IRC log started Fri Oct 25 22:03 We're ready. Tonight's format will be a bit different. Most of the time, Brad will do the talking. We'll have a few Q/A periods, which I'll announce. The free-for-all comes later. okay, we're ready Welcome to #GeekSpeak. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you that all channel logs are the copyright of the channel owners: Pankaj Saxena and Tom Wright. Logs may not be redistributed in any form without the prior consent of the channel owners. Tonight's discussion is on Applying Objectivist Principles to Drama, and will be moderated by Brad Aisa. As usual, the discussion will be conducted in keyword-protected mode. If you see someone off-channel whom you think would like to join the discussion and would not be disruptive, please message me or Wright. Go ahead, Brad. Thanks Subetai. Good evening everyone. Thanks for coming. Tonite my topic is applying the Objectivist philosophy to drama. I'll be talking specifically about how one develops dramatic conflict between good characters, and also covering some techniques for dramatizing an intellectual or philosophic theme. I'll be doing this primarily by presenting an esthetic and technical analysis of a screenplay I wrote called Riker Non Grata, an episode of the TV show Star Trek: The Next Generation (ST:TNG). (It was not produced, but a later episode, 'Second Chancess', seemed to be at least loosely based on it). Even if you are not interested in dramatic writing, I hope you will find the discussion tonight both interesting and useful. Hopefully, you might be able to better analyze why you like (or dislike) certain works, and by being able to cogently stand up for such good elements as can be found in any of today's drama, you can help promote better works in the future. Before getting into the story, I want to make a few general comments about Star Trek, and my script. ST:TNG is probably my favorite TV show of all time. What I find so amazing about it, is its glorification of reason and individualism, and its benevolent, uplifted view of man. Jean Luc Picard, the central character -- a classical man of reason *and* action -- is probably the only true fictional hero I worship outside Rand's fiction. There are some flawed or objectionable elements in the show, such as the Technocratic economics, and the shameless capitalism- smearing device of the Ferengi, but these are secondary in light of the show's core virtues, especially as embodied in the actions and character of the principals. (A work of fiction's view of man is far more important esthetically and philosophically, than its view of, say, capitalism.) In an interview in Starlog magazine a few years ago, Michael Piller, the producer of ST:TNG, explained the problem they had finding good scripts for the show. He said that it was difficult to create good dramatic conflict between what he called 'perfect people', since they are, well, *perfect*. Piller is right -- creating dramatic conflict between good characters *is* difficult, which partly explains the historical preponderance of stories pitting good against evil. But the difficulty doesn't entirely explain this record. At fault also is a fallacious philosophic idea: the potency of evil. Under this view, evil is a potent, important force in human life -- thus it makes sense to place it as central foil in drama. Objectivism rejects this view of evil, and embraces the view that evil is impotent, and gains power only by default of the good. Objectivism asserts good as the metaphysically important, So it follows that Objectivist drama, on the whole, should concern itself with the good. We will examine some techniques for putting good characters into conflict, while retaining their morals. Ayn Rand's highly skilled presentations of abstract and philosophic themes in her stories leads many Objectivist writers to want to emulate her. Unfortunately, some of these attempts do not work, because the ideas are tacked onto the story, not integrated with it. How *do* you dramatize a philosophic theme? (I should emphasize that nothing in the Objectivist esthetics suggests one *should* present philosophic themes in drama -- this is optional, and would be undertaken only when the theme can be adequately embodied in a plot and characters. See Rand's delightful screwball comedy 'Good Copy'...) Given my love for Star Trek, and my screenwriting studies, I decided to try my hand at writing a Star Trek story. I set myself two goals: to meet Michael Piller's (and Objectivism's) challenge of presenting juicy conflict between the good, and also of dramatizing a serious philosophic theme. I already had a great (if not overly original) premise: the duplication of Riker; all I needed was a theme. (Note: there is no necessary order in developing plot/character/theme, but in this case, I wanted to settle on a theme early on.) 