StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Batman wrote:This is a trick question, right?

No, seriously. Who gives a shit anymore? Strict canon guidelines are useful in vs. debates because they save megabytes of stupid arguments over what's "truth in fiction", but it's annoying when people who enjoy the show are just trying to discuss it. Obviously you don't want to include just anything (that way lies the Star Wars EU), but if these "quasi-canon blueprints" are, say, production drawings from Andrew Probert (and I'm pretty sure I just saw that same set of blueprints a few days ago), then why the hell not use them to gain some insight into what the series creators were thinking?

Conceded.
I guess I'm just locked into the VS mindset by now, so my instinctual reaction is if it isn't canon, I must ignore it, even when we ARE talking behind the scenes information and real world issues with the series.

RedImperator wrote:

Batman wrote:This is a trick question, right?

No, seriously. Who gives a shit anymore? Strict canon guidelines are useful in vs. debates because they save megabytes of stupid arguments over what's "truth in fiction", but it's annoying when people who enjoy the show are just trying to discuss it. Obviously you don't want to include just anything (that way lies the Star Wars EU), but if these "quasi-canon blueprints" are, say, production drawings from Andrew Probert (and I'm pretty sure I just saw that same set of blueprints a few days ago), then why the hell not use them to gain some insight into what the series creators were thinking?

If people who enjoy the show are trying to discuss it from an in-universe perspective, don't they need a strict set of guidelines? Otherwise you get intentionalism rather than suspension of disbelief.

Carinthium wrote:If people who enjoy the show are trying to discuss it from an in-universe perspective, don't they need a strict set of guidelines?

Why? A strict set of guidelines is only relevant for debate purposes, which Red notes by referring to the versus arguments. But otherwise, who cares?

Otherwise you get intentionalism rather than suspension of disbelief.

What good is suspension of disbelief anyway, when faced with obvious special effects gaffes? Oh shit the Bird of Prey is now two separate classes of ship because we can't rationalise it any other way (when the out of universe explanation is that the guys on TNG reused a ST3 model but forgot to account for scaling, so had to invent a lame-ass in-universe rationalisation). That's suspension of disbelief in the understanding of this site, which co-opted the term from the literary usage of the term, which means 'anything that breaks the audience's belief in the facts of the show'.

What the hell is 'intentionalism' anyway? Even in lit circles analysis is done without appealing to the author's intentions, rather someone strives to analyse a text in isolation.

Carinthium wrote:

RedImperator wrote:

Batman wrote:This is a trick question, right?

No, seriously. Who gives a shit anymore? Strict canon guidelines are useful in vs. debates because they save megabytes of stupid arguments over what's "truth in fiction", but it's annoying when people who enjoy the show are just trying to discuss it. Obviously you don't want to include just anything (that way lies the Star Wars EU), but if these "quasi-canon blueprints" are, say, production drawings from Andrew Probert (and I'm pretty sure I just saw that same set of blueprints a few days ago), then why the hell not use them to gain some insight into what the series creators were thinking?

If people who enjoy the show are trying to discuss it from an in-universe perspective, don't they need a strict set of guidelines? Otherwise you get intentionalism rather than suspension of disbelief.

Okay, first, as Stofsk said, "suspension of disbelief" doesn't mean "whatever we see on screen, no matter how stupid or obvious a gaffe or how idiotic an episode, must be rationalized" anywhere but in versus debating. It's a term from literature that means, roughly, "the audience's willingness to temporarily forget they're reading/watching fiction for the sake of becoming emotionally invested in the story". Second, you avoid "intentionalism" by dealing with the text directly ("text" defined here as the episodes and the supplemental materials), rather than taking the creators' words as gospel...which, incidentally, includes letting the creators strictly define what works are part of the text and what works aren't.

Yes, obviously, to discuss this, you need a group of people who aren't going to fly screaming off the handle at the first disagreement, and it means it's almost certain you'll never develop a single "canon" that satisfies everyone. But I'll ask again: who cares? Why does that matter? Once you're out of the vs. debate milieu (and face it: that debate has been dead for ten years), there's no need for it. We're only doing this for fun anyway, and if the general agreement is it's more fun if "Threshold" isn't canon buy the Rihannsu novels are, then who gives a shit what Paramount says about it?

The Klingons were involved in at least one early invasion of their planet. I tend to think this gave them a technological leg up into space, only to find their neighborhood was resource poor. Relative tech superiority + low resources = empire. Even still, the Klingons worked so hard to keep pace with the Federation they literally blew up their moon.

The Federation is an alliance of scatter brained Vulcans, the commercial Andorians, the commercial Tellerites, and Humans. Humans came away from an apparently genocidal history of wars and quickly find space (the Romulans) equally warlike. Human industry apparently serves to service the military arm of the Federation while you have all those myriads of other economies backing it up.

Finally, the Romulans didn't even have a homeworld of their own, they had to flee from the Vulcans and reestablish their nation on a secret world. I agree with SF Museum's take that the Romulans were a technologically static people until the Klingons gave them a D-7. The Romulans had to have done extremely well (hence an unwavering faith in their technology) and been placed in a very resource rich environment, but they are at a strain to keep their military powerful enough to wreck the Klingons or the Humans.

Regarding the warbirds, the only real battle we have between the Federation Fleet and the Romulans in the TNG+ era is 'Message in a Bottle'.

There we have 3 Warbirds against an Akira and two Defiants.

Its very interesting to note - although we don't see too much of the battle - that despite the gross tonnage advantage of the Romulans, they were very much unable to take on the Federation ships and destory them quickly. We even see a short shot of two Warbirds ganging up on the Akira and despite what we saw Warbrids do to the Ent-D's shields, they were not able to kill it.

