
--In what way do you mean? If I am not comfortable writing a canon character but cannot find a reason for [Admiral Awesomename character I'm writing that particular day] to outrank him/her, I'll probably just not write the canon character to avoid TRIBBLE them up. For example, I won't write Picard because I can't hold a candle to Sir Patrick Stewart's general awesomeness. I spent DAYS watching DS9 like a madman to get Odo just right.
--Perhaps, but let's note that the portrayal of Janeway on Voyager was hardly balanced. She was (depending on the writer) brave and edgy or Miss Perfect.
I understand your reasoning here, heck, I don't really like the way I've written Janeway because I really can't get the sheer inconsistency down right; she always comes off as openly evi. My difference is that I feel that when you're dealing with a Suethor, you ALWAYS start by pointing out the flaws in the Sue, and then write an in-universe criticism--line by line, if necessary.
Essentially, EVERY story is inherently an unbalanced medium. Sues like Janeway simply exist in a medium heavily biased towards them. When I call out a character on their sh*t in-universe, I keep it to the facts, honest, and as fair as I can with my dislike for the character and their actions.
- Why do you feel that it is an acceptable and responsible thing to do?
- Why do you feel that the writer should value your critique?
As before, this presumption comes across (intentionally or otherwise) as incredibly arrogant...
--Somebody needs to point out that the character's bad, in-universe is a fun and often more helpful way to do it, and frankly it gets the rage out of my head so I don't flame people over it.
--Oh, the writer's free to discard it. I do my best to keep critiques down to the basic facts, though, and I avoid blaming characters for things that aren't their fault.
I don't intend to seem arrogant, but when I see flaws in writing that could've been fixed with 3 minutes of actual focused thought, I feel the need to point them out.
The point was not so much to call Three for her behaviour, but an illustration of why he was a JAG officer, and to put him in a more sympathetic light than when he tried to prosecute Amanda. However, that exchange was different in tone than the exchange between Harry and the person he bad-mouthed Janeway to (at least, I certainly hope it was different in tone)
Eh, what I got from it...I liked that someone grasps just how annoying the monster is to law-minded people, and I liked the exploration of the consequences of being a giant middle finger to half the galaxy.
As for the scene I wrote...that was meant to be a competent guy who knows the office politics are ruthless who's slowly outgrown his hero worship to realize that his first CO was kind of a flaming incompetent and is taking the opportunity of reporting to someone who has a reputation of treating people meritocratically and TRIBBLE to the stupidity of office politics to confess his opinions to that person.
It could've been handled more delicately, yeah, and if I had the desire or will to rewrite it I'd probably add someone taking Janeway's side (maybe that Benzite fool who thinks it's A-OK to let the Kobali kill Vaadwaur in stasis to use as breeding stock), but in my defense I had watched 3 straight hours of Voyager for that fic and the one I did before and my Janeway rage was reaching critical levels.
And as before, I'm not saying this to be a d**k but to try and help you see the bad habit for what it is, and hopefully be able to overcome it... I'm not trying to flame you for the lols, but to highlight an area in which you could improve :cool:
Ear plugs WORK, but then I sleep through my alarm...and let me tell you, there are few things more bracing than being 30 minutes late for class when you think it's midterm day.
Thankfully it was two days before midterm day. But still. >_<
Well, the only bit that I was offended by was the perceived insinuation that I should give cults "equal footing" in my stories, which I found offensive for deep-seated personal reasons that I do NOT want to talk about. The rest of this long...don't know what to call it, talking past each other?--has been interesting and inoffensive, and I think that I understand the fundamental divide here.
Besides, it's more fun to talk to someone I actually like and respect than someone who just tells me to go away.
MDK and Worffan, the last 20+ posts between you have been all the same words, stated in a slightly different order. Give it a rest, please.
Worffie, the point I was trying to help you see with Garak, is that you're trying to promote what you see as "objective truths" when in reality there is no such thing. From another man's point of view, your objective truth could be the ravings of a madman. Your perspective defines your truths.
And for the love of Q, get some sleep. Stuff pillows under the door, play classical music over headphones, turn your TV on to C-Span loud enough to cover the noise, or - here's a thought - go somewhere else. Find a friend or classmate who will let you crash at his place.
Yeah, I'm done for the night. I think we were wrapping up, anyway.
Part the third: Well, the fraternity oafs finally left, so I'm taking some Ambien and setting my alarms to full blast. Maybe I'll get some Zs now...
Part the second: I have to say that you're wrong here.
When I say that something is an objective truth, I mean that it is objectively, testably true.
--Neelix's kitchen violates literally every health and safety regulation there is.
--The "Church" of Scientology is a cult.
--My school is widely considered to be highly liberal.
My point is that Scientology is demonstrably, testably a cult. I even provided a checklist of common cult traits upthread.
Furthermore, due to personal experiences that I do not wish to talk about, I refuse to give even the faintest hint of legitimacy to cults and similar organizations.
Good night, hope my head's clearer in the morning.
Also, nice to see you in-game. Ssharki's outfit looks awesome; what were those shoulderpads, Honor Guard?
@worffan101 - I tend to praise more than critique because I know I am not a Masterverse-level author. I also hold each piece to it's own against the ST model, thus I don't have much to say against the author's work; here, we all pretty much do well to the franchise. Yet, I feel that not making comments to work shared on the forum is ... not polite. This is, of course my own point of view. Having said that, I really liked your entry for the LC and, like jonsills, the best part was the part about the Klingons.
@catrie - Third one in and really nice. Refreshing may be a good word considering the BS I put myself through in the General forum lately.
@grylak - :eek: That ... was not expected at all. How the hell are they getting out of this?! Unless you plan to kill off the entire crew as a way to start a new crew? Nah ...
How badly was Voyager designed, that it's main computer could go down to a bit of airborne mold?
--Neelix's kitchen violates literally every health and safety regulation there is.
By Talaxian standards, Neelix met or exceeded all Board of Health and OSHA regulations concerning shipboard galleys.
--The "Church" of Scientology is a cult.
To the members of this cult, it is their religion and it gives their lives meaning.
--My school is widely considered to be highly liberal.
Compared to William Jennings Bryan College of Dayton, TN? Sure. Compared to the early-Soviet era University of Moscow? Not so much.
My point is that Scientology is demonstrably, testably a cult. I even provided a checklist of common cult traits upthread.
Tom Cruise would disagree.
You're applying your perspective as the global gold standard when, in reality, your opinions are every bit as subjective as anyone else's. Something you discover the more you study - there really aren't as many hard, fast "facts" as you think there are now. And perception of reality is actually what defines reality itself. For every "Fact" and "Objective Truth" you espouse, I can give you at least two differing viewpoints. IF you dare, try reading Wittgenstein sometime. He will make this all very unclear for you.
Also, nice to see you in-game. Ssharki's outfit looks awesome; what were those shoulderpads, Honor Guard?