'Nobody's perfect!' Ever wanted to scream when you hear that tired bromide? (Go ahead, scream -- no one here will hear you. :) ) This equivocation between moral vs. existential perfection has always frosted my buttons, and I thought a science fiction story would be a great way to explore the distinction. So I decided I would make this my theme: the difference between moral and existential perfection. My concern in presenting my theme was not primarily expositing the content of a rational moral code, since the Trek characters do tend to embody such already. They are honest, courageous, proud, rational, dedicated, and so forth. My goal was to contrast morality which is volitional, with other factors of human action not directly in one's control, such as knowledge, certainty, and a normal psychological state. I hope I succeeded in this, and I would welcome comments and questions on this point later. Before starting in on the script, let's open the floor to any questions people may have up to this point. what do you mean by "philosophical theme". ? joe: I mean some theme which embodies a philosophic principle. An example is the virtue of honor, which was the theme of the movie Rob Roy. In contrast, is most popular drama, which doesn't tend to have explicit themes, beyond 'good vs. evil' or some such. isn't that actually a _moral_ theme and moral principle? I don't think that pitting good vs. evil necessarily means that evil is seen as potent. Of all the movies, etc. with this basis, many show good triumphing. Yes, but morality is an aspect of philosophy. Any other questions? I'm sorry. I watch very little TV. Do people get duplicated by the transporter easily or often? But it often tends to stress that evil is *important* -- this is a different matter. Art reflects what is existentially important according to an artists view of reality. It's a dramatic device, JayT, not out-of-place on ST. Jay: No, they don't work that way. Ok, let's move on. Any other questions at this point? Okay, go ahead, Brad. The following presentation is based on having read the script. However, I will offer the briefest capsule overview of each act before discussing it -- these will be presented quite a bit faster than the rest of the text, and bracketed like this: ... . Ok, so lets dive in. The teaser is super important, because that is where you establish your premise, get people interested in your story, and perhaps hint at your theme. The Enterprise is escorting noted seismologist Tayla Karain on a scientific mission to study the impending impact of a huge asteroid on the unexplored planet Telos. The planet was inhabited but (seems) recently abandoned. An away team checks it out. On the planet, Data experiences severe damage when he touches an unknown material, and both he and Riker become trapped inside a control building, as automated shielding (coincidentally) comes up around all the buildings. During the transport back, Riker gets duplicated, and Data remains trapped in the building. The first scene in the turbo lift introduces Karain and her love for her project, demonstrates its importance, and shows us Riker's personal interest in her. Notice how Riker's overture for a date gets interrupted by Data's joke-line. The whole air is light and breezy, to make better contrast to the dire circumstances about to arise. On the planet, things build to the climax of the teaser, which is of course Riker's duplication. Pretty straightforward. The Rikers are unharmed, just perfectly duplicated. An executive meeting concludes only one can remain in charge and on active duty. Lots are drawn: Riker-1 is the CO, Riker-2 is the 'civilian guest'. Data is scanned and repaired by an automated system in the building. (The crew continues to believe him in grave peril.) Karain and the officers argue about how to rescue Data: breach the shields or deflect the asteroid. Picard worries about the Telosians returning (shielded buildings), and questions the non- interference implications. Decides they won't return; decides to try to breach shields. Riker-2 confesses to Deanna he doesn't want to live if he can't be in Starfleet. Geordi and Worf discover a means to breach the shields. Data discovers Telosians have not fled at all, and have been encased: he decases their leader, Drachan, an imperious humanoid. The first scene splits the two Rikers into two completely different circumstances. I thought this makes for great conflict possibilities. Riker makes a number of different mistakes throughout the episode, some of which might be considered breaches of morality in a normal context. But he is serving the role of demonstrating the difference between moral behavior under normal psychological conditions, vs. under extreme or unusual psychological stress. The second scene I call the debate scene, and is one of my favorites. This shows a way how it is possible for rational adults to disagree. In this case, they must act, but they do not have complete knowledge, so they must do their best. What is interesting here, is that even though the characters are obviously influenced by their own interests and knowledge, they are all being objective. More important here esthetically, is that I've not let it become a 'man vs. the elements' plot point, but a 'man vs. man' one. Wherever some kind of physical struggle is necessary, you