From: schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Grading scales
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:40:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: bnlux1.1992Apr7.194059.6667
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973

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.  But, then again, it's all a
matter of opinion.  I certainly don't wish to deny you the opportunity
to speak yours.


>
>That describes perfectly how I feel about certain episodes (*not* TNG
>as a whole.) I think it's perfectly appropriate for me to use that word.
>
>
>>>>to it, so it doesn't bother me usually.  Some people just do tend to emphasize

[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.


>
>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."
>
>
>>> However you must admit that there is a big difference
>>>between writing a serious and rational criticism of a show
>>>and just looking for the slightest flaw in order to tear
>>>the show to shreds.
>>
>>This is exactly the point.
>
>And see above about what I consider to be "the slightest flaw."
>

[stuff deleted] 
>>>what the critics had to say about it. If I were to read Kanamori's
>>>COMMENTS (at least he doesn't called them "reviews") before watching
>>>ST-TNG, I would never have watched any of the shows.
>>
>>In fact, after I've enjoyed a recent episode and then read one of his
>>reviews, I wonder how I could have possibly liked it in the first
>>place!
>
>Hmm, doesn't that say something about the strength of *your* 
>feelings about the episode? If you're that easily influenced by the
>reviews of someone who, by your standards, is a "hyper-intensive
>nitpicker", maybe there's something *valid* about what I'm saying,
>then?


No.  Learn to recognize sarcasm when you see it.

[stuff deleted]
>
>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
           ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^

I'm sure that it is.  What Picard did was called a "polite gesture".


>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.    

>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)?

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


-- 
--------------
Gary Schroeder		
schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov 
Brookhaven National Laboratory     "Home of the Big BNL Burger."