Fur-lined Veteran. I like the Honor Guard pads better, but you can't separate them from the rest of the outfit and the KHG tunic makes him look like he just ate the Michelin Man.
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
@grylak - :eek: That ... was not expected at all. How the hell are they getting out of this?! Unless you plan to kill off the entire crew as a way to start a new crew? Nah ...
I always planned to put them through the wringer. I didn't plan on putting them through this much. This story was one I've been working on for weeks. It was originally a story about sacrifice, with more named characters giving their lives to save the ship and defeat the killer, but I just couldn't get traction on it. This prompt gave me the inspiration to adjust things to plug some holes I had and to remind people not everyone has a happy christmas.
I don't intend to kill the rest of the cast. I've grown very attached to them, hence the careful manipulations in the plot to make Karry and Grimworm survive. Otherwise Viper wouldn't have taken a glancing blow, but a full hit. I just hope no story comes where the guys are put in a place where they will perish. Because, like other writers here, if that's the natural outcome of actions, any of the cast is expendable.
@worffan: Characters not as extreme as Three. I like it. And I like Rachel's nickname for Three. Nice bit of detail about only licensed users being able to replicate the antique weapons. Overall, a good piece.
@catrie: LOVE IT! You really present Rivna's mindset as an excitable young woman in such a short space, I can almost picture her lying on her bed talking to the journal, legs swinging in the air. :P I also enjoyed how you worked in a very believable waywhy she would celebrate an alien holiday and an alien's musings on what is a very odd holiday.
*******************************************
A Romulan Strike Team, Missing Farmers and an ancient base on a Klingon Border world. But what connects them? Find out in my First Foundary mission: 'The Jeroan Farmer Escapade'
Well, the only bit that I was offended by was the perceived insinuation that I should give cults "equal footing" in my stories, which I found offensive for deep-seated personal reasons that I do NOT want to talk about. The rest of this long...don't know what to call it, talking past each other?--has been interesting and inoffensive, and I think that I understand the fundamental divide here.
Besides, it's more fun to talk to someone I actually like and respect than someone who just tells me to go away.
I'm glad you haven't been offended, as I am only trying to help you to understand what hfmudd was talking about the other week. And again, with the cult thing, I'm not saying you have to write about them positively if that's something you feel strongly about. What I am saying (and sander reinforced above) is thst to Scientologists, it is their religion, so you have to respect their choice (and that is something which applies to every single aspect of life...)
And here's the thing; to me, it isn't rude. In fact, I think it's polite, in a way.
--Somebody needs to point out that the character's bad, in-universe is a fun and often more helpful way to do it, and frankly it gets the rage out of my head so I don't flame people over it.
--Oh, the writer's free to discard it. I do my best to keep critiques down to the basic facts, though, and I avoid blaming characters for things that aren't their fault.
I don't intend to seem arrogant, but when I see flaws in writing that could've been fixed with 3 minutes of actual focused thought, I feel the need to point them out. .
Again, (and for the sake of sander's sanity, for the last time :P ) it is rude. You might not think it is, but it is. Even if you don't understand why, please just believe hfmudd, jonsills, sander and myself on this. I appreciate that you don't intend to seem arrogant, but what you do with 'the habit', comes across as entitled presumption, which thus comes across as massively arrogant. You don't have to have all the answers or fix everything (or even anything) Janeway was a badly written character, and that's okay, you don't have to fix her/point it out in writing... It's okay...
As before, I'm sorry if I've come across as a d**k by doing this, I've just been trying to help you see a flaw which makes your writing less enjoyable than it should be :cool:
By Talaxian standards, Neelix met or exceeded all Board of Health and OSHA regulations concerning shipboard galleys.
Your evidence? And how do we know that Talaxians even have such standards?
Look, Neelix's kitchen would never pass even the worst safety inspection. His kitchen is never shown being cleaned, his burners are improperly high, he refuses to throw away food even when it is repeatedly shown to be disgusting and even toxic, and he tries to get a pregnant woman to crawl under his unsafe burners to fix them.
Compared to William Jennings Bryan College of Dayton, TN? Sure. Compared to the early-Soviet era University of Moscow? Not so much.
Not the point, I said "widely considered". If you were to take a worldwide survey of people who know about this place, a vast majority would consider our politics to be very liberal.
Tom Cruise's opinion is irrelevant. Scientology has many traits that are shared ONLY by cults and berserk dictatorships, up to and including sending its members to assassinate former members, therefore it is a cult.
You're applying your perspective as the global gold standard when, in reality, your opinions are every bit as subjective as anyone else's. Something you discover the more you study - there really aren't as many hard, fast "facts" as you think there are now. And perception of reality is actually what defines reality itself. For every "Fact" and "Objective Truth" you espouse, I can give you at least two differing viewpoints. IF you dare, try reading Wittgenstein sometime. He will make this all very unclear for you.
OK, here's the thing. You feel that blatantly counterfactual views of reality are just as valid as empirically observable scientific facts.
And that's wrong.
Creationism is not even wrong; even considering it seriously is laughable. Scientology is a cult, and trying to defend it is at best intellectually unsound, and at worst morally abhorrent. Janeway repeatedly performs actions that would be considered crimes against humanity today, and blatantly ignores the Geneva conventions by using the equivalent of biological and chemical weapons.
These are empirical facts that can be tested and proven.
Should I give "equal weight" to an argument that hydrocholric acid is a strong base when it is testably a strong acid? Should I seriously consider an argument that North Korea is not a tyrannical and psychopathic dictatorship? Should I give "equal weight" to a person who thinks that women have some magical ability to not become pregnant after being *****?
I say no.
When something is obvious, testable, and has already been analyzed to death, there really is no point to considering it again.
Fur-lined Veteran. I like the Honor Guard pads better, but you can't separate them from the rest of the outfit and the KHG tunic makes him look like he just ate the Michelin Man.
Ooh, nice. The shoulder bits looked almost like my Romulan Admiral outfit.
I'm glad you haven't been offended, as I am only trying to help you to understand what hfmudd was talking about the other week. And again, with the cult thing, I'm not saying you have to write about them positively if that's something you feel strongly about. What I am saying (and sander reinforced above) is thst to Scientologists, it is their religion, so you have to respect their choice (and that is something which applies to every single aspect of life...)
No, I don't have to respect their choice. Just like I don't have to respect the choices of, well, anyone really, if I so choose.
Rank-and-file scientologists are like random people in North Korea. They aren't the enemy, they're victims.
While I hate scientology like I hate the surprisingly large amount of forced and/or child prostitution that goes on in this country, I blame the people in charge (Scientology's leadership, pimps, Kim Jong-Un) for the evil that goes on under their purview. The rank-and file, the people being abused, they are the victims, and I'd never for any reason mock or belittle their suffering.