may wish to consider trying to recast the physical aspect as secondary to some human conflict which can play on it. This scene is one of several that are highly contrived in form, or content, but which would play 'naturally' on the screen. (I discuss this later.) In this case, there is a perfect symmetry in the debate: each character gets to make one pro point for their own position, and one objection to their opponents. Picard eventually makes a decision based on the twin incorrect premises that Data is severely damaged and the Telosians have fled. In the scene between Riker 2 and Deanna, where he expresses his irreplaceable love for Starfleet, you can see an Objectivist 'touch': an explanation of the central role of career in a rational man's life. But notice this is germane here, and not just tacked on as 'speechifying'. This is a point which can't be emphasized enough: the story must always be the standard of the degree to which abstract ideas can be explicitly exposited. Ok, on to Act 2: Worf/Geordi try breaching the shields, but the energy is deflected back to the ship, and strikes at key points. The crew thinks it was Data. Geordi gets a concussion, but risks going back on duty to find a way to communicate with Data. Karain can't work 'til repairs done; visits (civilian) Riker 2; they have dinner; visit the holodeck to preview a planet Karain plans to colonize. They kiss just as Riker 1 enters. Geordi and Worf try their plan to breach the shields, but of course Drachan is one step ahead, and since Data was completely scanned to repair him, Drachan now has all the info on the Enterprise. (note: this wasn't too clear in the script). Geordi gets hurt, another existential problem. Once again, some of the crew make some mistakes of knowledge about what is going on, and Deanna confesses to have made an error based on the empathic noise caused by the two Rikers. That Geordi/Worf developed a breaching plan is a touch of 'benevolent universe', and upholds the stature of the good. Even though they vehemently disagreed over the strategy, when Picard made a decision, they threw their all into the choice, and in fact it was Worf who made the essential breakthrough. We also see the somewhat unexpected twist of Karain's interest in Riker. I love the scene with Picard replacing a control valve, because it is so like him to know how to do everything, and even to have his own special diagnostics for extra safety. This is another good scene to point out how you can incorporate philosophic elements -- in this case, I use the device of Picard's 'retrieve a new Riker from the cabinet' to demonstrate the Objectivist view that values (and morality) arise from the fact that life is a conditional value. Actually, what I mean is that life is not automatic. The next scenes, with Riker 2 and Karain, and the build up to the climax of Riker 1 discovering them, is of course just pure Romantic drama. Competition in romance is always a good source of conflict between ideal people, especially if you can introduce some equivocal elements, that don't make it a clear black-and- white choice for the central party. (Rand was expert at this.) Notice how the stations of the two Rikers makes a world of difference to Karain in whether she will seek a relationship. So here is a good source of potential conflict: widely different contexts of interacting characters. Ok, Act 3, and then we will break for more questions: Geordi's com idea is applied and the crew meets not Data, but Drachan. He accuses them of attacking him, but Picard demurs, citing lack of knowledge. There is no way to manually lower the shields. Crew learns Telos is allegedly a perfect planet, whose inhabitants (allegedly) possess complete knowledge and never err. Riker 1 orders Karain not to see Riker 2; she discovers the impact shouldn't harm Data. A dangerous anomaly is discovered in shield generators on planet -- solution is to move Enterprise. Data is to be retrieved after impact. Riker 2, in complicity with Crusher, is discovered on duty doing repairs, against orders (they did it to get Geordi to stop working). Picard is furious... Riker 1 and Riker 2 are both furious at each other. Picard gets a message from the Federation council re the Rikers: per the absolute stricture against replicating sentient life, decision is made that Riker 2 must be destroyed. Rikers are both stunned. We finally get to meet Drachan, and are introduced to the device of Telos: a world dedicated to existential perfection, which they seemingly have reached, at least in their view. Now I should emphasize that this device is pure SF excess -- it is not meant to be taken literally. This is one of the great virtues of the SF genre, BTW, so if you are interested in communicating philosophic or humanistic ideas, then consider using SF or SF elements. Ayn Rand used them in several works, such as Anthem, Atlas Shrugged, and her play Think Twice. The story moves forward. The conflicts between Riker 1 and Karain, and Riker 1 and Riker 2 intensify. Crusher gets dragged in, and makes a poor decision by agreeing to help Riker 2 deceive