From: kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori)
Subject: Re: OPINIONATED COMMENTS (SPOILERS for THE FIRST DUTY)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 22:07:53 GMT


Spoilers (in case anyone's really late)



In article <1992Apr9.160144.23960@cco.caltech.edu> tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr7.215024.26643@cco.caltech.edu> tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>>kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>
>>>>The problem was in that every scene, Nick projected 
>>>>"silver-tongued phony" at me -- he had no depth, no charisma, nothing to 
>>>>make him sympathetic and indeed, I couldn't *believe* that Wes would feel 
>>>>such loyalty towards the creep 
>>>
>>>I wouldn't go that far at all.  I didn't care for him much myself, but in
>>>some of the same ways that I've never cared overmuch for Jim Kirk--and yes,
>>>I do think much of the parallel that's been discussed here is valid.
>
>>But not enough, IMO. I *do* like Kirk, as much as I do Picard (although
>>for entirely different reasons), and I can't equate the two at all.
>
>Neither can a great many, it seems.  I tried to clarify yesterday that I
>think Locarno is basically a Kirk-cadet taken just one step over the edge;
>sort of a "what Kirk very well might have been".  Does that work any better?

I think it's a case of "the straw that broke the camel's back", then.
That one small step was what made me forgive a lot of Kirk's flaws.


>
>>Most importantly, I can imagine being loyal to Kirk even if I disagreed with
>>him -- I can't say the same for Mr. Locarno. 
>
>I'm not sure I could do so easily, but the same goes for zillions of real-
>life people who have amazing amounts of support.  I honestly got the impres-
>sion that Locarno did have a certain "something" that I couldn't recognize,
>but that could draw people in.

And I didn't. Looks like another impasse -- but I guess you can't please
everyone...

>
>>>>Yes, we are TOLD (not shown!) via Boothby 
>>>>that the Nova team is a highly worshipped team on campus and that the team 
>>>>members would follow Nicholas into hell and back, but I just couldn't
>>>>believe it from what I saw. 
>>>
>>>Believability aside for the moment, I don't think telling vs. showing was
>>>so bad here.  To show it would probably have taken time, 
>
>>There was enough time; much of it could have been done between the lines -- 
>
>How?  You'd have to bring in at least a couple of uninvolved cadets somehow,

Why? Like I said, much of it could be accomplished by having Nicholas
project a different image. The "Nova Squad is a big cheese on campus"
bit isn't really necessary, actually -- the crucial factor is to
establish the bond between Nick and Wesley.



>>as Mark Miller pointed out, it's not so much WHAT you say as HOW you say it 
>>and the image you project by your composure 
>
>Agreed here, but *who* is saying it is also important; and I can't think of
>anyone who'd be a likely suspect.

Now you've lost me. The "who" I had in mind was Nicholas... I'm confused.


>>To make it work *completely*, I'd say you'd have to introduce some 
>>inarguable evidence at some point that Locarno cares about *something* other 
>>than himself -- 
>
>Except that nearly everything under the sun *is* arguable in some way.  I
>agree that perhaps something a bit stronger might have been in order, but
>to ask for "inarguable evidence" is to make unreasonable demands.

"Inarguable beyond a reasonable doubt", then. I don't claim that my
own interpretation of Nick's character is "inarguable"; only that it was
strong enough that the peer pressure subplot failed to work.



>>You pointed
>>out that Wesley was faced with a choice between two fathers: Picard and
>>Locarno, and that interpretation didn't work for me, *precisely* because
>>Locarno had so little substance that the choice was, IMO, obvious. 
>
>Then you attended a very different high school and college than I did.  

I don't remember any of my fellow students pressuring their friends into
a prank that got one of them killed, no...


>I've
>seen people with, IMHO, far less in the way of redeeming features than Locarno
>who yet enjoyed incredible amounts of popularity.  
>Different people value
>different things, and I don't think either one of us is qualified to say
>"no one could possibly follow X".

No, but unless the antagonist has some redeeming features in *my* view,
he becomes one dimensional and uninteresting to me. But we're back at the
same deadlock.


>>>>I do have a few other gripes about the show, although mostly minor.
>>>>First, the scenes with Boothby were a waste of time and celluloid. 
>>>
>>>I completely disagree here, but if I remember right you outline this more
>>>fully elsewhere and I'll bop you on the head for it there.  :-)
>
>>I'll watch for it.
>
>Unfortunately, I lost where that was and haven't time to go back.  Suffice
>it to say that it's another iteration of me objecting to your "I don't care
>about the present, so the past is even less interesting" argument.  

I don't recall that being my primary objection, but anyway, that
argument's pretty pointless anyway.




. .        .       .                .        
: : : :. : :  :....: : .  ::.: .  ..: :    ..     : :    .
::::::::::.: :::::::.:::::::::::.:::::: :?.:::::..::::.:.:
------------ -------------------------- --------------------------
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.

From: mears@hpindda.cup.hp.com (David Mears)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1992 16:42:22 GMT
Subject: Re: More Cause & Effects dangling conclusion. (Argh!)
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA