Maybe you’re not a member of the intended audience?
I didn’t find it hard at all.
11 Likes
I meant the “barbarian” as a self deprecating label for we who don’t spend a lot of time thinking analytically of media, just watching TV slackjawed. I’m often amazed when I read what other people see while I’m just immersed in being entertained. That recently linked piece about “Mary Sue” was eye opening, I had a long discussion about it with my 15 yo daughter who may end up a writer. But as with any academic paper, some of this stuff loses civilians in the weeds.
1 Like
Nobody is forcing you to read the comments either though, if people can be allowed to write criticism on pop-culture, then people can be allowed to write criticism on that criticism.
1 Like
But…but I thought it was common knowledge about Kirk, that his whole thing is a myth.
Remember, Gene Roddenberry was one of the “Greatest Generation”; also remember he was a diabetic who didn’t take his meds, and who drank a lot. This may or may not’ve affected his treatment of Kirk. And what if Captain Pike had been found acceptable by We may all’ve ended up watching Jeff Hunter, who reportedly didn’t want to do the show. But this…I didn’t know about this:
I’m guessing the network and/or sponsors had a hand in changing the show around.
1 Like
It seems to be suggesting that I think less of people who don’t do this kind of work. Why would I? [quote=“gellfex, post:42, topic:100124”]
That recently linked piece about “Mary Sue” was eye opening, I had a long discussion about it with my 15 yo daughter who may end up a writer.
[/quote]
Good deal! We need more women in the trenches down here! Encourage her all you can. It’s especially hard for women writing, because we get a whole lot more shit for doing it.
I find that about any number of fields - engineering, programming, being a medical doctor, a car mechanic, a lawyer, etc. No one seems to bitch about the specialized language used in those fields as meaning that the people who work in them see themselves as somehow superior. [quote=“caze, post:43, topic:100124”]
Nobody is forcing you to read the comments either though,
[/quote]
Well, I thought that people valued my opinion here. Clearly many of you don’t. I’ll remember that in the future and try not to upset your dog piling on articles you don’t enjoy.
13 Likes
Well, I thought that people valued my opinion here. Clearly many of you don’t. I’ll remember that in the future and try not to upset your dog piling on articles you don’t enjoy.
Isn’t the best antidote to dog piling to write a positive comment about the article demonstrating why you appreciate/agree with it?
NB: I haven’t read the article at all, the comments put me off it instantly 
1 Like
I’ve got a sore spot for that show. From when I was about 5-9 years old, it was the only thing our old rabbit-eared set could get in the afternoon that wasn’t soaps. I disliked the show, and then disliked myself for trying to watch it when I was bored.
Star Trek, OTOH, I knew of, but it was not in syndication in my area until my teen years. I had seen the movies before but liked the series better for relying more upon SF stories than chummy banter.
1 Like
13 Likes
Kirk certainly had a thoughtful and sensitive side and eschewed violent solutions to conflict on plenty of occasions (like with the Gorn in “Arena” or the Horta in “The Devil in the Dark”), but he was no Picard, something Roddenberry acknowledged in this interview:
Alexander: On Star Trek people think their way out of problems.
Roddenberry: More so on Star Trek: The Next Generation, which is the product of my mature thought and having achieved a majority of years. I used to think that Star Trek was very good about being nonviolent, but still there are episodes that I rushed over. Kirk would pick up the challenge of another race a little too fast for my comfort. I made quite a change in attitude and direction of the show when I did The Next Generation, because the new captain is not apt to do those things.
There was even a whole episode, “The Enemy Within”, whose theme was that Kirk wouldn’t be able to function as captain without his “barbarian” side.
As for romance, while he wasn’t just a heartless seducer and seemed to care about the women he kissed over the course of the show, he did kiss quite a lot of them, and only a few of those were out of protective or instrumental reasons like the examples mentioned in the original post:
3 Likes
Based on my own past experience on here with Star Trek threads with critical theory on BBS, I’d say it’s not. I read the essay while folks were posting posts 4 through 18 and I really hoped this wasn’t going to be “one of those threads” because Erin’s write up is so thorough, nuanced, well-researched, and she’s coming from a similar place to me—in love with the show but not to the point of ignoring its flaws.