Geordi so he will rest in sick bay. (Note: this was not too clear in the script). This is really on the borderline between error of knowledge and breach of morality, since they are motivated by their incomplete understanding of Picard's decision, but really have no right to be subverting his command, even if it is in the interest of Geordi. So note that being objective does not necessarily imply that everything you present must be completely unequivocal.Allowing the viewer to evaluate can be very useful. (note, for instance, how Rand allowed the reader/audience to determine the ending of her play Night of January 16th) So this is another example of a kind of interesting situation you can develop, by putting really good people into tough situations, in which their devotion to several principles is tested. Thus, the battle and conflict becomes one of competing good principles, not between good and evil. And it is especially interesting, if you can make the stakes high. The act ends with the confrontation between the two Rikers, who are now bitterly hostile to each other. Picard makes the existential contradiction of the situation explicit in announcing the harsh decision of the Federation council. Now before going on two the last two acts, let's pause again in case there are any questions about the story or my comments so far. to Questions? Do you want comments on what you've said, or the story itself? Brad: In essentials, why would the Rikers be hostile to each other? Isn't that in this context a form of self hatred? Phil: Excellent question. I did a lot of reflecting on what such a circumstance would lead to, and I concluded it would be really quite psychologically intolerable. Brad: Is Drachan the impotent evil? If so, how? Brad: I dunno. They used that in another episode too. Never found it convincing. Brad: Sorry, I haven't read your story, but the episode of the series that had two Rikers didn't show self-hatred...merely a conflict over who (if either) would get the girl)...in this case, the pschologist. Jay: Drachan commits an immoral act in attacking the Enterprise, even though he should know they wouldn't attack him further. There are no evil characters in this story. Brad, what does the two Rikers say about egoism since they are in essence the same person? Tom: the TNG episode was very different. Angus: Ok. Don't the two Rikers cease being the same person when they begin having different experiences? Tom: The hostility does not derive from self-hatred, but from a sort of obsession with what an identical copy of oneself would be doing. But as I pointed out, this is a bit too speculative to debate with finality either way. Brad: this is a two parter innit? Brad: Actually, given the episode in an earlier season where Riker was cloned against his will and destroyed the clone, it would be consistent with his character, at least, to not like his double. Jim: that's the one I didn't find convincing. But what I do do, is use it as a device later for their redemption, when they recognize they *are* two different men. This profoundly underscores the nature of volition. In other words, volition is primary, not past character and experience. Any other questions? Tym: No. Shain: Yes, but it takes them awhile to come to terms with that. Brad: how would you fit all this into an hour? Tym: Convincing or not to you, that was apparently the value (or disvalue) that Riker has. Brad: You stated that knowledge and certainty are not directly in one's control earlier. Aren't they directly within one's control within the context of one's knowledge? BradA, I disagree...their past experience and knowledge of everything forms the basis for their subconscious and actions Aron: I don't understand what you mean by egoism, re the two Rikers. Could you be more specific? Jim: but the reasons Riker gives for it in the produced episode are transparently silly. Brad, I meant where egoism says that the good of the ego is the sole good.. Jim_N: Oh really -- I can't recall ever seeing that episode. Tym: The screenplay is standard length for an episode. Brad: "Knowing that there's another me around diminishes me ina ways I can't even imagine" BradA: There was a planet that lived by producing clones. They needed new dna or something and the Enterprise turned them down. They stole some of the crews dna and cloned them. When Riker found out, he and the doctor destroyed the clones. Let's get back to the rest of tonight's program. We'll have an open discussion on this at the end. Brad: I like the complexity of the plot, but I'm wunnering whether it's too much here. I can see a lot of things that need more concretising. In different contexts, why wouldn't the "same" person act differently? Makes sense to me. Glenn: the attempt to secure knowledge and achieve certainty is directly in one's control. Whether one does, is a separate question. Picard thinks Data is still damaged, and the Telosians have fled. But this is wrong. Hold your comments for a while, folks. Another 15-20 minutes. Or less. And it doesn't make the consequences any less dire, acting on flawed