From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Subject: Re: Bizarre standards (was Re: Grading scales)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:26:48 GMT

kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.173030.27081@cco.caltech.edu> tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>>>In article <1992Apr7.210007.9081@bnlux1.bnl.gov> schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Apr4.192753.13425@cco.caltech.edu> tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>>>>kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:

[whew!]

>>>>>>TNG, however, is frequently
>>>>>>lauded (both by third parties and itself) as Quality, Intelligent,
>>>>>>Thoughtful Television: a Holy Grail of broadcast TV. 
>>>>>
>>>>>Source, please.  
>>
>>I note that, unless I've missed it somewhere, you have not yet given said
>>sources.

>You seem to have found plenty of sources for the first three. 

I asked at the outset (when this first got started) for a source for the 
last.  I even kept that paragraph in the last post I made on the subject.
You're being intentionally thick; please cut it out.

>The
>"Holy Grail" part was a bit overblown on my part, although I was
>careful to say "a" rather than "the". 

It's precisely that "overblown" phrase that's gotten you so much heat.

>>>Fine. I, however, *do* hold TNG to be A Towering Pinnacle of Television
>>>Drama (note I changed the phrase a bit, but the idea still holds I think.)
>>
>>In other words, you hold TNG to higher standards than the makers do.  It's
>>no wonder you disagree with them; you're demanding perfection.

>Wait a sec, you're equating "higher standards than the TNG makers" to
>"perfection". That's a bit binary (no pun intended), don't you think?

Look.  From the standpoint of any creative person worth his/her salt, 
saying "this is the goal I set for myself and the best I can do" is success,
pure and simple.  Demanding "you should have done more than you planned and
better than you can" is making an unrealistic demand, pure and simple.  You
are demanding TNG *not* live up to the goals of its creators and guiding
influences, but instead be what YOU want it to be.  So no, it's not 
perfection, really, but it's damned impolite.

>I think this disagreement is about semantics: virtually *any* show
>that manages to be "a successful and thoughtful SF series; a worthy
>successor to TOS" is, IMO, a "Towering Pinnacle of Television." 

Oh.  Fine, then; but could you perhaps make that a little more clear next
time?  As it is, it sounds like you're using a slightly different language
from most of us talking to you.

>That's
>doesn't mean I think either series is the best that broadcast TV has
>ever done, nor is it the highest quality entertainment possible. 

But saying "A Towering Pinnacle..." [ATP for short henceforth :-) ] really
suggests it *is* "the highest quality entertainment possible".  Since you're
trying to base this whole thing on defining your standards, being overblown
and/or vague when defining those very standards is the surest way to muddy
your point.

>But
>given the large number of shows whose TV guide descriptions I can't
>even stand to read, and given the abysmal quality of the non-Trek shows
>that I *have* sampled recently (watching the last 5 minutes of BAYWATCH
>just before TNG really makes me appreciate the latter show at times :-),

No argument on that last.  :-)

>>>I've read comments by TNG staff in interviews and magazines and many
>>>of them are openly self-congratulatory of their product. If they publically
>>>applaud themselves, I will publically slap them down (when justified.)
>>
>>Wait a second.  Being "openly self-congratulatory" could mean *anything*.
>>I've seen them talking about how they think TNG is, on the whole, a success-
>>ful and thoughtful SF series; that they think it's a worthy successor to TOS;
>>they they strive for scientific accuracy [which *does* get pummeled on 
>>occasion]; and that they're very happy with what they've put together.

>That's pretty much what I mean.

So then stop claiming that everyone thinks it's ATPoTD.  Take people to task
for what they say and mean, not what you warp that statement into.

Tim Lynch
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc