From: kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori)
Subject: Re: Grading scales
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 13:42:44 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.194059.6667@bnlux1.bnl.gov> schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.134645.17324@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr2.161543.7344@bnlux1.bnl.gov> schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder) writes:
>>>In article <92091.231734JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:
>>>>In article <1992Mar31.223941.8081@eng.umd.edu>, wombat@eng.umd.edu (Jose
>>>>Gonzalez) says:
>>>>>
>>>>>Hmmmm... I think that although Atsushi probably doesn't mean to do this, 
>>>>>he
>>>>>*does* come across most times as severely disliking TNG.  I've gotten used
>>>                                   ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
>>>That's not strong enough.  He's fond of the word "loathe" when referring
>>>to TNG!  Yow.  I think I could loathe Adolph Hitler; I'm not sure that I
>>>could loathe a TV show, particularly one I watch and discuss
>>>frequently.
>>
>>Webster: "loathe": to dislike greatly and often with disgust or intolerance.
>
>
>I guess it's the strngth of the word "loathe" that bothers me here.
>"Disgust" is rarely something I feel when watching television (unless
>there's nothing on except "Hotel" reruns).  There have been plenty of
>episodes of TNG that I haven't liked, but I've never felt such strong
>disappointment that I feel "disgusted" with the show (well, check that.
>Galaxy's Child is a loathsome episode that I "greatly disliked").  
>But
>my point is that I don't understand why so many episodes seem to fall
>into your personal "disgust" category.

Ah hah! So you *can* loathe a TV show. It seems then your problem is
not that I use "loathe" to describe certain episodes but that I
use it to describe the "wrong" episodes.




>[another poster's comments deleted]
>
>>>As I've told Atsushi before, there is a difference between analyzing and
>>>critiquing a show and destroying it through hyper-intensive scrutiny.
>>
>>Define "hyper". Every time I read the net after an episode, I see
>>dozens of nitpicks and criticisms of the most recent show, many of
>>which I either failed to pick up, or that I *did* pick up and chose to 
>>dismiss. For example, others' comments about THE FIRST DUTY contained
>>complaints about [paragraph moved to bottom of article protected by a spoiler
>>warning].
>
>When I use the prefix "hyper", I mean "to the utter extreme".  I find
>that the points that you take issue with are, in my opinion, petty. They
>are usually points that
>did not detract from my enjoyment of the episode.
>For you, these same points *destroy* the episode, relegating it to a
>pile of dramatic crap.

All right, Gary. Proof time. Go through my last 6 reviews and cite 3 of
them in which I allowed "petty" points to "utterly destroy" an episode.
To "utterly destroy", I must have docked the episode at least an entire
letter grade for those "petty points".

I happen to consider that my evaluations are based on fundamental issues
like plot, characterization and acting rather than on petty details like
who exactly showed up in the crystal on Sela's desk or whether the
beam coming out of the Enterprise was made of gamma particles or interstellar
blueberries. You've attacked that presumption -- now, back up your
allegations with evidence.





>>
>>The last one, I consider a valid (but incorrect) complaint; others,
>>I consider "hyper-nitpicks". None of these showed up in my review.
>>When I grade down a show, I can usually boil it down to one or two
>>critical failures -- and 95% of the time, it's due to plot or
>>characterization flaws. I hardly consider that "hyper-intensive scrutiny."
>>
>>Appendix A: Spoilers about FIRST DUTY below:



>>...how the investigators were too dumb not
>>to figure what Picard did, despite having the same evidence; complaints
>>about ships moving at 80,000 kph at 50 meters apart, about Picard having
>>to tell the Admiral that the Enterprise was at her disposal (this should
>>have been understood by rank alone), that no mention was made of planet-bound
>>facilities matching the Enterprise on Earth, about the Golden Gate
>>Bridge being on the Academy flag, 
>
>This is how I define "hyper-scrutiny".  Were you really disturbed by the
>GGB on the Academy insignia?  Did it decrease your enjoyment of the
>show?  Did no mention of a concurrent Earth-bound technical
>investigation reduce your enjoyment of the show?  None of these points
>mean a dinky-bird to the dramatic content of the story. The story is
>about *drama*, after all.    

This makes me wonder if you even read my reply at all. I put this
list here PRECISELY as an example of things that OTHER PEOPLE ON THE NET
brought up that I consider to be "hyper-nitpicks". I said SPECIFICALLY
above that none of those showed up in my review of TFD or affected
its grading or my enjoyment of the episode. Read that original post
again and reply to what I *said*. Sheesh.






>>that Beverly was a bit too dense, 
>>and that Wes's punishement was too light.
>
>Yes, it's generally accepted that Bev's character is nowhere.  Your
>statement about Wes reminds me of the furor over Worf not dying in
>Ethics, as though most people on the net would have *preferred* that?!
>What would happen to Wes' character if he were to be expelled from SA?
>That's not a direction that I'd like to see his character take.  Would
>you?  If you were the writer of the story how would you have changed
>Wes' fate (keeping in mind that you must remain somewhat true to GR's
>ideas for the character)?

That was *not* my statement. That was a statement I collected from the NET. 
You know, when I criticize ("bash", in your terms) an episode of TNG, I at 
least give it the courtesy of watching it first. I have a feeling you haven't
even read my comments about TFD, or did you miss the part where I said:

  [extracted from my TFD review]

  All right folks, everyone who's been complaining about Wesley saving the
  day and never getting rapped when his experiment screw up, are you
  satisfied now? Wes screwed up *big* time tonight and he's paying a heavy
  price for it, no question about it. We knew the writers couldn't throw him 
  out of the academy (the only logical followup to that would be for him to 
  return to the Big E as a civilian) but they did *not* cop out in any way.
  They found a logical and satisfying way to punish the kid. 

Pay attention to what other people write, then maybe you won't make
mistakes like this.



. .        .       .                .        
: : : :. : :  :....: : .  ::.: .  ..: :    ..     : :    .
::::::::::.: :::::::.:::::::::::.:::::: :?.:::::..::::.:.:
------------ -------------------------- --------------------------
TNG Lifelines: From "Yesterday's Enterprise" To "Cause & Effect" --
  "Captain, we are getting unusual readings 20,000 km off the
   starboard bow." -- Worf, Worf, Worf and Ensign Ro.