And at the end of the battle, one of the Warbirds had been weakened to the point that the Promethus and one of the Defiants fired something like 4 phaser blasts and blew it to pieces.

But to add another spin on it, the Prometheus -albeit without a crew- took the Romulans opening fire on her and dropping their shields to 20% in the first volley. And then took the Defiants blasting her in a straffing run. Now she had regenerative shield technology which could explain it...

But it again appears to suggest that Warbirds can deliver a HUGE amount of firepower in a single volley.

In fact, my theory, which only has limited evidence I'll freely admit, is that the bow of a Warbird is built around the biggest possible Disruptor bank the Romulans can shove into their ship, with the biggest possible capacitor network behind it. The idea being that they'll fully charge their weapons before decloaking and unleashing a volley powerful enough to seriously drain major Federation ships shields (like Galaxy and Prometheus class ships) and destroy/cripple lesser ships like Excelessors Mirandas.

But the problem then in a sustained engagement is that they have 'shot their wad', so to speek. And they can then only put out very ordinary firepower, and probably only have half decent shields.

Hence when in Message in a Bottle, they hit the Prometheus with a full volley, probably attemping to destroy it before Starfleet took it back as the cavelry charged in, but it left them at an extreme disadvantage facing three Starfleet warships which danced around them and steadily wore them down, the Defiants too small and too quick to pin down, and the Akira itself too strong to easily take out with their reduced firepower, and their own defenses rather deficent for an extended slugging match.

It also fits in with their older Warbird design with the single massive Plasma cannon that was an all or nothing design choice, albeit the D'Deridex at least had SOME flexibility and secondery weapons. It also explains why the Romulans were able to apparently kick the crap out of the Cardasian boarder when they declared war, because they were on the offensive and had surprise. But in major extended fleet actions, like the final battle over Cardasia, they fell apart quite easily against the JemHadar hoard once their flagship was destroyed. Against the Klingons, their major enemy, they probably thought it was an acceptable tradeoff, given that the bulk of the KDF appeared to be Birds of Prey that were just too weak to take on even a 'drained' Warbird, and D7 Battlecruisers that were perfect targets for an opening attack salvo.

And finally, it also explains the newer Valdor class. It being their first attempt to design a ship along the same lines as Federation ships. A large number of smaller guns in well placed firing arcs, with less emphesis placed on a "Decloak, fire massive Alpha Strike, break off" tactics, probably from lessons learned during the Dominion War.

Stofsk wrote:

Carinthium wrote:If people who enjoy the show are trying to discuss it from an in-universe perspective, don't they need a strict set of guidelines?

Why? A strict set of guidelines is only relevant for debate purposes, which Red notes by referring to the versus arguments. But otherwise, who cares?

Otherwise you get intentionalism rather than suspension of disbelief.

What good is suspension of disbelief anyway, when faced with obvious special effects gaffes? Oh shit the Bird of Prey is now two separate classes of ship because we can't rationalise it any other way (when the out of universe explanation is that the guys on TNG reused a ST3 model but forgot to account for scaling, so had to invent a lame-ass in-universe rationalisation). That's suspension of disbelief in the understanding of this site, which co-opted the term from the literary usage of the term, which means 'anything that breaks the audience's belief in the facts of the show'.

What the hell is 'intentionalism' anyway? Even in lit circles analysis is done without appealing to the author's intentions, rather someone strives to analyse a text in isolation.

1- The only alternatives are intentionalism (which can be arbitrary and stupid for what was shown, or even self-contradictory) and the informal rules of literary interpretation (which have never been clearly spelled out and are inconsistent and often feeling-based).

Okay, first, as Stofsk said, "suspension of disbelief" doesn't mean "whatever we see on screen, no matter how stupid or obvious a gaffe or how idiotic an episode, must be rationalized" anywhere but in versus debating. It's a term from literature that means, roughly, "the audience's willingness to temporarily forget they're reading/watching fiction for the sake of becoming emotionally invested in the story". Second, you avoid "intentionalism" by dealing with the text directly ("text" defined here as the episodes and the supplemental materials), rather than taking the creators' words as gospel...which, incidentally, includes letting the creators strictly define what works are part of the text and what works aren't.

Yes, obviously, to discuss this, you need a group of people who aren't going to fly screaming off the handle at the first disagreement, and it means it's almost certain you'll never develop a single "canon" that satisfies everyone. But I'll ask again: who cares? Why does that matter? Once you're out of the vs. debate milieu (and face it: that debate has been dead for ten years), there's no need for it. We're only doing this for fun anyway, and if the general agreement is it's more fun if "Threshold" isn't canon buy the Rihannsu novels are, then who gives a shit what Paramount says about it?

1- I am using the versus debate meaning. We all knew what I meant, so I saw no reason why not to. (And before you ask, this isn't fiction)
2- That means the informal literary rules of interpretation. As I said above, these are often inconsistent and are emotionally based.
3- How do you settle disagreements, if not by suspension of disbelief?

Carinthium wrote:

Stofsk wrote:

Carinthium wrote:If people who enjoy the show are trying to discuss it from an in-universe perspective, don't they need a strict set of guidelines?

Why? A strict set of guidelines is only relevant for debate purposes, which Red notes by referring to the versus arguments. But otherwise, who cares?

Otherwise you get intentionalism rather than suspension of disbelief.