Again, (and for the sake of sander's sanity, for the last time :P ) it is rude. You might not think it is, but it is. Even if you don't understand why, please just believe hfmudd, jonsills, sander and myself on this. I appreciate that you don't intend to seem arrogant, but what you do with 'the habit', comes across as entitled presumption, which thus comes across as massively arrogant. You don't have to have all the answers or fix everything (or even anything) Janeway was a badly written character, and that's okay, you don't have to fix her/point it out in writing... It's okay...
As before, I'm sorry if I've come across as a d**k by doing this, I've just been trying to help you see a flaw which makes your writing less enjoyable than it should be :cool:
--But it's not OK. If I don't do it, who will? It's like why I vote; I really can't stand most of the incompetents in Congress and their blatant lies, so I vote to do my part to get less loathsome lawmakers.
--I really, really don't understand why you guys have a problem with this. I've said repeatedly that I welcome the exact same kind of criticism, and after all, "Do unto others..."
Essentially, what I do cannot affect canon in any way; it's as pointless as voting in a landslide election. The whole point is to give people who saw Janeway's massive issues a little catharsis in that at least in this little permutation of the universe, someone caught on to her BS.
As I've said numerous times, I very much DO think that you, me, patrickngo, sander, jonsills, shevet, starsword, et cetera are all better writers than whatever hacks wrote, say, "Scorpion". Or DS9: "Paradise". Or, dare I mention it, "Threshold". As such, we kind of have a responsibility to write criticism of the canon writers' incompetence, as long as we don't try to get paid for it because that would be unethical and illegal.
Do you get what I'm saying? I don't presume myself to be as good as the good stuff (as I mentioned, Best of Both Worlds, Chain of Command, The Magnificent Ferengi, "Treachery, Faith, and the Great River", et cetera), but I DO think that if I can see in 5 seconds how a script magnificently bungled something and how to fix it, that I have a right and a responsibility to point out the flaws. The same goes for characters. I would never presume that I could write Picard, or Data, but I will call Janeway out for her sh*t even though I cannot write her with her canonical inconsistency (since I'm used to coming up with iron rules for characters' behavior).
[Ninja edit to add]: You guys both have my email, we've wasted 5+ pages on this, so please email me if you really want to keep going.
I think you're misremembering about Kate Mulgrew. IIRC she thought Janeway was bipolar, as in that was the actor's headcanon explanation for the constant flipflopping in how she was written.
If she thought Janeway was bipolar then like a lot of people she didn't know what bipolar disorder is. I have in another universe actually written a bipolar character and it generally does not create homicidal maniacs. Severe suicide risks sometimes...yes. But it doesn't make you an axe murderer.
When I write about mental illness I do it *respectfully.* There are far too many stereotypes out there for me to feel good about perpetuating any of them.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
If she thought Janeway was bipolar then like a lot of people she didn't know what bipolar disorder is. I have in another universe actually written a bipolar character and it generally does not create homicidal maniacs. Severe suicide risks sometimes...yes. But it doesn't make you an axe murderer.
When I write about mental illness I do it *respectfully.* There are far too many stereotypes out there for me to feel good about perpetuating any of them.
There is that...
Speaking as a guy with OCD, ADHD, and a really bad case of Tourette's Syndrome (think epilepsy, except that I get to experience every wonderful second of my arms trying to dislocate themselves), I really should have remembered that earlier and pointed out the misconception. Rather embarrassing that I didn't, really.
If Janeway was mentally ill (I think yes, but that's up to the interpretation), I have to wonder what the problem was.
Unfortunately a lot of people--sometimes perfectly well-meaning--just don't have the right information about a lot of mental illnesses.
The one canon character that I have ever written as mentally ill was Gul Dukat, and that was because we actually saw him outright have hallucinations onscreen. But even then...it was actually an AU version of him who was the *good guy* that I wrote. He had his illness but got treatment as best as he could in the conditions of his universe (it was that AU from "Parallels" where Bajoran and Cardassian roles were reversed) and was still a good man even though sometimes he had some very difficult challenges to face.
Honestly, although there are other reasons too, that is among the reasons I would not feel comfortable writing the canon-verse Dukat...I would not want anyone confusing the illness with his evil decisions (even if sometimes the illness exacerbated the problem that already existed from his choices). Even though it's Gul Dukat we're talking about I feel I owe it to those with mental illnesses to do a better job than that.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
BTW, I am now two installments out from finishing my DR review series over in the General Trek forum. Once that concludes, I will be able to devote my full attention to actually finishing this LC.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Unfortunately a lot of people--sometimes perfectly well-meaning--just don't have the right information about a lot of mental illnesses.
The one canon character that I have ever written as mentally ill was Gul Dukat, and that was because we actually saw him outright have hallucinations onscreen. But even then...it was actually an AU version of him who was the *good guy* that I wrote. He had his illness but got treatment as best as he could in the conditions of his universe (it was that AU from "Parallels" where Bajoran and Cardassian roles were reversed) and was still a good man even though sometimes he had some very difficult challenges to face.
Honestly, although there are other reasons too, that is among the reasons I would not feel comfortable writing the canon-verse Dukat...I would not want anyone confusing the illness with his evil decisions (even if sometimes the illness exacerbated the problem that already existed from his choices). Even though it's Gul Dukat we're talking about I feel I owe it to those with mental illnesses to do a better job than that.
With Dukat I think it was being a not terribly nice person to begin with combined with something resembling schizophrenia and PTSD from his daughter's death at Damar's hands.
My personal story...I spend a LOT of time with D'trel researching PTSD. The reason she's so deeply screwed up is that she had massive emotional trauma left untreated for DECADES. And then the guy she blamed for everything bad that happened to her not only turned out to have been even worse than she thought but also working for the Iconians.
Sort of a Heroic BSOD.
Anyway, do you have a link to this AU fic? I'd love to read it, it sounds awesome.
BTW, I am now two installments out from finishing my DR review series over in the General Trek forum. Once that concludes, I will be able to devote my full attention to actually finishing this LC.
Awesome! I have to say that I've really been enjoying that review; I think it's pretty much spot-on, and I LOVE your suggestions to the patrols.
No, I don't have to respect their choice. Just like I don't have to respect the choices of, well, anyone really, if I so choose.
YES YOU DO! You might not agree with it, (and you don't have to agree with them) but you dohave to respect the choices and opinions of others. To do otherwise, well, it's just not polite...
I don't think there's anything else I can say, so no point in continuing the conversation...
@grylak - I'm afraid I've missed a fair bit of the Viper's journey but this is very good stuff. You provide a great sense of the crew searching for a sense of normalcy in desperate circumstances.
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
Thanks guys. The next lc is 70 so should be another redux, hopefully letting me to do one that picks up right after this one.
