From: pierrot@milton.u.washington.edu (The Pierrot)
Subject: On Rationalizing Continuity (Was Re: The incredible phantom light bee)
Summary: Relax, yourself, fanboy.
Organization: The People Who Brought You BEEEEEEER MILKSHAKES!
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:58:32 GMT

In article <57660007@otter.hpl.hp.com> ljc@otter.hpl.hp.com (Lee Carter) writes:
>In alt.tv.red-dwarf, scienger@ecr.mu.OZ.AU (Christopher_Robert INNES) writes:

>> Listen guys really heavy news coming up ...... 
>> TELE IS NOT , AND I REPEAT NOT , REAL!!!!!!!

	And I'm sure you're going to win the Nobel prize
	for this discovery.  Do you honestly think that this
	is news to anyone here?  I think I can safely say
	that anyone with Net access learned that there weren't
	really little people inside their television when they
	were, oh, say around four. 

>> so why is everyone trying to explain every small point in the show.
>> I mean the whole story is about ... 
	[a bunch of really improbable things]
>> So , guys , I thought the story has hard enough to stomach already. Let's not
>> go into minute details just relax and enjoy.

	Usually, when I see this sort of inevitable message on one
	of the Star Trek or Doctor Who newsgroups, I just chuckle, 
	shake my head sadly, and hit the space bar and go on.  But 
	it looks like you've found at least one person here who 
	thinks you've come up with the most original thought since
	the Greeks thought of heliocentrism:

>YAAAAY!! AT LAST!
>Somebody else who feels the same way as me about this programme - I
>don't give a f*ck if there are continuity errors between shows, I just
>appreciate Red Dwarf for what it is - a COMEDY show - NOT Startrek with
>jokes.

	So I feel kind of obliged to comment on your comments, so 
	to speak.

	To wit:  Everyone here who reads and posts on this newsgroup,
	is entirely aware that Red Dwarf, or any other fiction that
	exists, is not real.  We also DO manage to "enjoy" the show
	just as much as you do.  In fact, we enjoy it very much.

	And since RD is a fiction, it is, to one degree or another,
	meant to be internally consistent.  Fiction is in this way
	more logical than real life -- it can be expected that it 
	WILL have an internal consistency.

	When a particular fiction is enjoyed by a large number of 
	people, often several of them will have noticed elements that
	aren't COMPLETELY internally consistent; the larger a body 
	of fiction, the more likely this is to happen, as no creator(s)
	is (are) perfect.

	"Patching" those holes is a harmless, entertaining pastime.
	It allows us to "help" our favorite storytellers, making the 
	stories more complete, more logical.  
 
	Of course the stories aren't "real."  No stories are.  But there
	is such a thing as "willing suspension of disbelief" -- all stories
	rely on a willingness in the audience to pretend, to make-believe
	that the events in a story and that the characters experiencing 
	them ARE real.

	For the fans of a body of fiction, this suspension of disbelief
	is carried over into conversation.  "These stories aren't real,"
	goes the implied argument, "but if they were, then how could this 
	have happened . . . . ?"  This is in itself a kind of storytelling,
	and is as valid a way of enjoying a story as "just relaxing, sitting
	back, and watching it."

	You might think that this kind of "silliness" is unique somehow
	to science-fiction fandom.  It isn't.  The Sherlock Holmes Society
	has spent decades pondering the location of Watson's war wound,
	how many wives he had, and why one of those wives called him "James"
	when his name is "John."  Of COURSE the answer is, "Because Arthur
	Conan Doyle wasn't paying attention."  But that kind of answer is as
	welcome as a man at a magic show yelling, "It's all done with mirrors!"

	If you don't like discussions like this, I'm very sorry that someone
	is holding a gun to your head forcing you to read them.  But I 
	personally feel they're a hell of a lot more interesting than "What
	is a Vindaloo?"  Chacun a son gout.

Michael J Montoure / pierrot@milton.u.washington.edu / Keeper of Red Dwarf FAQ
    "Dehydration - 34%.  Recollection of previous evening: 2%.  Embarassment  
     factor: 91%!   Advise repair schedule:  Off-line for 36 hours, re-boot  
     startup disk, and replace head.  I've got to stop reading Usenet ... "   
Newsgroups: alt.tv.red-dwarf