knowledge, if it is within one's context or not. Go ahead, Brad. Aron: I am not denying the nature of character, but simply upholding volition as primary. Each becomes his own man the second they step off the transporter. Aron: perhaps the topic of egoism can be deferred til after? He's gone, Brad. Go ahead. Jim_N: Ah, yes, thanks. But they were clones, not duplicates, a completely different thing. I think we have lag. ok. No, it is my finite ability to read and type. :) Data points out numerous errors in Telosian science to Drachan, who gruffly brushes him off. Riker 2 has accepted his fate with equanimity, and writes a unique 'goodbye' letter to his 'brother'. A serious flaw is discovered in the shielding system, based (ironically) on the Telosians' lack of spacecraft. The only way to save Drachan and others is to retarget asteroid to hit that locale, which will destroy Data. Karain convinces Riker 2 that he is now a unique person, and that they should appeal Council decision. He regains hope discovering Riker 1 has agreed to represent them. Notice how the pace and conflict intensified steadily through Acts 1 to 3, reaching a peak with the Council bombshell delivered by Picard. Act 4 is where we catch our breath. Here, many of the previous conflicts of the crew on the Enterprise *apparently* get resolved, such as between the Rikers and Karain. (But the*metaphysical* contradictions remain to be resolved...) But we can't let the momentum stop entirely, so in counterpoint, Data's situation, which had previously seemed secure, now degenerates markedly, with the discovery that the shield system is flawed, and that he is in seemingly mortal peril. Riker 2 coms with Data to encourage his spirits. the opposite occurs: Data convinces Riker 2 that *both* their situations are hopeless. The crew is desperately trying to figure out a way to get Data out. Data discovers a way that they can get *in*... (Reason saves the day!) Riker 2 volunteers to beam down to do it... Drachan finally realizes the Telosians are not (and can't ever be) omniscient, nor infallible, and that he acted immorally attacking the ship. Data explains difference between striving for moral perfection vs. existential perfection. We learn that Picard will only let Riker 1 go to the planet, *precisely* because of the danger (per his earlier comments to Worf about the conditional nature of life giving rise to values and morality). Riker 2 waylays Riker 1, and a struggle ensues... A Riker makes it down to the planet, and releases the shield. As Data emerges, an asteroid fragment explodes nearby, trapping Riker ? inside. Data is retrieved, the Riker ? stays trapped. On the bridge, we discover Riker 2 never waylaid Riker 1, thus *both* now seemingly face death. The asteroid strikes, and Riker 1 is deemed gone. Picard indicates he is not going to try to secure the destruction of Riker 2 though. Whether Karain's theory is true or not is left to the reader's imagination. Here we have another dose of rational conflict in Riker 2's intercession in the proceedings. He does not possess Picard's knowledge(or perhaps doesn't share his view) of why Riker 1 was chosen. So he acts. The intellectual issue of moral vs. existential perfection is finally named explicitly by Data, and the contradiction of the Telosians resolved. Based on the good things about Drachan and Telos, we are confident their redemption will be total. I wanted to point something out here, because the Sick Bay scene is another of my favorites -- the one where we don't see which Riker it is until the very end. The writing in this scene (and in several earlier ones, such as the Debate scene and the scene between Picard and Worf in the shaft) is an example of the radical difference between a naturalistic and romantic style of writing. Romantic dramatic writing is actually highly contrived. For example, if you look closely, the conversations between Riker ?/Crusher; and Picard/Troi; and the special effects (hypo sprays) are perfectly timed to convey an overall effect -- the chance of that all happening at once that way are nil. But on the screen, it would look perfectly natural, because each element makes perfect sense. Everyone has probably seen the kind of cheap thrillers where the heroine is shown preparing dinner in a kitchen stocked from top to bottom with huge knives, cleavers etc., and you just groan and go, 'gee, I wonder if she will get trapped in this kitchen with the psycho'. :) I have a principle I try to follow in dramatic writing -- I always try to make every significant element in the story do at least two things. This keeps the story elements from being too obvious, and lets you pack more in, since the dramatic medium is really sparse in comparison to fiction. You have to keep this principle in mind if you want to dramatize an intellectual or philosophic theme, because you must keep the elements which will illustrate your theme tied integrally to the plot. Thus, any element which concretizes or illustrates your theme, must also have an integral purpose to the plot. For example, in my story, the contradiction of