Culture – Page 108

To Tell The Truth In Fiction

I’ve been reading romance novels for over twenty years now — yes, I started too young — and although I now read more contemporaries, my nostalgic favorites are the historicals I started with. So, the topic of historical accuracy in fiction is of deep interest to me:

"Historical authors Celeste Bradley and Nicole Byrd will be presenting their workshop ‘It’s my party and I’ll lie if I want to’ — a debate on the necessity (or not!) of historical accuracy in the romance novel. As one who watches from the sidelines, I won’t be presenting my opinion on the subject here. However, I am deeply interested in learning about your views on the matter.

"How do you feel about historical accuracy in the novels you read?"

GET THE STORY.

My rule of thumb is that if the reader can spot the error, the entire effect of the fictional "world" the author is trying to create evaporates. This can occur even when the error is minor, but is appalling when the error is so huge that it shows a lack of care by the author in performing requisite research. An example of both:

When I read Regency historicals — a hot "trend" in the romance novel world right now — I cringe every time a married lady has "Mrs." tacked on to her first name and married surname. The people of the British Regency era were sticklers for manners, indeed the fictional genre owes its start to Jane Austen’s comedies of manners set during the British Regency (ca. 1811-1820), and a woman of that time would never be called Mrs. Anne Smith. In historical usage, "Mrs." is attached to the husband’s full name — in other words, Mrs. Anne Smith should be titled Mrs. John Smith. This is a small error, but an annoying one for a reader who catches it.
The most appalling error I ever came across was in a medieval romance that abused the seal of the sacrament of confession not once, but twice in the same novel. Two separate plot points depended upon two different priests violating the sacramental seal. The first time I gritted my teeth and plowed on with the novel because the violation was part of the "back story" (information from before the book opens that must be mentioned for the overall development of a character but doesn’t necessarily affect the present action all that much); the second time, the plot resolution depended on another priest — a bishop, if I remember correctly — violating the sacramental seal. At that point, I was so outraged that the book metaphorically thudded against my wall. That it didn’t do so in actuality was solely because I like my walls more than I did the book.

Frankly, I think if an author is going to take the trouble to write a book, the story should be as historically accurate as her research can make it. If dramatic license must be taken, note should be made of the deliberate inaccuracies in an afterword. To include dramatic license, but to attempt to leave the reader ignorant of it — i.e., "It’s my party and I’ll lie if I want to" — only makes the author look ignorant, at best, or careless, at worst, to a knowledgeable reader.

Ten Worst Books?

CHT to the reader who sent me this link to

HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE’S RANKING OF THE TEN MOST HARMFUL BOOKS OF THE 19TH AND 20TH CENTURIES.

It makes interesting reading. Human Events Online asked a number of folks to nominate and then vote on which books they thought had done the most damage in the last two centuries.

The list (sans the reasons why the books are on the list–read the article for that) is:

The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
Mein Kampf by Adolph Hitler
Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book
The Kinsey Report by Alfred Kinsey
Democracy and Education by John Dewey
Das Kapital by Karl Marx
The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan
Course in Positive Philosophy by Auguste Comte
Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrich Nietzsche
General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money by John Maynard Keynes

The article also lists many books in the (dis)honorable mention category–ones that were apparently nominated but didn’t make the final top ten (e.g., The Origin of Species, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, The Greening of America).

Of course, the fascination of such lists (since they have little practical use) is analyzing them to see whether or not one agrees with them.

In this case I’d buy some of the entries (Communist Manifesto, The Kinsey Report), I’m open to others being in the top ten (Charman Mao’s Little Red Book, Democracy and Education), puzzled by others (Beyond Good and Evil, and Course in Positive Philosophy–I just don’t know if Nietzsche and Comte’s works had enough influence to rank in this way).

One book that I’m surprised is not there (nor even in the [dis]honorable mentions) is An Essay on the Principle of Population by Thomas Malthus. This was the book that popularized the whole "overpopulation" problem by postulating that the means of production only grow arithmetically while the population grows geometrically.

The authors of the list might have not named this one since the first edition came out in 1798, and thus at the very end of the 18th century, but all five of the revisions (which amounted to quite substantial changes) came out in the 1800s, qualifying them.