*******************************************
A Romulan Strike Team, Missing Farmers and an ancient base on a Klingon Border world. But what connects them? Find out in my First Foundary mission: 'The Jeroan Farmer Escapade'
Worffie, I'm not saying you need give equal weight to other people's viewpoints, or even that they are all valid. Indeed, many of them are plainly crazy.
What I'm saying is, TOO THEM, what you see as truth they see as subjectively false. They think THEY are right and you are wrong, and will not be persuaded no matter how many big words you use. They have their own truth. Objective fact doesn't enter into it.
You use words like "truth," "fact," and "right" as if they all mean the same thing. They do not. What is "true" and "right" depends on an individual perspective. You can only see one aspect of a given state of affairs, around which you build your own truth. But the nature of reality is that truth is inherently subjective, with very few absolutes.
"Facts" (such as a 30% concentration of HCl in water has a pH of 1.0) are valid absolute truths because whoever is doing the testing will observe the same results.
"Personal truths" (such as "blue is my favorite color") are absolute because only one aspect is relevant - that of the person making the observation.
But when you treat your beliefs and opinions as absolute truth, whether that be on defining a cult or religion, or simply "Janeway was a bad captain," you are treating your viewpoint as if it were somehow the only viewpoint. You may have good grounds for your observations, but you are still limited in that you can only see one aspect.
Other people's aspects may or may not be valid, but you can't test their validity. They see their own aspect, what is for them "true."
You can only speak for yourself, and of truth from your aspect. You don't get to speak for anyone else. And as Wittgenstein proposes, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
@grylak: Very interesting story. Looks like the few survivors of the Viper Crew are going to be moving to a new ship - look forward to seeing their continuing adventures
Worffie, I'm not saying you need give equal weight to other people's viewpoints, or even that they are all valid. Indeed, many of them are plainly crazy.
What I'm saying is, TOO THEM, what you see as truth they see as subjectively false. They think THEY are right and you are wrong, and will not be persuaded no matter how many big words you use. They have their own truth. Objective fact doesn't enter into it.
You use words like "truth," "fact," and "right" as if they all mean the same thing. They do not. What is "true" and "right" depends on an individual perspective. You can only see one aspect of a given state of affairs, around which you build your own truth. But the nature of reality is that truth is inherently subjective, with very few absolutes.
"Facts" (such as a 30% concentration of HCl in water has a pH of 1.0) are valid absolute truths because whoever is doing the testing will observe the same results.
"Personal truths" (such as "blue is my favorite color") are absolute because only one aspect is relevant - that of the person making the observation.
But when you treat your beliefs and opinions as absolute truth, whether that be on defining a cult or religion, or simply "Janeway was a bad captain," you are treating your viewpoint as if it were somehow the only viewpoint. You may have good grounds for your observations, but you are still limited in that you can only see one aspect.
Other people's aspects may or may not be valid, but you can't test their validity. They see their own aspect, what is for them "true."
You can only speak for yourself, and of truth from your aspect. You don't get to speak for anyone else. And as Wittgenstein proposes, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
OK, there's another divide: When I say "truth", I mean objective fact. People's opinions of those facts are irrelevant.
When I say "Janeway was a bad Captain", that is my subjective opinion and I do not treat it as fact. However, "Janeway used the equivalent of bioweapons on sentient beings" is an objective, canonical fact.
Also, I think that Wittgenstein is wrong. Logically, if one cannot test a hypothesis, one must reject it in favor of the null hypothesis until one is able to test the hypothesis.
Basically, people can believe whatever they want. That doesn't make their opinions valid or their beliefs factual.
@worffan101 - Beyond the religious stuff and objective truth that everyone has been discussing, I felt this was about on par for your average works on the forum. My main sticking point is mostly Rachel and it's one that has been bugging me for a while.
I know she blames Three. She mentions it every entry that focuses in on her at all. Yet Three isn't the one ultimately responsible for her current condition. That would be Azip for giving the go ahead. Now I can understand Three taking all of Rachel's blame to protect Azip, but that also strikes me as something a little too human for her to do. Also I can't see Azip not owning up to the decision making if asked or exposed to Rachel's resentment. So what is the actual case here?
@catrie - Quick, to the point, witty, and original. You really impressed me. I'm sorry that I've ignored other entries that you've made, since I can't seem to recall the other two, but this one did it's job and did it well. I'd like to read them if you don't mind linking them.
@grylak - I feel the sort of jammed together, incompleteness that you mentioned earlier. It's like it tried to cram two plots into a space that would have been better served by one. The death of the crew was hand waved and off screen. It was sort of like, "The crew is dead... And that's terrible." Instead it could have been the slide into oblivion as the crew counter starts to tick off one by one. I also think that Jenna's desperation for at least one good Christmas could have been more prominent if that had been the focus. It just fell flat for me when the reveal of its importance to her was made clear.
@worffan101 - Beyond the religious stuff and objective truth that everyone has been discussing, I felt this was about on par for your average works on the forum. My main sticking point is mostly Rachel and it's one that has been bugging me for a while.
I know she blames Three. She mentions it every entry that focuses in on her at all. Yet Three isn't the one ultimately responsible for her current condition. That would be Azip for giving the go ahead. Now I can understand Three taking all of Rachel's blame to protect Azip, but that also strikes me as something a little too human for her to do. Also I can't see Azip not owning up to the decision making if asked or exposed to Rachel's resentment. So what is the actual case here?
1. I've said it a thousand times and I'll continue to say it to the end of time, Scientology is a cult and I will not give it "equal time" or whatever flimsy justifications its leaders use to pretend that it's anything other than a money-grubbing greed hole that uses people for their money until they die and kills them if they try to run. There are deeply personal reasons that I do not want to discuss behind this. I am never, ever going to change my mind.
2. On Rachel...First, Three is genetically bound to protect her imprints in every possible way. This sometimes leads to internal conflict, so she generally prioritizes physical health over mental/emotional health and relationships, but if someone made a tough call like that (Rachel is unable to give or deny consent, the choices are drastically alter her body (although to be fair the unit didn't detail just how much modification there was or important things like the fact that regeneration HURTS) or kill her because she's got too many implants to safely deassimilate), Three would absolutely take the fall for her imprint.
On top of that, Rachel was literally unable to give consent, and there were two choices here; kill her, or alter her. Azip's relationship to Three is not a very healthy one; Azip cares for the unit a LOT, but she knows from unfortunate experience that she can give Three orders that override the Contract--the Contract is conditioned obedience, whereas imprinting is biological. Three MIGHT be able to refuse an imprint's order, and definitely would if said imprint's life was in danger, but Azip knows with 100% certainty that she can hold a phaser to her head and order Three to self-terminate or she pulls the trigger, and Three will do it.