the Telosian pretense is germane to most of the important developments in the plot, including Drachan's actions. Contrast this with an aired episode about a planet of supposedly genetically perfect humans, where their alleged perfection didn't seem much germane to the story at all. I just want to point out one final fact: just as anyone who knows Rand and Objectivism, should be able to guess that the murderer in her play 'Think Twice' is *the hero*, so it should have been possible to predict which Riker would finally survive. ForRiker 1, nothing had changed, whereas Riker 2 had the amazing experience. Thus, he was the one who eventually survived. :) Ok, let's open the floor for any last questions on the story, then I'll have some concluding remarks and we can have an open discussion. Questions? Brad: Why did you have Data make the moral statement, considering he's a complex robot, and not a fully volitional being? Do you ever indicate why Karain likes Riker? Tom: Excellent question. The reason here, is that Data, being more technical, can make a quite technical exposition of the principle, without it seeming forced. Tom: but he is supposed to be one. Tom: In the show, Data is an android, not a robot. An episode called 'Measure of a Man' actually explored this idea, and he was legally deemed to be a person. Jay: This is made apparent in the script. And their attraction is dramatized. Brad: Well, Data was always good at explaining things. I know he was supposed to have volition per the series (as yoiu just mentioned), but I didn't think it was convincing. Brad: that was an absolutely revolting episode philosophically. Measure of a Man that is. Tym: i wouldn't say it was revolting...I actually liked it, what it was supposed to be answering. What was the theme behind it? Subetai: That Data had values, and therefore had a right to life. or, rather, was alive in the full sense of the term. Tym: I can't remember finding it particularly objectionable. You have to remember this is not an Objectivist show, and in today's climate of ideas, complete integration and truth to philosophy are very rare. Well, that's close but not quite there. No mention of how he got those values? No mention of volition? Brad: as I recall, that episode had blatantly Marxist premises. Tym: Which were? Subetai: It was presented as if he chose his values. Okay. Sube: as I recall, class struggle, utilitarianism, altruism... There was an interesting Voyager episode in which one of the Q - a philosopher - was imprisoned by the continuum because he wanted to die. Perhaps that would be a good episode to discuss, as well. tym: The 'lawmaker'? The politics of Trek is somewhat ambiguous, but tends to the institutional as opposed to democratic. But the individuals are voluntarily aceding to it, and have full freedom. Tym: The good premise in the show was that the individual has rights, that the argument for the 'greater good' doesn't override those rights. (Of course how they established that Data was an individual with rights was questionable.) Jim: yup. Mike: And DS9-Paradise? Tym: No, not class struggle...more like Data was a new form of sentient being, and the future of such beings had to be protected. Any other questions? Otherwise I'll make a few concluding remarks. Legendre: As we discussed earlier, yes. Let's have the concluding remarks, then we'll throw the floor open. Did it claim that man could create conscious life? BradA: I'm impressed with how you made your plot decisions, i.e. how you choose which Riker to survive, and how you choose who would give the thematic statement. Jim: Thank you. Dramatic conflict (or struggle, if the conflict is internal) is the presentation of purposeful human action by way of overcoming some impediment. This is the manner in which the need for effort to achieve values in life is concretized. Without conflict, the values accruing to characters would seem automatic, thus concretizing an incorrect notion. (I learned this from Rand and Bernstein.) Conflict between human characters or within a man tends to be more interesting than conflict between man and nature for two reasons: 1) it is more characteristic of the concerns of a real man's life, and 2) human antagonists, possessing volition, can present a much better foil to an antagonist. There are several devices for pitting good men against each other. Some are: 1) differences in knowledge; 2) different contexts; 3) competition for a value which cannot be shared (esp. a romantic interest or some existential milestone); 3) errors of knowledge; 4) honest mistakes of knowledge or in forming values. Regarding abstract or philosophic themes. It is important to avoid the mistake of 'tacking on' a theme. Decide if the theme is even expressible in a dramatic medium. For instance, Ayn Rand observed that the play 'The Miracle Worker' (the Hellen Keller story) was the only play, to her knowledge, with an epistemological theme. So if your proposed theme of a new play or script is 'The Analytic Synthetic Dichotomy', or 'The Measurement Omission Principle', then you may wish to ask yourself exactly