What good is suspension of disbelief anyway, when faced with obvious special effects gaffes? Oh shit the Bird of Prey is now two separate classes of ship because we can't rationalise it any other way (when the out of universe explanation is that the guys on TNG reused a ST3 model but forgot to account for scaling, so had to invent a lame-ass in-universe rationalisation). That's suspension of disbelief in the understanding of this site, which co-opted the term from the literary usage of the term, which means 'anything that breaks the audience's belief in the facts of the show'.

What the hell is 'intentionalism' anyway? Even in lit circles analysis is done without appealing to the author's intentions, rather someone strives to analyse a text in isolation.

1- The only alternatives are intentionalism (which can be arbitrary and stupid for what was shown, or even self-contradictory) and the informal rules of literary interpretation (which have never been clearly spelled out and are inconsistent and often feeling-based).

So when I say that 'even in lit circles analysis is done without appealing to the author's intentions' you decide to totally ignore what I said and insist literary analysis involves analysing an author's intentions? Something which is practically impossible to do, especially with dead authors like Shakespeare (for example)?

Thanks for telling me this, maybe that's why I'm getting distinctions and high distinctions in my lit major, by doing just what you say I should be doing... oh wait, I'm not. I analyse a text in isolation to anything. If it's not in the text, it doesn't exist. The only times I've strayed into 'intentionalism' is by directly quoting an author's own words (in which case, like it or not, the author's intentions are made known and are overt; though I should say I've only done this once in a recent paper, and it was actually done as a point to counter, as the text does not actually reflect the author's intentions - ironically enough). I've even had assignments come back with notes from the marker saying 'don't stray into conjecture' and 'such and such would have had more impact had you provided more proof from the text'.

I'll leave Red to respond to the rest.

EDIT: Oh and you still didn't address the point I made about how SoD - in this site's cooption of the term - is worthless when faced with visual effects glitches and gaffes - like when the Enterprise D fires phasers through its photorp launcher in the episode 'Darmok', or the aforementioned Bird of Prey example.

EDIT: Oh and you still didn't address the point I made about how SoD - in this site's cooption of the term - is worthless when faced with visual effects glitches and gaffes - like when the Enterprise D fires phasers through its photorp launcher in the episode 'Darmok', or the aforementioned Bird of Prey example.

This point is easy to counter- such things can be rationalised. The Enterprise, for example, clearly had a technical problem.

So when I say that 'even in lit circles analysis is done without appealing to the author's intentions' you decide to totally ignore what I said and insist literary analysis involves analysing an author's intentions?

Where did I say that?

Thanks for telling me this, maybe that's why I'm getting distinctions and high distinctions in my lit major, by doing just what you say I should be doing... oh wait, I'm not. I analyse a text in isolation to anything. If it's not in the text, it doesn't exist. The only times I've strayed into 'intentionalism' is by directly quoting an author's own words (in which case, like it or not, the author's intentions are made known and are overt; though I should say I've only done this once in a recent paper, and it was actually done as a point to counter, as the text does not actually reflect the author's intentions - ironically enough). I've even had assignments come back with notes from the marker saying 'don't stray into conjecture' and 'such and such would have had more impact had you provided more proof from the text'.

1- How was I supposed to know you were a lit major?
2- So we're both anti-intentionalist. Since you're a lit major however, can you explain what rules are used to decide what does and doesn't count for an interpretation if not the author's intentions?

Carinthium wrote:

EDIT: Oh and you still didn't address the point I made about how SoD - in this site's cooption of the term - is worthless when faced with visual effects glitches and gaffes - like when the Enterprise D fires phasers through its photorp launcher in the episode 'Darmok', or the aforementioned Bird of Prey example.

This point is easy to counter- such things can be rationalised. The Enterprise, for example, clearly had a technical problem.

The two systems are independent of each other, the photorp launcher and the dorsal and ventral phaser strips are well established in previous and subsequent episodes as being located in different sections of the ship. Calling it a 'technical problem' doesn't really answer the question, in fact it begs the question how such a problem could occur. It would be like watching a TV show about a guided missile destroyer and showing a cannon firing a missile, or a missile launcher firing cannon shells.

This problem is even worse than I made it out initially, because IIRC in season one's 'The Battle' the same forward photorp launcher shoots out a tractor beam. Out of universe it's the vfx guys having no clue what to do. In universe, the explanation is

Maybe I'm picking on Star Trek too much. Let's look at B5, particularly season three's 'Severed Dreams'. In the climactic battle, Sheridan orders B5 to fire time-on-target against the EAS Roanoke. Except the EAS Roanoke had just been destroyed after the EAS Churchill collided with it in a previous scene. What B5 was actually shooting at was the EAS Agrippa. In-universe, maybe Sheridan got momentarily confused? Very hard to credit that theory, because he's a professional soldier and highly competent. It wouldn't make sense to slip up like that, especially when there are only two Omega class destroyers in the battle area and one of them had just been destroyed. Out-of-universe, the vfx goofed and they did the wrong model, and because everything was rushed nobody caught onto it before it had already gone to be broadcast.

In these instances, suspension of disbelief (per this site's use of the term) doesn't help us at all, not really. Whereas if we use SoD in the literary sense of the term, we can go 'oh the vfx guys just made a mistake, let's just ignore it.' Or maybe you can't ignore it precisely because your SoD has been destroyed by the vfx glitch. It's very embarrassing to make such a mistake.

So when I say that 'even in lit circles analysis is done without appealing to the author's intentions' you decide to totally ignore what I said and insist literary analysis involves analysing an author's intentions?

Where did I say that?