I wasn’t surprised when I got back but I was frustrated and I decided not to share. I haven’t changed my mind either.
9 Likes
I want to be careful how I say this, because I don’t approve of the dumping on the author. But even I found the article incredibly prolix. Not because the author used big words, big words are great and help convey more accurate nuances of meaning, but because they used them just to use them. I wouldn’t care since as @anon61221983 rightly said, no one’s forced to read it, except that I found the article’s thesis, evidence and exegis of the Star Trek religion’s senior deity fascinating and in many regards compelling. It was entirely worth reading, it just was headache inducing to do sift the signal from the noise. I would hope if the author reads this comment, it’s taken in the spirit it’s intended, as polite feedback.
I find the assholish way in which some people choose to express their criticisms distasteful. If I wouldn’t say it to someone’s face in meatspace, I won’t say it about them anonymously online, particularly given that the person is likely to read the comments. But then I value civility. I assume a lot of other people still do to, but many seem simply not to give a fuck if they’re rude to fellow human beings, especially at a safe distance.
13 Likes
I’m not sure what your basic humanity has to do with an article on Captain Kirk. I didn’t see you fighting an uphill battle either, you just stormed straight in with the snark. After reading a series of negative posts about the article, I might have been tempted to actually read it if I had instead read something praising it. I don’t think anyone else is denying anyone’s right to criticise, or claiming that certain groups of people aren’t entitled to opinions on things (not in here at any rate), you do seem to advocating for such a position though (correct me if I’m wrong)? There’s a difference between disagreeing with someone and telling them to shut up.
Fair enough, this is my first foray into the world of critical theory applied to the world of Star Trek.
2 Likes
Even you? Why even you? Are you also an academic who writes critical analyses of popular culture?[quote=“GulliverFoyle, post:54, topic:100124”]
Not because the author used big words, big words are great and help convey more accurate nuances of meaning, but because they used them just to use them.
[/quote]
Citation please. Cuz that’s not how it read to me.[quote=“GulliverFoyle, post:54, topic:100124”]
It was entirely worth reading, it just was headache inducing to do sift the signal from the noise. I would hope if the author reads this comment, it’s taken in the spirit it’s intended, as polite feedback.
[/quote]
As I wrote above to someone else, maybe you’re not a member of the intended audience?
The writing style certainly didn’t give me a headache.
5 Likes
Well, maybe lawyers. Let’s face it - some specialized language does seem to be constructed to make is so that those who aren’t a part of whatever profession it’s been specialized for can’t get it.
8 Likes
I mean even though I like big words. And I concede that I may not be the target audience. If this was written for academics of a specific discipline as a technical argot, then my opinion doesn’t and shouldn’t matter to the author. But if it was written for the lay-person, then I’m in the target audience.
Fair enough. That’s how it read to me. To quote a sage, that’s just like my opinion man.
Certainly possible.
Then we have different tastes. And there’s no reason why an author needs to try to please everyone. The feedback is offered but need not be given any consideration by the author if they don’t wish to.
8 Likes
A good chunk of doctors too. My wife and listened to an Econtalk podcast discussion between 2 economists and felt like we needed a dictionary. It’s just the way these thing tend to go, even if it’s not intended to be exclusionary, it’s just a natural tendency to jargon within a field.
1 Like
I don’t think it’s that way by design. I mean, lawyers and doctors employ terms of art for a purpose. So too do academics. And if that was who this was written for, then it makes sense that it’s less accessible to the uninitiated. It’s quite possible the venue of a poplar magazine led me to form an incorrect assumption about an article written for academics of a particular field. In which case, mea culpa.
1 Like
This conversation is getting a little personally pedantic for my liking. There’s no need to chastize each other for wording when the article itself has more than enough content to discuss.
Most of the commentary here is being constructive or, at the very least, civil, lets please keep it that way.
*mumbles something about Trek threads…* It’s my fault, right? I went with Trek ranks for badges? 
12 Likes
The main difference I suppose is doctors and lawyers deal with their customers, to whom they should lay off the jargon, while academics often only write for their peers. So when laymen get ahold of their work, it seems impenetrable.
1 Like
Totally. Should have gone with undergrad, grad, doc, postdoc, prof, chair, emeritus. No one would object to that, right?
5 Likes