how you plan to dramatize this. :) Conversely, moral principles make great themes, since they are so central to the nature of human action. Ok, I think those are all the things I wanted to relate. Thanks a lot for coming. Let's open the floor up now for general discussion or questions. What is an existential milestone? Kelly: Did I use that phrase? :) BradA: It sounds as if you have the theory of plot formation down rather well...I'll have to read your story ;) Brad: I have a hard time believing that the Federation would order Riker 2 destroyed. Just isn't credible. BradA: What difficulties do you experience in trying to create characters that have errors of knowledge such that the audience doesn't simply think the character is stupid, i.e. sheesh, he should have known that. Tym: That was a contentious point with me as well. It could possible have been the reason for it being rejected. Tym: or that picard would accept to carry out the fed's order. Yes, Brad, you did. <> BradA suspects TomM might have gotten slightly more from the presentation had he read the story as suggested. :) What's a holodeck? I can see the Federation coming to that conclusion symply because Riker2 would not be bound by the decisions of Riker1, and yet would have full knowledge of Federation tacktics, and such. Jim: There are several categories. The first is something the character *can't* know, based on his context. Jim: Part of it is probably that the audience sees more of the action than the individual characters. You're seeing everything, they're only seeing the scenes they play in. BradA: Sure...I was fighting a flue-type illness all week. ;) Tom: don't see how that creates an emergency. Another would be an honest error in logic or judgment. Joe, Tym: But consider Data's remarks re the duplication law, and the entire evidence of the situation as presented. Tym: abit mroe context could have made that potential conflict very clear. Remember, I am was not supplying an Objectivist view, but one I thought might be consistent with ST. Remember they had the death penalty for going to a certain planet, in the original series. JayT: Have you ever watched Star Trek Next Generation? TomM:No. JayT: It's like a very active computer game in a room dedicated to such. JayT: A holodeck is like virtual reality, except made real within a large room. Jet: An energy to matter converter. You can make mountains and trees and people that look and feel real and behave the way the computer programmed them to. Thank you. Subetai is pointing out another important device, that of division of knowledge. Often you want to split who knows what, both between characters, and with the viewer. Brad: If I may make a comment: your character development seems a bit weak, i.e. uninntegrated with plot: why do all those characters behave the way they do? the conflicts seem somewhat contrived. Do their characterizations carry over from previous episodes? (perhaps My reading of your summary here was insuficient) Brad: yeah, but that was because that planet (in _The Menagerie_) also called Telos ;) presented a dire threat to the Federation. Joe: The summary cannot be a replacement for the script, so I can't comment on that. joe: In a series like Star Trek, characterization is developed over many episodes. Brad: I always have a problem relating to stories that have fantasy in them. How do you reconcile fantasy and Romantic Realism? However, other Trek writers have complimented me on the fidelity to character in my script. Is Data the one with the wrap around sunglasses? Jay: that's Geordi Glenn: Good question. Fantasy or SF elements can be wonderful devices. Let me explain why. Thanks again. Brad: it's obvious that you spent a lot of time thinking about plot :) I differentiate between fantasy and science fiction. Fantasy is where you have weird things happening, which you're supposed to accept as a "mystery" - no context or explanation hinted at as how they might come to be. Glenn: Both fantasy and romantic realism can elusidate proper principles...it all depends how the fantasy characters are presented...i.e. if they follow causality within their nature as fantasized. what they do, is highly emphasize or stylize some specific element. Also, you have much more freedom to explore ideas, since you do not have to present a realistic depiction of a certain period. Just one thought before I head out.. Since morality is ultimately logical, it is appropriate to have a 'droid talk about it, perhaps. :) Science Fiction makes an attempt to provide *some* explanation of how they came to be. Tym: Yes. It took just over 7 weeks to write, and went through 5 treatment drafts, and 5 script drafts. I mean instances of "duplication" or people appearing and disappearing. Brad: All in seven weeks? That's a lot of re-writes in such a short time. Brad: so what sort of support, guidelines, feedback, etc. didja get from the folks at Paramount? Brad:They never told you why it was rejected? Fantasy is often set in mythical pasts on earth. I have to confess not to have read much of the genre. [BradW] Brad Wilson . http://www.thebrads.com Speaking of duplications ;) Glenn: There's a "theory" behind the transporter. It's not presented as magic. If it could transport, it could duplicate. Takes a stretch of the imagination, but doesn' Dagny: Exactly. doesn't strain credulity too much. BradA: Well, there's a lot of fantasy in star trek, merely because they move faster than light, and never have any problems with any time distortions by doing such. Tom: Yup. And I was also working my job as a pizza delivery dude too. :) Night, BlueGreen. The consequences of the tech are contradictorily shown. I find it strange how they can duplicate and replicate anything, yet could not make *really* real anything produced in the holodeck. Super-Brad! Glenn: I like to differentiate between what I call speculative SF, and (I guess it is called) soft SF. Legendre: good point *laugh* Ok, time to head home. be back shortly. I am not a fan of SF with aliens in foreign galaxies and such nonsense. I tend to prefer near-time stories. Legendre: That's been covered in several episodes...the holodeck uses a slightly different matter/energy configuration that is not stable. Brad: I like some SF too. Heinlin (sp) Heinlein's great. Brad: read _Virtual Light_ by William Gibson? Tym: They have a packet of writer's guidelines, and a technical manual. There are certain contraints in story elements. TomM: Ok, thanks. Legendre: It's like the difference between real stuff and movie props ;) Unfortunately, later the season I submitted my script, there was the episode with the stellar chunk on a collision course with the planet of genetically perfect people, which was quite upsetting. :) How do you start writing fiction? Define your theme, then sketch out the plot, develop the characters and then fill in the details? (tktkTad@U) BradA did they "reject" story or just put it in the not yet produced pile ? Everyone writes fiction differently. BradA: I bet...you mentioned once that they used elements of your story in different episodes...which ones? tym: I don't care much for Gibson's bleak metaphysics. Lawsuit! Subetai: You can start anywhere...it depends a lot on your psycho-epistemology. My favorite is Joan Vinge, because of the intricacy of her plots. My favorite SF novel is Catspaw by Vinge. Brad: right. I was referring to the fact that it's "near-time". Subetai: It is inductive, and you can proceed in different directions. By the end though, everything needs to be integrated. Yeah, I figured that. I was wondering what Brad's approach was, and yours, since you're the two writers I know here. What works for you. Tom: That would be 'Second Chances', which had too many parallels to be coincidental. It was a very lame episode, in my view. Personally, I think I usually come up with plot first, and there is somehow a theme I easily recognize in there. Subetai: Speaking for myself, I started by thinking of a theme I despirately needed to have concretized at the time. Tad: Less than 1% of spec scripts ever get produced. They have their own writers. BradA: i don't remember that one by name. Thank you, Brad, and good night. Kelly: Exactly. Usually a good Romantic story will some identifiable theme, then once you discover that, it tends to influence your subesequent choices. Brad: you can tell. Nearly all of them have a stock "internal/external" conflict that's pretty boring. The characters are usually suggested by the plot. What sort of people you need to have for the story to work or whatever., (tktkTad@U) BradA was thatthe first time you submitted to ST? Subetai: You need to know causality as it applies to human life, and then wonder: What would happen if....? Tad: Yes, and obviously the last, based on what they did. Tom: Right. I was really mad, because plan B was to novelize the story. But they ripped off my premise, and so I couldn't novelize. (tktkTad@U) BradA ? did they plagarize, sorry I do not wtch much STNG? BradA: If you have a good stroy line, and don't like the constraints of St, then why not make a novel based on your insights by creating your own universe? (tktkTad@U) oh I see Tad: Not really plagiarize, in the copyright violation sense. Let's put it this way. There were, entirely by accident, some parallels between my story, and anther produced in the same year as mine was submitted. There would have been no way for me to know their script, and their script would have been approved before mine. This happens all the time in Hollywood. (tktkTad@U) O h I see ,sorry if that was previously mentioned But in the case of 'Second Chances', there are *so* many parallels, and so badly handled, that it seemed obvious to me to be based on my ideas. (tktkTad@U) As Tom said , the theme could be explored with other characters of yourcreation BradA: A novel should be a stand-alone work of art anyhow. Tom: I don't know if I would like fiction writing that much. I like the dramatic medium of film. BradA: Then come up with a unique screen play ;) (tktkTad@U) Interesting thought he idea of serial writing and having templates of volition with which to develope plot ie character sketches previously developed