1- The only alternatives are intentionalism (which can be arbitrary and stupid for what was shown, or even self-contradictory) and the informal rules of literary interpretation (which have never been clearly spelled out and are inconsistent and often feeling-based).

You said this when you replied to my post. I thought you were simply repeating yourself when I had said intentionalism actually isn't used even in literary analysis.

1- How was I supposed to know you were a lit major?

You're not, because I didn't say it before. I did say however, 'Even in lit circles analysis is done without appealing to the author's intentions, rather someone strives to analyse a text in isolation.'

2- So we're both anti-intentionalist. Since you're a lit major however, can you explain what rules are used to decide what does and doesn't count for an interpretation if not the author's intentions?

It's actually pretty complicated. There are different ways to analyse a text, depending on what ideologies you want to apply towards it. For example, you can do a feminist/masculinist/queer/gendered reading of something, or a psychoanalysis instead. Or a cultural reading. Liberal humanism is generally discouraged, as it's very limited in the sort of analysis you can do of a text. (Liberal humanism in the literary sense is more conservative in its approach) If you want I could explain some of these terms for you.

Without going too much into it, let's take an example of how an author's intention might inspire an essay, but isn't the focus of it. Say you get the quote by J.K. Rowling that Dumbledore is gay. That's the author's intention. However, you wouldn't write an essay about Dumbledore's sexuality by appealing to the author's intention; such an essay would be a paragraph long after all; at most, you might refer to it, but you wouldn't rely on it. Rather, you'd read through the text to see if there are any textual examples. If you were feeling game, you'd read the entire Harry Potter series specifically looking for those examples. If you wanted to you might even make a comparative analysis of the books and the films. Is what Rowling wrote when she depicted the character of Dumbledore translated onto the screen by the various directors and screenwriters involved in the making of the films?

In any case, you'd be looking for subtle, covert signs. At no point, especially in a conservative text like Harry Potter, would Dumbledore's gayness be overtly shown (bear in mind I've only read the first four books). So you need to dive deep below the surface of the narrative. You look for implications, symbolism, and so on. Dumbledore is obviously a fatherly figure for Harry. What about Hagrid? Can a boy have two father figures in his life? You might go maybe Hagrid is more a 'motherly' figure (even though Hagrid is a male giant). Hagrid and Dumbledore are also close to each other. So maybe they represent a mother and father figure for Harry. Hagrid is extremely fond of Dumbledore, this is apparent in the first book. You could quote Hagrid saying how Dumbledore is a great man etc. This isn't proof in and of itself, but that's why you look for more examples.

You started with a quote from the author about a specific character. You could agree with that quote and attempt to prove it by looking for examples in the text. You might disagree with it, and again, look for examples in the text. You'd then construct a logical argument (that's what an essay really boils down to after all) and attempt to systematically prove your thesis. The problem with looking at an author's intention, which I'm sure you're aware of, is that unless they actually state it in clear, precise language, their intentions are more or less impossible to discern. But if you look at a text, well a text is there in your hands, it's typed out on paper in black ink. Or it's a DVD that's playing on your monitor or TV screen. Some texts will be very interpretative, the author of a novel or the makers of a film deliberately made it to be subtle and left to the imagination of the audience. Other texts will be very vapid and shallow, like Shrek. Shrek was hyped to be a departure from traditional fairy tales - protagonist is an Ogre, sidekick is a talking donkey, love interest is supposedly an empowered princess - however dive deep into it and you'll find none of that is true.

Just because something is interpretative doesn't mean 'anything can be proven; therefore nothing can be'. If I were to argue Princess Fiona is an empowered female I'd be faced with an uphill battle in order to prove it, because the text gives plenty of overt and covert examples to the contrary. If I were to write an essay and argue it regardless, I'd have to deliberately ignore things my lecturer is very well aware of, which will inevitably cost me marks. (the particular course is a children's lit class in case you're wondering)

the tl;dr version is you always look for evidence in the text in order to prove a claim or argument

Stofsk wrote:This problem is even worse than I made it out initially, because IIRC in season one's 'The Battle' the same forward photorp launcher shoots out a tractor beam. Out of universe it's the vfx guys having no clue what to do. In universe, the explanation is

Actually, according to the Technical Manual, there is a tractor beam emitter located just above the forward Photorp launcher. While the effects team may have made it come from the launcher (I'd have to see the clip to determine that), it is a bit easier to rationalize than the Phaser being fired from the Photorp launcher.

Edit: In fact, I vaguely remember it being used in another episode. The mind control games one w/Wesley, I think.

The two systems are independent of each other, the photorp launcher and the dorsal and ventral phaser strips are well established in previous and subsequent episodes as being located in different sections of the ship. Calling it a 'technical problem' doesn't really answer the question, in fact it begs the question how such a problem could occur. It would be like watching a TV show about a guided missile destroyer and showing a cannon firing a missile, or a missile launcher firing cannon shells.

This problem is even worse than I made it out initially, because IIRC in season one's 'The Battle' the same forward photorp launcher shoots out a tractor beam. Out of universe it's the vfx guys having no clue what to do. In universe, the explanation is

Maybe I'm picking on Star Trek too much. Let's look at B5, particularly season three's 'Severed Dreams'. In the climactic battle, Sheridan orders B5 to fire time-on-target against the EAS Roanoke. Except the EAS Roanoke had just been destroyed after the EAS Churchill collided with it in a previous scene. What B5 was actually shooting at was the EAS Agrippa. In-universe, maybe Sheridan got momentarily confused? Very hard to credit that theory, because he's a professional soldier and highly competent. It wouldn't make sense to slip up like that, especially when there are only two Omega class destroyers in the battle area and one of them had just been destroyed. Out-of-universe, the vfx goofed and they did the wrong model, and because everything was rushed nobody caught onto it before it had already gone to be broadcast.