If I weren't bored with Three for the moment, I would definitely write a psych-heavy piece about what the unit is like for her crew's psyches. In fact, I wrote Sander something privately that goes into a little detail about how Three and Azip's relationship affects Azip; Three is objectively useful and valuable to her imprints--crew casualties are down to zero percent for a reason on the George Takei--and the only time she has anything resembling human emotions or behaviors is around her imprints, but on the other hand the unit has repeatedly shown a complete lack of regard for her own health (although her LIFE is something that she definitely cares for), and has performed numerous gross violations of sentient rights and other horrible crimes.
Basically, Azip's in a tough spot. She loves Three, knows that Three as close to loves her back as a unit can manage, but also knows that she has ultimate life-or-death power over the unit, something that not even Quinn has. This leaves Azip wondering just how much of this is real and how much of this is her and her insane killer puppy dog. On top of that, Three's a monster, and Azip knows that she's one of the few people who CAN control her and probably the only person who regularly WILL. And that's tough on the psyche, knowing that you are the only safety for a horrifying superweapon.
When I kill Three, I am definitely going into some detail about this. It'd be one last interesting thing to get out of the character.
With Rachel specifically, Rachel recognizes this situation to some extent, partially just hates Three because Three's an easy target, and is partially grateful to be alive, something that causes her intense internal turmoil because she feels that that's tantamount to thanking the unit for as good as r*ping her. On top of that, she has to admit that the powers keep her and her men alive, something that she, as a Mother To Her Men sort, values quite highly, which worsens the above emotional turmoil.
Plus, there's her knowledge of other cases of heavily-assimilated ex-Borg who were restored to near-normalcy by advanced medicine (c.f. Seven of TRIBBLE and marcusdkane's excellent LC 39 story--might be in a redux, can't remember exactly); she's quite sure (and correctly so) that if Three had had a better doctor than an amiably perverted pathologist with some trauma surgery experience on her ship, she wouldn't be like this.
In a nutshell, Three didn't see the need for a CMO who could handle anything unusual that wasn't a disease, and turned Rachel into a superhuman augment as a result. Rachel doesn't fully know what to think, but she blames the unit because (a) the unit is most at fault, and (b) the unit is really, really easy to hate.
Something that I wrote (quickly, badly, need to redo it sometime after I finish the big story that is on my computer with the broken monitor and the 6 or 7 other projects I want to do and survive finals week with a minimum of agony) on my other computer (can't get at the file right now) actually details Rachel's reaction to Azip and vice versa; I had Azip and Rachel meet and talk shortly before Rachel got onto the Patagonia, and Azip expressed deeply-held and long-term guilt for giving the consent for Rachel, and Rachel basically says "I recognize and accept your remorse, and I know that you were in a really tough situation there, and I blame the unit for not having a doctor who knew more than the most basic deassimilation protocols. And to be fair, there are people who would've jumped at the chance, I don't blame you for not euthanizing me".
@grylak - I feel the sort of jammed together, incompleteness that you mentioned earlier. It's like it tried to cram two plots into a space that would have been better served by one. The death of the crew was hand waved and off screen. It was sort of like, "The crew is dead... And that's terrible." Instead it could have been the slide into oblivion as the crew counter starts to tick off one by one. I also think that Jenna's desperation for at least one good Christmas could have been more prominent if that had been the focus. It just fell flat for me when the reveal of its importance to her was made clear.
I see your points. The crew counter ticking down style was done with the gorn ambush on the sentinel and the last story with d'elon. To have that happen here as well would have required a boarding party and wouldn't have wrecked the ship so much. I tried to mention the loss of her crew wasn't being totally handwaved off, just focus on saving the survivors first. With most of the survivors being trained battle hardened soldiers, I felt I could get away with that, while Jenna certainly couldn't leave it till later. In retrospect, a better focus on Jenna at the start would have made for a better ending with her.
I was aiming for a die hard type vibe. Set at Christmas but not really about Christmas. I guarantee though, the loss of everyone will be a factor in all future stories as was always intended. Thank you for the feedback.
*******************************************
A Romulan Strike Team, Missing Farmers and an ancient base on a Klingon Border world. But what connects them? Find out in my First Foundary mission: 'The Jeroan Farmer Escapade'
Ha...finally finished the review series! (Link in my sig.)
Now on to tackle the LC...
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Comments
I doubt that such comments would be well received
As above... It's not. It is simply arrogant and rude.
Oh she would have been court-martialed, just not thrown out of the service for political reasons, so instead, she got a token promotion and a desk job where she couldn't do any more harm. From a production perspective, there wasn't any other character who would have fit the role of Mission Giver...
- What makes you think that your character gets to supercede a canon character (even if you are writing it)? That's not meant as a challenge, but a thought experiment/rhetorical question.
- The fact that you would be writing the piece, would mean an unfair and unbalanced medium where you place your own character above a canon character. The only fair way you could have such an interraction, would be to have Jeri Taylor* go through a draft line by line so she gives responses as you pose them.
This is why I not only don't like using canon characters beyond cameos, but try and remain as consistent to the canon appearances as I can, without allowing my own judgements to influence the writing (wether I succeed or not, as I've said before, I leave up to others to decide...)
*
I say Jeri Taylor, simoly because Janeway was originally her character, not the two stooges'...
Let me try a different approach.
- Why do you feel that it is an acceptable and responsible thing to do?
- Why do you feel that the writer should value your critique?
As before, this presumption comes across (intentionally or otherwise) as incredibly arrogant...
The point was not so much to call Three for her behaviour, but an illustration of why he was a JAG officer, and to put him in a more sympathetic light than when he tried to prosecute Amanda. However, that exchange was different in tone than the exchange between Harry and the person he bad-mouthed Janeway to (at least, I certainly hope it was different in tone)
Ear plugs...
And as before, I'm not saying this to be a d**k but to try and help you see the bad habit for what it is, and hopefully be able to overcome it... I'm not trying to flame you for the lols, but to highlight an area in which you could improve :cool:
Worffie, the point I was trying to help you see with Garak, is that you're trying to promote what you see as "objective truths" when in reality there is no such thing. From another man's point of view, your objective truth could be the ravings of a madman. Your perspective defines your truths.
And for the love of Q, get some sleep. Stuff pillows under the door, play classical music over headphones, turn your TV on to C-Span loud enough to cover the noise, or - here's a thought - go somewhere else. Find a friend or classmate who will let you crash at his place.
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
--Perhaps, but let's note that the portrayal of Janeway on Voyager was hardly balanced. She was (depending on the writer) brave and edgy or Miss Perfect.
I understand your reasoning here, heck, I don't really like the way I've written Janeway because I really can't get the sheer inconsistency down right; she always comes off as openly evi. My difference is that I feel that when you're dealing with a Suethor, you ALWAYS start by pointing out the flaws in the Sue, and then write an in-universe criticism--line by line, if necessary.