What’re y’all’s picks for the ten worst books category?

Death Of A Superfan

Where will all the superfans go now that the Star Wars phenomenon is no more?

"Now that any die-hard Star Wars fan worth his lightsaber has seen Episode III: Revenge of the Sith at least once, what’s a Jedi to do?

"The end of the Star Wars movies leaves a gaping hole in the galaxy of geekdom. And it begs the larger question: Is the era of the superfan over?

"No longer is there any variation of Star Trek on TV. The Grateful Dead essentially passed with Jerry Garcia, and even Phish is done now. The seminal pop-cult experience may be a thing of the past."

GET THE STORY.

In the spirit of optimism for the fate of the superfan, I propose that we figure out what will happen to the Superfan Geeks now. Remember the old proverb "Old soldiers never die, they just fade away"? Fill in the following blank for the Superfan in the combox:

Old Superfans never die, they….

Art For . . . Something Else's Sake?

A new study by the Rand Corporation analyzes the fairly recent phenomenon of "selling" the arts based on their instrumental effects (like an enhanced local economy, or higher student test scores) as opposed to their intrinsic value. The study, entitled Gifts of the Muse: Re framing the Debate of the Benefits of the Arts, concludes that in promoting the arts across the country there has been too much focus on broad economic and social benefits.

The report places the origin of this kind of thinking in the early 1990s, and offers alternatives. The assumption is that there are just not enough people enjoying art.

One recommendation is that "attention and resources be shifted away from supply of the arts and toward cultivation of demand" . The summary of the study gives several suggestions for the "promotion of satisfying arts experiences" including the need to develop the language needed for discussion and acknowledging the limitations of current research. In other words, like alot of research, the study concluded that more study is needed (a little job security, there).

But the money quote is right here:

"Research has shown that early exposure is often key to developing life-long involvement in the arts. That exposure typically comes from arts education… The most promising way to develop audiences for the arts would be to provide well-designed programs in the nation’s schools."

So, rather than paying artists to produce more art that nobody looks at, we should strap students into specially designed art-appreciation chairs and refuse to release them until they grasp the "surrealism of the underlying metaphor" ("Welcome, Billy. Are you ready to have a satisfying art experience?").

This is wrong-headed for several reasons. For one, there is no shortage of art in kids’ lives. They are practically choked with art. Animé, comic books, movies, tattoos… heck, they are bombarded with art through cable television. Sure, it is generally of a low quality, but in a culture that has elevated subjectivism and relativism to the level of religious dogma, how would an art teacher even begin to help these kids distinguish "good" art from "bad" art? The very idea of good or bad art is anathema to the current art establishment. It’s all good, Billy, in it’s own way. Graffiti is as valid an expression as the Sistine ceiling. We have been feeding people this line for years.

Funding for the arts indeed began to come under (quite justifiable) attack around the early 1990s, as the preposterous excesses of goverment funded art began to come to light. The arts bureaucracy unwisely aligned themselves with the purveyors of artsy anti-religious hatred and pornography. Now they find themselves somewhat against the wall in trying to justify continued funding.

If the art establishment in this country had not been peddling ugly, meaningless art to the public for so long I doubt that they would find themselves in this position. Graffiti may not really be as good as the Sistine ceiling, but it is as good or better than Mark Rothko or Willem de Kooning.

Beauty is the key. People are starved for it. Alot of animé is quite stunningly beautiful, which is why kids respond to it. Give the people beautiful art and they will respond to it. Continue with the present course and the arts will always go begging for funds.

The report can be found online in the full version or just the summary.

GET THE REPORT HERE.

(Warning!! Evil File Format – PDF)

Art For . . . Something Else’s Sake?

The report places the origin of this kind of thinking in the early 1990s, and offers alternatives. The assumption is that there are just not enough people enjoying art.

But the money quote is right here:

"Research has shown that early exposure is often key to developing life-long involvement in the arts. That exposure typically comes from arts education… The most promising way to develop audiences for the arts would be to provide well-designed programs in the nation’s schools."

The report can be found online in the full version or just the summary.