All these examples are absurd, but no less absurd then warp drive is in the first place. If people can accept warp drive, they can accept the Enterprises's mis-firing of ammunition and Sheridan panicking in the head of battle but his subordinates responding intelligently.

You said this when you replied to my post. I thought you were simply repeating yourself when I had said intentionalism actually isn't used even in literary analysis.

In the piece you quote, I specifically differentiate the rules of literary analysis and intentions by making different criticisms of each.

You're not, because I didn't say it before. I did say however, 'Even in lit circles analysis is done without appealing to the author's intentions, rather someone strives to analyse a text in isolation.'

Point dropped, as I don't see what you're contesting on this one (since we agree I had no way of knowing you were a lit major).

(NOTE: I don't mean to be rude, but now that I know a bit more about the area I have the "material" for an argument. Since some people I have met on other forums might be insulted, apologising just in case)

It's actually pretty complicated. There are different ways to analyse a text, depending on what ideologies you want to apply towards it. For example, you can do a feminist/masculinist/queer/gendered reading of something, or a psychoanalysis instead. Or a cultural reading. Liberal humanism is generally discouraged, as it's very limited in the sort of analysis you can do of a text. (Liberal humanism in the literary sense is more conservative in its approach) If you want I could explain some of these terms for you.

All of these could exist, but many of these analyses have little to do with the actual story (from what I can tell). A cultural reading, for example, seems to effectivelly amount to a cultural analysis (and I don't see how a feminist/masculinist/queer/gendered reading could amount to more then such) and a psycological analysis amounts to discussing how the story impacts the viewer.

These also close off a lot of angles- for example, how can you use literary analysis techniques for a question such as "What are the technical, industrial, and scientific capabilities of the Romulan Empire?". It also prevents a lot of minor questions- the competence of the crew of the Yamato relative to the typical Federation starship, likely amounts of dilithium in the Federation, etc.

Without going too much into it, let's take an example of how an author's intention might inspire an essay, but isn't the focus of it. Say you get the quote by J.K. Rowling that Dumbledore is gay. That's the author's intention. However, you wouldn't write an essay about Dumbledore's sexuality by appealing to the author's intention; such an essay would be a paragraph long after all

Such a method is very good for passing literature classes, but there is no non-pragmatic reason not to simply stop at the author's intention listed here.

Rather, you'd read through the text to see if there are any textual examples.

This can be done through a supension of disbelief method too, of course.

If you wanted to you might even make a comparative analysis of the books and the films. Is what Rowling wrote when she depicted the character of Dumbledore translated onto the screen by the various directors and screenwriters involved in the making of the films?

This doesn't completely invalidate the method, but even this is analysable through suspension of disbelief methodology.

In any case, you'd be looking for subtle, covert signs. At no point, especially in a conservative text like Harry Potter, would Dumbledore's gayness be overtly shown

These aren't "signs" in the regular sense, I assume- if they were, it would be the author's signals which leads back to intentionalism.

What about Hagrid? Can a boy have two father figures in his life? You might go maybe Hagrid is more a 'motherly' figure (even though Hagrid is a male giant).

Doesn't this theory have the massive flaw that it conflicts with how Harry as portrayed would see him? His world view is more conventional, after all.

Anyway, it is worth pointing out that all these questions can be discussed based on a suspension of disbelief theory (I haven't read more then the first book, and that was about five years ago, so I'm judging from guesswork with this), especially given the time spent (presumably) from Harry's POV.

You could quote Hagrid saying how Dumbledore is a great man etc.

If Hagrid was a mother figure and Dumbledore was a father figure, wouldn't that imply a sexual relationship or at least cooperation over dealings with Harry?

Shrek was hyped to be a departure from traditional fairy tales - protagonist is an Ogre, sidekick is a talking donkey, love interest is supposedly an empowered princess - however dive deep into it and you'll find none of that is true.

Even intentionalism can solve this one- the studio was lying, or it is a bad film because they screwed up their own intention.

Just because something is interpretative doesn't mean 'anything can be proven; therefore nothing can be'. If I were to argue Princess Fiona is an empowered female I'd be faced with an uphill battle in order to prove it, because the text gives plenty of overt and covert examples to the contrary.

True enough, but large numbers of questions are ambigious. One can't solve definitively, for example, if Hagrid is a mother figure to Harry, if Voldemort is a metaphor for Harry's nightmares, responsibilities or some worsening mental disorder (Dumbledore is originally considered more then a match for him, and Harry is largely protected from until later books), if Dolores Umbridge is a metaphor for J.K Rowling's sexism (since professional psycology isn't part of literary analysis, and since this isn't the real world one can't use it's techniques), and so on.

Overall, the method seems to analyse the text rather than analyse the universe it is in. This is effectively an ineffectual way at guessing at the psycological impact of a text, rather than answering in-universe questions.

Another point worth noting- couldn't literary analysis be strained to breaking point by some thigns? Examples- a text which happens to fit a completely realistic but boring shopping trip (theoretical, but plenty of authors could approach it) would be hard to analyse without assuming things that were in no way there, and (unless simply dismissing it as a bad author) it would be difficult to deal with a text which does things such as completely derail a character's personality in the middle of the story with no explanation or psycological basis, foreshadow one thing for most of the plan only to turn around and do the opposite, or has a mishmash of authors with differing characterisations, writing styles, and plots taking turns in what is notionally the same story.