Essentially, EVERY story is inherently an unbalanced medium. Sues like Janeway simply exist in a medium heavily biased towards them. When I call out a character on their sh*t in-universe, I keep it to the facts, honest, and as fair as I can with my dislike for the character and their actions. --Somebody needs to point out that the character's bad, in-universe is a fun and often more helpful way to do it, and frankly it gets the rage out of my head so I don't flame people over it.
--Oh, the writer's free to discard it. I do my best to keep critiques down to the basic facts, though, and I avoid blaming characters for things that aren't their fault.
I don't intend to seem arrogant, but when I see flaws in writing that could've been fixed with 3 minutes of actual focused thought, I feel the need to point them out. Eh, what I got from it...I liked that someone grasps just how annoying the monster is to law-minded people, and I liked the exploration of the consequences of being a giant middle finger to half the galaxy.
As for the scene I wrote...that was meant to be a competent guy who knows the office politics are ruthless who's slowly outgrown his hero worship to realize that his first CO was kind of a flaming incompetent and is taking the opportunity of reporting to someone who has a reputation of treating people meritocratically and TRIBBLE to the stupidity of office politics to confess his opinions to that person.
It could've been handled more delicately, yeah, and if I had the desire or will to rewrite it I'd probably add someone taking Janeway's side (maybe that Benzite fool who thinks it's A-OK to let the Kobali kill Vaadwaur in stasis to use as breeding stock), but in my defense I had watched 3 straight hours of Voyager for that fic and the one I did before and my Janeway rage was reaching critical levels.
Ear plugs WORK, but then I sleep through my alarm...and let me tell you, there are few things more bracing than being 30 minutes late for class when you think it's midterm day.
Thankfully it was two days before midterm day. But still. >_<
Well, the only bit that I was offended by was the perceived insinuation that I should give cults "equal footing" in my stories, which I found offensive for deep-seated personal reasons that I do NOT want to talk about. The rest of this long...don't know what to call it, talking past each other?--has been interesting and inoffensive, and I think that I understand the fundamental divide here.
Besides, it's more fun to talk to someone I actually like and respect than someone who just tells me to go away.
Yeah, I'm done for the night. I think we were wrapping up, anyway.
Part the third: Well, the fraternity oafs finally left, so I'm taking some Ambien and setting my alarms to full blast. Maybe I'll get some Zs now...
Part the second: I have to say that you're wrong here.
When I say that something is an objective truth, I mean that it is objectively, testably true.
Objective facts include:
--Neelix's cheese nearly destroyed Voyager.
--Neelix's kitchen violates literally every health and safety regulation there is.
--The "Church" of Scientology is a cult.
--My school is widely considered to be highly liberal.
My point is that Scientology is demonstrably, testably a cult. I even provided a checklist of common cult traits upthread.
Furthermore, due to personal experiences that I do not wish to talk about, I refuse to give even the faintest hint of legitimacy to cults and similar organizations.
Good night, hope my head's clearer in the morning.
Also, nice to see you in-game. Ssharki's outfit looks awesome; what were those shoulderpads, Honor Guard?
@catrie - Third one in and really nice. Refreshing may be a good word considering the BS I put myself through in the General forum lately.
@grylak - :eek: That ... was not expected at all. How the hell are they getting out of this?! Unless you plan to kill off the entire crew as a way to start a new crew? Nah ...
By Talaxian standards, Neelix met or exceeded all Board of Health and OSHA regulations concerning shipboard galleys.
To the members of this cult, it is their religion and it gives their lives meaning.
Compared to William Jennings Bryan College of Dayton, TN? Sure. Compared to the early-Soviet era University of Moscow? Not so much.
Tom Cruise would disagree.
You're applying your perspective as the global gold standard when, in reality, your opinions are every bit as subjective as anyone else's. Something you discover the more you study - there really aren't as many hard, fast "facts" as you think there are now. And perception of reality is actually what defines reality itself. For every "Fact" and "Objective Truth" you espouse, I can give you at least two differing viewpoints. IF you dare, try reading Wittgenstein sometime. He will make this all very unclear for you.
Fur-lined Veteran. I like the Honor Guard pads better, but you can't separate them from the rest of the outfit and the KHG tunic makes him look like he just ate the Michelin Man.
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
I always planned to put them through the wringer. I didn't plan on putting them through this much. This story was one I've been working on for weeks. It was originally a story about sacrifice, with more named characters giving their lives to save the ship and defeat the killer, but I just couldn't get traction on it. This prompt gave me the inspiration to adjust things to plug some holes I had and to remind people not everyone has a happy christmas.
I don't intend to kill the rest of the cast. I've grown very attached to them, hence the careful manipulations in the plot to make Karry and Grimworm survive. Otherwise Viper wouldn't have taken a glancing blow, but a full hit. I just hope no story comes where the guys are put in a place where they will perish. Because, like other writers here, if that's the natural outcome of actions, any of the cast is expendable.
@worffan: Characters not as extreme as Three. I like it. And I like Rachel's nickname for Three.
@catrie: LOVE IT! You really present Rivna's mindset as an excitable young woman in such a short space, I can almost picture her lying on her bed talking to the journal, legs swinging in the air. :P I also enjoyed how you worked in a very believable waywhy she would celebrate an alien holiday and an alien's musings on what is a very odd holiday.
A Romulan Strike Team, Missing Farmers and an ancient base on a Klingon Border world. But what connects them? Find out in my First Foundary mission: 'The Jeroan Farmer Escapade'
I'm glad you haven't been offended, as I am only trying to help you to understand what hfmudd was talking about the other week. And again, with the cult thing, I'm not saying you have to write about them positively if that's something you feel strongly about. What I am saying (and sander reinforced above) is thst to Scientologists, it is their religion, so you have to respect their choice (and that is something which applies to every single aspect of life...)
Again, (and for the sake of sander's sanity, for the last time :P ) it is rude. You might not think it is, but it is. Even if you don't understand why, please just believe hfmudd, jonsills, sander and myself on this. I appreciate that you don't intend to seem arrogant, but what you do with 'the habit', comes across as entitled presumption, which thus comes across as massively arrogant. You don't have to have all the answers or fix everything (or even anything) Janeway was a badly written character, and that's okay, you don't have to fix her/point it out in writing... It's okay...
As before, I'm sorry if I've come across as a d**k by doing this, I've just been trying to help you see a flaw which makes your writing less enjoyable than it should be :cool:
Look, Neelix's kitchen would never pass even the worst safety inspection. His kitchen is never shown being cleaned, his burners are improperly high, he refuses to throw away food even when it is repeatedly shown to be disgusting and even toxic, and he tries to get a pregnant woman to crawl under his unsafe burners to fix them.