GET THE REPORT HERE.

(Warning!! Evil File Format – PDF)

The Age Of Google

I research things for a living. Knowing where and how to get information–at least within my chosen field–is the warp and woof of my trade.

This has an impact on how I read and watch fiction. F’rinstance: I like the movie All The President’s Men about the Woodward-Bernstein investigation of Watergate. Set in the early 1970s, I’m fascinated by the way the two reporters go about piecing together the story that’s in front of them. It’s fascinating because they have to go to great lengths to get certain pieces of information that you could get in five seconds today (e.g., by doing a search on Switchboard.Com). They also manage to get their mitts on certain info that would be incredibly hard or impossible to get today due to their being subject now to much greater privacy and confidentiality requirements.

If you wrote a story about a similar investigation today, you’d have to change the ways that the reporters go about putting the story together.

Technology has changed the flow of information in society dramatically, and it has and will continue to force changes in how the flow of information is depicted in drama.

Take the episode "Passing Through Gethsemane" of Babylon 5, which I was watching last night. This episode has a lot going for it:

It features the Dominican monks who were recurring characters on the series.
It lets one of the Domincans get in a really good poke at those who claim to be "openminded" as a cover for refusing to find a definite belief system.
It features the only on-screen (or off-screen) administration of the last rites I know of in any mainstream sci-fi TV show.
It has extensive discussion of religious belief including the strain Jesus was under in the Garden of Gethsemane.
It has ethical discussion of the death penalty and the sci-fi alternatives there might be for it.
It focuses heavily on themes of sin and guilt and atonement and forgiveness, including making the point that God can forgive your sins even if you don’t remember them.
Part of the soundtrack is Gregorian chant.
It shows monks living up to ideals that are harder than humanly imaginable, but clearly worthwhile.
And it features Capt. Sheridan and Garibaldi doing something flagrantly illegal that you’d never see Picard and Riker doing in a million years. (Sticking a bag over the head of an alien telepath so he can’t identify a human telepath as she rips a crucial, potentially life-saving piece of information out of his head against his will.)

And all this written by an atheist!

But despite all these great elements, it’s obvious that the episode was written before Google.

Why’s that?

Because one of the Dominicans in the episode–Brother Edward (played by Brad Dourif)–beguns to have a number of really weird and sinister things happen to him. Among them are the appearance of a black rose and the words "Death Walks Among You" apparently written in blood on a wall.

Br. Edward reports this to Security Chief Garibaldi, but despite this fact, the first thing Garibaldi doesn’t do is search Google (or the 23rd century equivalent of Google) for the words "black rose" and "Death Walks Among You."

Any kind of ritualistic clues like that immediately call out for a cyber-search to see if there are any parallels to them.

Had Garibaldi searched on these items sooner, he would have found out what was at the basis of the mystery much sooner, and possibly prevented a crime and saved a life.

Heck, if you search Google today for those items, you’ll find out what was at the bottom of all this.

TRY IT.

In the future, expect a lot more cyber-searches in detective stories.

Art imitates life. (At least to some degree.)

Still a great episode, tho.

All About Books

I haven’t yet been tagged in the book meme going around St. Blog’s Parish, but the questions about books interested me, an inveterate reader, so I figured I’d leap into the fray untagged.

Total books owned: Likely in the thousands. Every few years, I tend to collect enough to open a used bookstore in my house. I purge them by donating to libraries or used bookstores, and then the vicious cycle starts again. My name is Michelle and I’m a bookaholic.
Last book purchased: We Have a Pope!, an upcoming biography of Pope Benedict XVI by Matthew Bunson. I bought it through Catholic Answers and am eagerly anticipating receiving a copy when the shipment arrives. <Commercial>If you want to purchase a copy, too, GO HERE.</commercial>
Last book read: Benedict XVI by John L. Allen Jr. Although some of Allen’s later books, such as Conclave and All the Pope’s Men, are very good, I understand now why Allen himself thinks this book (originally written when the Pope was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) is not one of his best. It is not so much a biography of the Holy Father but uses him as a pretext to discuss Allen’s own liberal views. Allen said recently that he wished he had been able to write new material to preface the U.S. edition of the book, but did not have the opportunity. Apparently, though, the U.K. publisher did allow for a new preface.
Five books that mean a lot to me: The Bible (natch), God Help Me! These People Are Driving Me Nuts by Gregory K. Popcak (very helpful), Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating (first Catholic book I read), Morning Glory by LaVyrle Spencer (favorite romance novel), Diary of a Young Girl by Anne Frank (favorite book growing up).
Tagging: Since I wasn’t tagged myself, I won’t tag another blogger; but feel free to answer one or more of the questions in the comments box. Consider yourself tagged, if you like. 🙂