Carinthium wrote:
All these examples are absurd, but no less absurd then warp drive is in the first place. If people can accept warp drive, they can accept the Enterprises's mis-firing of ammunition and Sheridan panicking in the head of battle but his subordinates responding intelligently.

......

How?

"Warp drive" is an established convention of a fictional universe. Let's take a fable for example. In "Snow White" you have a damn talking mirror. Something equally, or perhaps more, loopy than the way warp drive has come to be described, but an established convention of a fictional story. Let's say an animated version of "Snow White" has a gaff where the dwarfs are animated the same size as humans for a scene. So, since I have suspended disbelief to accept a mirror can talk (and accept all the other magics associated with the story), I should take it as gospel, that due to this animation gaffe the dwarfs can randomly become the same size as humans at select times...not simply ignore it as an animation gaffe?

Chris OFarrell wrote:Regarding the warbirds, the only real battle we have between the Federation Fleet and the Romulans in the TNG+ era is 'Message in a Bottle'.

There we have 3 Warbirds against an Akira and two Defiants.

Its very interesting to note - although we don't see too much of the battle - that despite the gross tonnage advantage of the Romulans, they were very much unable to take on the Federation ships and destory them quickly. We even see a short shot of two Warbirds ganging up on the Akira and despite what we saw Warbrids do to the Ent-D's shields, they were not able to kill it.

And at the end of the battle, one of the Warbirds had been weakened to the point that the Promethus and one of the Defiants fired something like 4 phaser blasts and blew it to pieces.

But to add another spin on it, the Prometheus -albeit without a crew- took the Romulans opening fire on her and dropping their shields to 20% in the first volley. And then took the Defiants blasting her in a straffing run. Now she had regenerative shield technology which could explain it...

But it again appears to suggest that Warbirds can deliver a HUGE amount of firepower in a single volley.

In fact, my theory, which only has limited evidence I'll freely admit, is that the bow of a Warbird is built around the biggest possible Disruptor bank the Romulans can shove into their ship, with the biggest possible capacitor network behind it. The idea being that they'll fully charge their weapons before decloaking and unleashing a volley powerful enough to seriously drain major Federation ships shields (like Galaxy and Prometheus class ships) and destroy/cripple lesser ships like Excelessors Mirandas.

But the problem then in a sustained engagement is that they have 'shot their wad', so to speek. And they can then only put out very ordinary firepower, and probably only have half decent shields.

Hence when in Message in a Bottle, they hit the Prometheus with a full volley, probably attemping to destroy it before Starfleet took it back as the cavelry charged in, but it left them at an extreme disadvantage facing three Starfleet warships which danced around them and steadily wore them down, the Defiants too small and too quick to pin down, and the Akira itself too strong to easily take out with their reduced firepower, and their own defenses rather deficent for an extended slugging match.

It also fits in with their older Warbird design with the single massive Plasma cannon that was an all or nothing design choice, albeit the D'Deridex at least had SOME flexibility and secondery weapons. It also explains why the Romulans were able to apparently kick the crap out of the Cardasian boarder when they declared war, because they were on the offensive and had surprise. But in major extended fleet actions, like the final battle over Cardasia, they fell apart quite easily against the JemHadar hoard once their flagship was destroyed. Against the Klingons, their major enemy, they probably thought it was an acceptable tradeoff, given that the bulk of the KDF appeared to be Birds of Prey that were just too weak to take on even a 'drained' Warbird, and D7 Battlecruisers that were perfect targets for an opening attack salvo.

And finally, it also explains the newer Valdor class. It being their first attempt to design a ship along the same lines as Federation ships. A large number of smaller guns in well placed firing arcs, with less emphesis placed on a "Decloak, fire massive Alpha Strike, break off" tactics, probably from lessons learned during the Dominion War.

That would explain many things.

Skylon wrote:

Carinthium wrote:
All these examples are absurd, but no less absurd then warp drive is in the first place. If people can accept warp drive, they can accept the Enterprises's mis-firing of ammunition and Sheridan panicking in the head of battle but his subordinates responding intelligently.

......

How?

"Warp drive" is an established convention of a fictional universe. Let's take a fable for example. In "Snow White" you have a damn talking mirror. Something equally, or perhaps more, loopy than the way warp drive has come to be described, but an established convention of a fictional story. Let's say an animated version of "Snow White" has a gaff where the dwarfs are animated the same size as humans for a scene. So, since I have suspended disbelief to accept a mirror can talk (and accept all the other magics associated with the story), I should take it as gospel, that due to this animation gaffe the dwarfs can randomly become the same size as humans at select times...not simply ignore it as an animation gaffe?

I'm talking about absurd judging from actual science, not from the perspective of the fictional universe.

Do you ever, you know, read or watch fiction? The whole point of fiction is the audience agrees to accept certain absurdities for the sake of the story. In exchange, the author agrees to provide 1) an interesting story, and 2) consistently apply his rules. If the author breaks his own rules, suspension of disbelief (literary) fails and the audience quits reading/watching. So no, just because the audience accepts warp drive doesn't mean it will accept an effects gaffe that breaks the universe's established rules.

RedImperator wrote:Do you ever, you know, read or watch fiction? The whole point of fiction is the audience agrees to accept certain absurdities for the sake of the story. In exchange, the author agrees to provide 1) an interesting story, and 2) consistently apply his rules. If the author breaks his own rules, suspension of disbelief (literary) fails and the audience quits reading/watching. So no, just because the audience accepts warp drive doesn't mean it will accept an effects gaffe that breaks the universe's established rules.