Need I go on? So? To creationists, their belief is the only possible way the world can be. Doesn't make it any less inherently wrong. Not the point, I said "widely considered". If you were to take a worldwide survey of people who know about this place, a vast majority would consider our politics to be very liberal. Tom Cruise's opinion is irrelevant. Scientology has many traits that are shared ONLY by cults and berserk dictatorships, up to and including sending its members to assassinate former members, therefore it is a cult. OK, here's the thing. You feel that blatantly counterfactual views of reality are just as valid as empirically observable scientific facts.
And that's wrong.
Creationism is not even wrong; even considering it seriously is laughable. Scientology is a cult, and trying to defend it is at best intellectually unsound, and at worst morally abhorrent. Janeway repeatedly performs actions that would be considered crimes against humanity today, and blatantly ignores the Geneva conventions by using the equivalent of biological and chemical weapons.
These are empirical facts that can be tested and proven.
Should I give "equal weight" to an argument that hydrocholric acid is a strong base when it is testably a strong acid? Should I seriously consider an argument that North Korea is not a tyrannical and psychopathic dictatorship? Should I give "equal weight" to a person who thinks that women have some magical ability to not become pregnant after being *****?
I say no.
When something is obvious, testable, and has already been analyzed to death, there really is no point to considering it again. Ooh, nice. The shoulder bits looked almost like my Romulan Admiral outfit. No, I don't have to respect their choice. Just like I don't have to respect the choices of, well, anyone really, if I so choose.
Rank-and-file scientologists are like random people in North Korea. They aren't the enemy, they're victims.
While I hate scientology like I hate the surprisingly large amount of forced and/or child prostitution that goes on in this country, I blame the people in charge (Scientology's leadership, pimps, Kim Jong-Un) for the evil that goes on under their purview. The rank-and file, the people being abused, they are the victims, and I'd never for any reason mock or belittle their suffering.
That doesn't mean I won't flame the cult itself. --But it's not OK. If I don't do it, who will? It's like why I vote; I really can't stand most of the incompetents in Congress and their blatant lies, so I vote to do my part to get less loathsome lawmakers.
--I really, really don't understand why you guys have a problem with this. I've said repeatedly that I welcome the exact same kind of criticism, and after all, "Do unto others..."
Essentially, what I do cannot affect canon in any way; it's as pointless as voting in a landslide election. The whole point is to give people who saw Janeway's massive issues a little catharsis in that at least in this little permutation of the universe, someone caught on to her BS.
As I've said numerous times, I very much DO think that you, me, patrickngo, sander, jonsills, shevet, starsword, et cetera are all better writers than whatever hacks wrote, say, "Scorpion". Or DS9: "Paradise". Or, dare I mention it, "Threshold". As such, we kind of have a responsibility to write criticism of the canon writers' incompetence, as long as we don't try to get paid for it because that would be unethical and illegal.
Do you get what I'm saying? I don't presume myself to be as good as the good stuff (as I mentioned, Best of Both Worlds, Chain of Command, The Magnificent Ferengi, "Treachery, Faith, and the Great River", et cetera), but I DO think that if I can see in 5 seconds how a script magnificently bungled something and how to fix it, that I have a right and a responsibility to point out the flaws. The same goes for characters. I would never presume that I could write Picard, or Data, but I will call Janeway out for her sh*t even though I cannot write her with her canonical inconsistency (since I'm used to coming up with iron rules for characters' behavior).
[Ninja edit to add]: You guys both have my email, we've wasted 5+ pages on this, so please email me if you really want to keep going.
If she thought Janeway was bipolar then like a lot of people she didn't know what bipolar disorder is. I have in another universe actually written a bipolar character and it generally does not create homicidal maniacs. Severe suicide risks sometimes...yes. But it doesn't make you an axe murderer.
When I write about mental illness I do it *respectfully.* There are far too many stereotypes out there for me to feel good about perpetuating any of them.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
There is that...
Speaking as a guy with OCD, ADHD, and a really bad case of Tourette's Syndrome (think epilepsy, except that I get to experience every wonderful second of my arms trying to dislocate themselves), I really should have remembered that earlier and pointed out the misconception. Rather embarrassing that I didn't, really.
If Janeway was mentally ill (I think yes, but that's up to the interpretation), I have to wonder what the problem was.
The one canon character that I have ever written as mentally ill was Gul Dukat, and that was because we actually saw him outright have hallucinations onscreen. But even then...it was actually an AU version of him who was the *good guy* that I wrote. He had his illness but got treatment as best as he could in the conditions of his universe (it was that AU from "Parallels" where Bajoran and Cardassian roles were reversed) and was still a good man even though sometimes he had some very difficult challenges to face.
Honestly, although there are other reasons too, that is among the reasons I would not feel comfortable writing the canon-verse Dukat...I would not want anyone confusing the illness with his evil decisions (even if sometimes the illness exacerbated the problem that already existed from his choices). Even though it's Gul Dukat we're talking about I feel I owe it to those with mental illnesses to do a better job than that.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
My personal story...I spend a LOT of time with D'trel researching PTSD. The reason she's so deeply screwed up is that she had massive emotional trauma left untreated for DECADES. And then the guy she blamed for everything bad that happened to her not only turned out to have been even worse than she thought but also working for the Iconians.
Sort of a Heroic BSOD.
Anyway, do you have a link to this AU fic? I'd love to read it, it sounds awesome.
Awesome! I have to say that I've really been enjoying that review; I think it's pretty much spot-on, and I LOVE your suggestions to the patrols.
I don't think there's anything else I can say, so no point in continuing the conversation...
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
A Romulan Strike Team, Missing Farmers and an ancient base on a Klingon Border world. But what connects them? Find out in my First Foundary mission: 'The Jeroan Farmer Escapade'
What I'm saying is, TOO THEM, what you see as truth they see as subjectively false. They think THEY are right and you are wrong, and will not be persuaded no matter how many big words you use. They have their own truth. Objective fact doesn't enter into it.
You use words like "truth," "fact," and "right" as if they all mean the same thing. They do not. What is "true" and "right" depends on an individual perspective. You can only see one aspect of a given state of affairs, around which you build your own truth. But the nature of reality is that truth is inherently subjective, with very few absolutes.
"Facts" (such as a 30% concentration of HCl in water has a pH of 1.0) are valid absolute truths because whoever is doing the testing will observe the same results.
"Personal truths" (such as "blue is my favorite color") are absolute because only one aspect is relevant - that of the person making the observation.
But when you treat your beliefs and opinions as absolute truth, whether that be on defining a cult or religion, or simply "Janeway was a bad captain," you are treating your viewpoint as if it were somehow the only viewpoint. You may have good grounds for your observations, but you are still limited in that you can only see one aspect.
Other people's aspects may or may not be valid, but you can't test their validity. They see their own aspect, what is for them "true."
You can only speak for yourself, and of truth from your aspect. You don't get to speak for anyone else. And as Wittgenstein proposes, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
OK, there's another divide: When I say "truth", I mean objective fact. People's opinions of those facts are irrelevant.