(Nod to Selkie for inspiration to do the St. Blog’s Book Meme.)

Wal-Art

The painting at left, Asher B. Durand’s "Kindred Spirits" was recently sold at auction through Sotheby’s for a bid of over 35 million dollars, the highest price ever paid for an American painting.

The painting depicts artistThomas Cole and poet William Cullen Bryant together in a Catskill Mountains scene. Henceforth it will be housed (surrounded by a number of other classic American artworks) in a new museum in… Arkansas!

The painting was offered for sale by the New York Public Library and was purchased at auction by the Alice Walton Foundation. That’s Walton, as in the supposedly evil Wal-Mart corporation.

The noble Metropolitan Museum of Art and the courageous National Gallery of Art combined forces to offer a competitive bid, but were beaten by the hideous strength of the Walton Foundation’s malevolent checkbook. At least that’s how the struggle is being depicted in certain cultural circles. Some letters to the New York Times online have whined as if the transaction amounted to out-and-out theft.

True, if I lived in New York I would miss the painting, too. In a spirit of real restraint, Met spokesman Harold Holzer said, "We’re disappointed that the painting is leaving New York…". The disappointment seems very one-sided, though. I have not heard much criticism levelled at the New York Public Library for putting the painting on the auction block.

Disappointment I can understand, but the bittereness displayed by some hints at something deeper. See, this is another victory for the Red Staters, a sign of the ascendency of Flyover Country. Arkansas, for cryin’ out loud?!! And, to make matters worse, the evil Wal-Mart corporation is behind it all, no doubt punishing the Empire State for it’s icy rebuff to the retail giant’s expansion efforts in that region.

The planned museum, to be located in Wal-Mart’s hometown of Bentonville, will house a collection of national significance. How strange, that the evil and greedy Walton family would spend millions and millions of dollars just to bring a little culture to those who have never had access to such treasures. Southerners don’t have the capacity to appreciate great art, and anyway, don’t corporations always use their money to just make more money? Don’t they have some slave-labor factories to build overseas?

Am I biased by the fact that I will be living close enough to this new museum to practically throw rocks at it? Probably. We are as excited here as they are disappointed in New York. Look at it this way, y’all; Won’t there be plenty of culture left in New York? Can’t you spare a piece or two for us benighted hillbillys?

FIND OUT MORE.

How To Kill A Major Character

One of my interests is the dynamics of fiction. Even though I don’t get much of a chance to write fiction myself, the subject fascinates me, and I seem to have a knack for it. Friends sometimes consult me about plot problems in their own works of fiction and seem to be pleased with the solutions I propose.

It seems to me that there are two basic ways to kill a major character who is one of the good guys in a story.

The first method is the shock killing. This occurs when one has established the major character and unexpectedly whacks him a substantial distance before the end of the story. This is done to freak out and unsettle the audience. When done well, it makes the audience afraid by suddenly crushing out the hope that the character seemed to carry and makes them wonder how the surviving main characters will achieve their goals now that the great hope has been extinguished.

An example of a successful shock killing is the death of Scatman Caruther’s character in the movie version of The Shining. With creepy, evil stuff going on in the Overlook Hotel, the boy in the movie has telepathically summoned Scatman Caruthers, who represents the boy’s best chance to escape back to the world of sanity. Yet when Scatman takes an axe in the chest as soon as he arrives at the Hotel, this hope is ended forever, leaving the audience to wonder what will happen next. How will the boy ever survive?

Another example of a successful shock killing is the death of Qui-Gon Jinn toward the end of Star Wars I (as many flaws as that movie had overall, Qui-Gon’s death was effective).