If the audience thinks about the question rationally, they will realise that one is as absurd as the other. This can easily be pointed out, and from there the problem disappears.

Carinthium wrote:

The two systems are independent of each other, the photorp launcher and the dorsal and ventral phaser strips are well established in previous and subsequent episodes as being located in different sections of the ship. Calling it a 'technical problem' doesn't really answer the question, in fact it begs the question how such a problem could occur. It would be like watching a TV show about a guided missile destroyer and showing a cannon firing a missile, or a missile launcher firing cannon shells.

This problem is even worse than I made it out initially, because IIRC in season one's 'The Battle' the same forward photorp launcher shoots out a tractor beam. Out of universe it's the vfx guys having no clue what to do. In universe, the explanation is

Maybe I'm picking on Star Trek too much. Let's look at B5, particularly season three's 'Severed Dreams'. In the climactic battle, Sheridan orders B5 to fire time-on-target against the EAS Roanoke. Except the EAS Roanoke had just been destroyed after the EAS Churchill collided with it in a previous scene. What B5 was actually shooting at was the EAS Agrippa. In-universe, maybe Sheridan got momentarily confused? Very hard to credit that theory, because he's a professional soldier and highly competent. It wouldn't make sense to slip up like that, especially when there are only two Omega class destroyers in the battle area and one of them had just been destroyed. Out-of-universe, the vfx goofed and they did the wrong model, and because everything was rushed nobody caught onto it before it had already gone to be broadcast.

All these examples are absurd, but no less absurd then warp drive is in the first place. If people can accept warp drive, they can accept the Enterprises's mis-firing of ammunition and Sheridan panicking in the head of battle but his subordinates responding intelligently.

The one does not equal the other. People accept warp drive because it's an established element previously introduced which has consistent rules; similarly, the Enterprise has previously fired photorps out of that launcher and has also fired phasers on the dorsal and ventral phaser strips. When the Enterprise is then seen firing phasers out of the photorp launcher, it betrays what we have already seen. There's no way you can account for that in a SDN-SoD way. And as far as lit-SoD goes, it breaks it as well.

For the B5 example, Sheridan doesn't panic either. But incidentally, from a SDN-SoD view of it, it's easier to explain away Sheridan 'misspeaking' than it is for the photorp launcher to spontaneously and without explanation fire phasers.

It's actually pretty complicated. There are different ways to analyse a text, depending on what ideologies you want to apply towards it. For example, you can do a feminist/masculinist/queer/gendered reading of something, or a psychoanalysis instead. Or a cultural reading. Liberal humanism is generally discouraged, as it's very limited in the sort of analysis you can do of a text. (Liberal humanism in the literary sense is more conservative in its approach) If you want I could explain some of these terms for you.

All of these could exist, but many of these analyses have little to do with the actual story (from what I can tell).

Yes. Because retelling the story isn't necessary and can actually detract from an argument you make.

A cultural reading, for example, seems to effectivelly amount to a cultural analysis (and I don't see how a feminist/masculinist/queer/gendered reading could amount to more then such) and a psycological analysis amounts to discussing how the story impacts the viewer.

A psychoanalysis of a story does not dwell on how it impacts the viewer/reader. Because just like author's intent, that's impossible. Rather you look at who the implied reader is meant to be.

If I read Coraline, I'm obviously reading a book that was meant for a certain type of reader - who fits in a certain age range, for example - and therefore, what impacts it can have can be posited for who the reader is implied to be. A Freudian or Lacanian psychoanalysis can be very valuable as well, especially in regards to Coraline, as the book is chock full of symbols.

These also close off a lot of angles- for example, how can you use literary analysis techniques for a question such as "What are the technical, industrial, and scientific capabilities of the Romulan Empire?". It also prevents a lot of minor questions- the competence of the crew of the Yamato relative to the typical Federation starship, likely amounts of dilithium in the Federation, etc.

So you use whatever technique best suits the task at hand. There's no reason why you wouldn't use SDN-SoD to analyse technical questions. But SDN-SoD has limitations as well, as I and others have mentioned. Technical gaffes betray lit-SoD in the audience and this results in a failure for the story.

Without going too much into it, let's take an example of how an author's intention might inspire an essay, but isn't the focus of it. Say you get the quote by J.K. Rowling that Dumbledore is gay. That's the author's intention. However, you wouldn't write an essay about Dumbledore's sexuality by appealing to the author's intention; such an essay would be a paragraph long after all

Such a method is very good for passing literature classes, but there is no non-pragmatic reason not to simply stop at the author's intention listed here.

Why? You argued before that the author's intention was at risk of being arbitrary and stupid, and even self-contradictory.

Rather, you'd read through the text to see if there are any textual examples.

This can be done through a supension of disbelief method too, of course.

So? I never said it couldn't.

In any case, you'd be looking for subtle, covert signs. At no point, especially in a conservative text like Harry Potter, would Dumbledore's gayness be overtly shown

These aren't "signs" in the regular sense, I assume- if they were, it would be the author's signals which leads back to intentionalism.

You don't analyse text by appealing to the author's intentions - at most you ask who the implied reader is and who the narrator is - that doesn't mean the author, but 'who' is telling the story in the text.

Many authors may intend their stories to convey things which are not apparent on a close reading. Many authors may even write things which are unconscious or at least unregarded/unintentional. I doubt Gene Roddenberry wanted to portray the Federation as a sexist organisation, but uraniun235 once seriously asked why there aren't any fat chicks who wear those snug, form-fitting starfleet uniforms which often don't leave much to the imagination.