When I say "Janeway was a bad Captain", that is my subjective opinion and I do not treat it as fact. However, "Janeway used the equivalent of bioweapons on sentient beings" is an objective, canonical fact.
Also, I think that Wittgenstein is wrong. Logically, if one cannot test a hypothesis, one must reject it in favor of the null hypothesis until one is able to test the hypothesis.
Basically, people can believe whatever they want. That doesn't make their opinions valid or their beliefs factual.
@worffan101 - Beyond the religious stuff and objective truth that everyone has been discussing, I felt this was about on par for your average works on the forum. My main sticking point is mostly Rachel and it's one that has been bugging me for a while.
I know she blames Three. She mentions it every entry that focuses in on her at all. Yet Three isn't the one ultimately responsible for her current condition. That would be Azip for giving the go ahead. Now I can understand Three taking all of Rachel's blame to protect Azip, but that also strikes me as something a little too human for her to do. Also I can't see Azip not owning up to the decision making if asked or exposed to Rachel's resentment. So what is the actual case here?
@catrie - Quick, to the point, witty, and original. You really impressed me. I'm sorry that I've ignored other entries that you've made, since I can't seem to recall the other two, but this one did it's job and did it well. I'd like to read them if you don't mind linking them.
@grylak - I feel the sort of jammed together, incompleteness that you mentioned earlier. It's like it tried to cram two plots into a space that would have been better served by one. The death of the crew was hand waved and off screen. It was sort of like, "The crew is dead... And that's terrible." Instead it could have been the slide into oblivion as the crew counter starts to tick off one by one. I also think that Jenna's desperation for at least one good Christmas could have been more prominent if that had been the focus. It just fell flat for me when the reveal of its importance to her was made clear.
Yes! Yes! A thousand times yes!
1. I've said it a thousand times and I'll continue to say it to the end of time, Scientology is a cult and I will not give it "equal time" or whatever flimsy justifications its leaders use to pretend that it's anything other than a money-grubbing greed hole that uses people for their money until they die and kills them if they try to run. There are deeply personal reasons that I do not want to discuss behind this. I am never, ever going to change my mind.
2. On Rachel...First, Three is genetically bound to protect her imprints in every possible way. This sometimes leads to internal conflict, so she generally prioritizes physical health over mental/emotional health and relationships, but if someone made a tough call like that (Rachel is unable to give or deny consent, the choices are drastically alter her body (although to be fair the unit didn't detail just how much modification there was or important things like the fact that regeneration HURTS) or kill her because she's got too many implants to safely deassimilate), Three would absolutely take the fall for her imprint.
On top of that, Rachel was literally unable to give consent, and there were two choices here; kill her, or alter her. Azip's relationship to Three is not a very healthy one; Azip cares for the unit a LOT, but she knows from unfortunate experience that she can give Three orders that override the Contract--the Contract is conditioned obedience, whereas imprinting is biological. Three MIGHT be able to refuse an imprint's order, and definitely would if said imprint's life was in danger, but Azip knows with 100% certainty that she can hold a phaser to her head and order Three to self-terminate or she pulls the trigger, and Three will do it.
If I weren't bored with Three for the moment, I would definitely write a psych-heavy piece about what the unit is like for her crew's psyches. In fact, I wrote Sander something privately that goes into a little detail about how Three and Azip's relationship affects Azip; Three is objectively useful and valuable to her imprints--crew casualties are down to zero percent for a reason on the George Takei--and the only time she has anything resembling human emotions or behaviors is around her imprints, but on the other hand the unit has repeatedly shown a complete lack of regard for her own health (although her LIFE is something that she definitely cares for), and has performed numerous gross violations of sentient rights and other horrible crimes.
Basically, Azip's in a tough spot. She loves Three, knows that Three as close to loves her back as a unit can manage, but also knows that she has ultimate life-or-death power over the unit, something that not even Quinn has. This leaves Azip wondering just how much of this is real and how much of this is her and her insane killer puppy dog. On top of that, Three's a monster, and Azip knows that she's one of the few people who CAN control her and probably the only person who regularly WILL. And that's tough on the psyche, knowing that you are the only safety for a horrifying superweapon.
When I kill Three, I am definitely going into some detail about this. It'd be one last interesting thing to get out of the character.
With Rachel specifically, Rachel recognizes this situation to some extent, partially just hates Three because Three's an easy target, and is partially grateful to be alive, something that causes her intense internal turmoil because she feels that that's tantamount to thanking the unit for as good as r*ping her. On top of that, she has to admit that the powers keep her and her men alive, something that she, as a Mother To Her Men sort, values quite highly, which worsens the above emotional turmoil.
Plus, there's her knowledge of other cases of heavily-assimilated ex-Borg who were restored to near-normalcy by advanced medicine (c.f. Seven of TRIBBLE and marcusdkane's excellent LC 39 story--might be in a redux, can't remember exactly); she's quite sure (and correctly so) that if Three had had a better doctor than an amiably perverted pathologist with some trauma surgery experience on her ship, she wouldn't be like this.
In a nutshell, Three didn't see the need for a CMO who could handle anything unusual that wasn't a disease, and turned Rachel into a superhuman augment as a result. Rachel doesn't fully know what to think, but she blames the unit because (a) the unit is most at fault, and (b) the unit is really, really easy to hate.
Something that I wrote (quickly, badly, need to redo it sometime after I finish the big story that is on my computer with the broken monitor and the 6 or 7 other projects I want to do and survive finals week with a minimum of agony) on my other computer (can't get at the file right now) actually details Rachel's reaction to Azip and vice versa; I had Azip and Rachel meet and talk shortly before Rachel got onto the Patagonia, and Azip expressed deeply-held and long-term guilt for giving the consent for Rachel, and Rachel basically says "I recognize and accept your remorse, and I know that you were in a really tough situation there, and I blame the unit for not having a doctor who knew more than the most basic deassimilation protocols. And to be fair, there are people who would've jumped at the chance, I don't blame you for not euthanizing me".
Hope this clears things up.
I see your points. The crew counter ticking down style was done with the gorn ambush on the sentinel and the last story with d'elon. To have that happen here as well would have required a boarding party and wouldn't have wrecked the ship so much. I tried to mention the loss of her crew wasn't being totally handwaved off, just focus on saving the survivors first. With most of the survivors being trained battle hardened soldiers, I felt I could get away with that, while Jenna certainly couldn't leave it till later. In retrospect, a better focus on Jenna at the start would have made for a better ending with her.
I was aiming for a die hard type vibe. Set at Christmas but not really about Christmas. I guarantee though, the loss of everyone will be a factor in all future stories as was always intended. Thank you for the feedback.
A Romulan Strike Team, Missing Farmers and an ancient base on a Klingon Border world. But what connects them? Find out in my First Foundary mission: 'The Jeroan Farmer Escapade'
Now on to tackle the LC...
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.