The problem with the shock killing is that, if the character is too major and too beloved by the audience, it will alienate many of them. As a result, the shock killing is not used that much as it is rather hard to pull off.

More common is what may be called the climactic death This occurs when the death of the major character occurs at the climax (or a climax) of the story.

For the climactic death to work, a number of factors have to be in place. The death needs to seem inevitable, emotionally weighty, and meaningful. If these conditions are not met, the audience feels cheated, with the death seeming arbitrary (non-inevitable) and frivolous (non-emotionally weighty or meaningless). From these requirements, several plot elements regarding the death tend to fall out:

There has to be no other alternative to the death. Though the characters may seek other alternatives only to have them eliminated, in the end the audience must understand that there are no alternatives to the character’s death. Otherwise they will feel that the death was arbitrary.
To make the death feel emotionally weighty, it must occur at the climax (or a climax) of the story.
Also to keep the death emotionally weighty, it frequently must take time rather than happening in an instant.
Since climaxes need to be seen coming a long way off, the audience generally needs to see the death coming in advance, with a building sense of doom as it approaches. (This is a distinguishing characteristic of the climactic death compared to the shock killing.)
To make the character’s death seem meaningful to the audience there frequently needs to be a goal that he sacrifices his life to achieve, making his death a heroic sacrifice.
Finally, between the usual needs to see the death coming in advance and for it to be a heroic sacrifice, the sequence of events that leads to the death usually needs to be closely tied to the main plot.

An example of a successful climactic death is that of Mr. Spock at the end of The Wrath of Kahn. Here all the elements are met: (1) Spock is the only one who can save the Enterprise, due to his unique physiology. (2) It occurs at the climax of the movie. (3) Spock doesn’t die immediately upon going into the radiation-filled chamber. His death takes time. (4) We see it coming in advance, particularly after all the talk of "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and then seeing the Enterprise in a situation only Spock can save it from. (5) Spock heroically sacrifices himself in order to save his shipmates. And (6) the main plot of the movie (Kahn’s quest for revenge against Kirk) is what drives Spock to make this sacrifice.

The most spectacularly unsuccessful major character death that I can think of was the original death of Tasha Yar in Star Trek: The Next Generation. It violated all kinds of rules: It was an attempt to combine the shock killing with the climactic death, and it totally flopped. Tasha was walking along on an away mission in front of an evil creature, when suddenly the evil creature lashed out and killed her.

It didn’t happen at a climax (violating Rule 2). It happened way too quick (violating Rule 3). We didn’t see it coming in advance (violating Rule 4). It wasn’t a heroic sacrifice to achieve an important goal (violating Rule 5). It seemed arbitrary as the creature could have struck anyone or Tasha could have walked outside its reach (violating Rule 1). About the only rule that it might have obeyed was it was tied to the main plot (i.e., dealing with the evil creature).

The second deat of Tasha (going back in time to save the Federation from a crucial historical misstep) was much more satisfaying dramatically–and went far to redeem the first death (which the new episode confessed was "meaningless")–though in the end they welched on this and decided that Tasha survived her heroic sacrifice.

The most recent Star Trek attempt to kill a major character–Trip Tucker–also failed horribly.

This was a remarkably unsatisfying death. It was nowhere near as horrible as the first Tasha death (’cause it didn’t violate as many rules), but it was bad enough. Here’s why:

The death managed to honor rules 1-3, and 5. It honored Rule 1 because the episode made it clear to us that in order to save Captain Archer there were no other (clear) alternatives. Further, the self-sacrifice occurred at a climax, satisfying Rule 2. And it took a while, so we got a "goodbye" scene in sick bay, satisfying Rule 3.
Things get shaky with Rule 4: Whild we were told way in advance that Trip would die, we didn’t see the act of self-sacrifice until moments before he made it. Rule 4 was thus only satisfied in a pro forma way in that the audience was told what would happen but not in a plot-level way by letting the events themselves reveal what needed to happen.
Rule 5 was completely bungled. Trip didn’t die saving the universe or even the Federation. His motivation for self-sacrifice was much murkier. It wasn’t an act of duty or friendship (though these may have played roles in it) but an apparent attempt to enable the Captain to keep his schedule in order to make an important speech–one that Trip had no good reason to think the future hinged on. This came across as totally stupid.
Rule 6 was the most egregiously violated. There weren’t sinister anti-Federation forces trying to keep the Captain from making his oh-so-important speech. That would have (despite the implausibility of hinging all of history on a speech) at least tied the forces they were fighting into the goal that they were trying to achieve. Instead, the folks who drove Trip to self-sacrifice were passing, never-before-seen hoodlums who the Captain himself involved himself with and then honked off.