Doesn't this theory have the massive flaw that it conflicts with how Harry as portrayed would see him? His world view is more conventional, after all.

Anyway, it is worth pointing out that all these questions can be discussed based on a suspension of disbelief theory (I haven't read more then the first book, and that was about five years ago, so I'm judging from guesswork with this), especially given the time spent (presumably) from Harry's POV.

You seem to be fixated on this point, and I feel like I have to reiterate what I said above: literary analysis of the sort I am talking about does not make an argument in a vacuum. You have to look for textual examples in order to prove your argument. If the argument is - 'Dumbledore and Hagrid are gay' - then there must be a number of examples to prove it. In that sense, literary analysis and SDN-SoD analysis have one very important thing in common: evidence must be found in the text and it has to be argued effectively.

If Hagrid was a mother figure and Dumbledore was a father figure, wouldn't that imply a sexual relationship or at least cooperation over dealings with Harry?

Not necessarily, but this is skirting off-topic.

Even intentionalism can solve this one- the studio was lying, or it is a bad film because they screwed up their own intention.

How is that helpful? You've encapsulated exactly why intentionalism is a BAD methodology for analysing text. Because those intentions can be flawed or deliberately misleading.

Just because something is interpretative doesn't mean 'anything can be proven; therefore nothing can be'. If I were to argue Princess Fiona is an empowered female I'd be faced with an uphill battle in order to prove it, because the text gives plenty of overt and covert examples to the contrary.

True enough, but large numbers of questions are ambigious. One can't solve definitively, for example, if Hagrid is a mother figure to Harry, if Voldemort is a metaphor for Harry's nightmares, responsibilities or some worsening mental disorder (Dumbledore is originally considered more then a match for him, and Harry is largely protected from until later books), if Dolores Umbridge is a metaphor for J.K Rowling's sexism (since professional psycology isn't part of literary analysis, and since this isn't the real world one can't use it's techniques), and so on.

Overall, the method seems to analyse the text rather than analyse the universe it is in. This is effectively an ineffectual way at guessing at the psycological impact of a text, rather than answering in-universe questions.

I disagree. If I were to (and I have) do a close reading of Harry Potter and look for what overt and covert messages it sends about gender, race, and class, I can come away with a pretty interesting picture of the in-universe society where those issues have an effect. While I am analysing the text, it nevertheless provides a new understanding for that text.

This discussion appears to have veered off-course from what was originally nothing more than a tangent because someone pointed out a non-canon possible explanation for something. Why is this an issue for you? Neither red or myself have advocated tossing the baby out with the bathwater - we're both concerned that 'canon' debates are a waste of time and can stifle otherwise interesting threads with 'oh well, such-and-such isn't canon so i guess it's not worth arguing about'. Why bring up SDN-SoD so strongly? You can use SDN-SoD analysis to non-canon texts too you know. Hell, canon is really a loaded term - why are all the televised episodes canon, when there are numerous contradictions between them and between the various shows?

RedImperator wrote:

Batman wrote:This is a trick question, right?

No, seriously. Who gives a shit anymore? Strict canon guidelines are useful in vs. debates because they save megabytes of stupid arguments over what's "truth in fiction", but it's annoying when people who enjoy the show are just trying to discuss it. Obviously you don't want to include just anything (that way lies the Star Wars EU), but if these "quasi-canon blueprints" are, say, production drawings from Andrew Probert (and I'm pretty sure I just saw that same set of blueprints a few days ago), then why the hell not use them to gain some insight into what the series creators were thinking?

Main features of a Romulan Warbird according to Probert. It does have all-round weapons coverage.

Thanks for posting that NecronLord. I tried looking for it, but only found an artistic representation of his at a space dock or something.

The one I saw had the disruptor points, but had photon and plasma torpedoes clustered above and below where the cargo bay doors are. The upper photorp launcher was missing, and the area near the navigational deflector had an ill-defined weapons array; although I'm certain we see some (disruptor) fire come from this area in multiple episodes.

Temujin wrote: although I'm certain we see some (disruptor) fire come from this area in multiple episodes.

Almost every instance of warbird weapon's fire comes from an area within the designated navigational deflector zone. In fact, both torpedoes and disruptors are fired from the same spot on the so-called deflector zone (sometimes in the same scene, such as when the Romulans open fire on the planet in TDiC). I can't think of a single instance of a Romulan warbird firing any of those aft beams, or even any of those side beams on the "head" of the warbird. I find it funny that that diagram fails to label the one spot where all the weapons do come from.

CaptJodan wrote:

Temujin wrote: although I'm certain we see some (disruptor) fire come from this area in multiple episodes.

Almost every instance of warbird weapon's fire comes from an area within the designated navigational deflector zone. In fact, both torpedoes and disruptors are fired from the same spot on the so-called deflector zone (sometimes in the same scene, such as when the Romulans open fire on the planet in TDiC). I can't think of a single instance of a Romulan warbird firing any of those aft beams, or even any of those side beams on the "head" of the warbird. I find it funny that that diagram fails to label the one spot where all the weapons do come from.

Actually I believe Contagion, the one where Yamato goes boom, has a shot fired at the Iconian probe from one of the point disruptors, but I believe that is the only time.

Temujin wrote: Actually I believe Contagion, the one where Yamato goes boom, has a shot fired at the Iconian probe from one of the point disruptors, but I believe that is the only time.

Point. I can't remember all the eps, but I do recall that shot as non-traditional now that you mention it. I vaguely recall a ventral shot as well, but I can't recall from where or even if I'm accurate in remembering it.