Listen, Star Trek guys: Next time y’all get a series (not any time soon) or a movie (probably ditto) and you wanna kill off a major character, please note the above list before you do so.

It’ll save y’all a lot of grief.

That Awful Last Episode Of Trek

Ick!

Okay, now that everyone (who wanted to) should have had a chance to see the final episode of Star Trek Enterprise, whenever it got aired in their local market, I can complain about it without giving away spoilers.

If, for some reason, you didn’t see it and don’t want to be spoiled, stop reading now.

SPOILER SPACE:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Now, the producers tried to spin this episode as "a love letter to the fans," but it left me feeling more like I’d received a "Dear John" letter.

Even after details emerged (amid complaints from castmembers, notably Jolene Blalock) about what the episode would involve, I tried to keep an open mind, particularly in light of how much better Manny Coto had made the series in its last season.

But apparently boneheaded writing reasserted itself for the final episode, no doubt at the behest of the producers.

Here’s the basic idea: The last episode of Enterprise . . . wasn’t an Episode of Enterprise at all.

STUPID THING #1

It was an episode of Next Gen. Specifically, it’s set in the seventh season of Next Gen. This was so the producers could bring back Riker and Troi and have them guest star, as if watching the actors portray characters they’re now 12 years too old to play would be a "magical" experience for fans.

But they don’t get Riker and Troi hooked up with the Enterprise crew by time travel (which could be cool). Instead . . .

STUPID THING #2

The whole episode is a freakin’ holodeck adventure! Sheesh!

Riker is playing the holodeck adventure to try to find guidance for a Big Decision that he’s got to make (and which you already know the outcome of it you watched the seventh season of Next Gen), and so he decided to play a holodeck adventure set on the (apparent) founding day of the Federation to sort things through by watching someone else make a Big Decision.

Does Riker get the help he needs?

STUPID THING #3

No! He doesn’t! When it’s become clear whose Big Decision he was focused on (Trip), and after he’s watched Trip make it, and when he asks Trip if he has any advice about making his own Big Decision, holo-Trip says nope, he doesn’t! Riker will just have to figure it out for himself.

Now, what was Trip’s Big Decision?

This has to do with the main dramatic action of the episode.

It is, after all, the (apparent) founding day of the Federation, so you’d expect the main action of the episode to be tightly bound up with the founding of the Federation. The crew of the Enterprise ought to be thwarting some last-minute threat to the Federation that could unwravel Star Trek history as we know it if they fail. Instead,

STUPID THING #4.

The main dramatic action of the episode has nothing to do with the founding of the Federation. Instead, the characters interrupt their Federation-founding schedule go galavanting off and help Andorian recurring-character Shran (Jeffrey Coombs, nee Weyoun and Brunt) rescue his daughter from kidnappers.

This was a bad, bad move on the part of the writers/producers. Never have your Big Finale deal with a threat completely unrelated to the main thing the viewers have tuned in to see (and, in fact, been waiting years for you to finally get around to showing them).

The previous two episodes–which did focus on a threat to the founding of the Federation–were far better and would have made a far better finale to the series than this tacked-on doo-dad.

So how does all this hook into Trip’s Big Decision?

STUPID THING #5

Well, the alien kidnappers get mad at the Enterprise crew for snatching the little girl from them and so they come after them, cornering Captain Archer and Trip.

Now the thing is: Captain Archer is s’pposed to give an inspiring speech at the (apparent) founding of the Fedration, and "I’m sorry but he was just killed or otherwise delayed by kidnappers" is not going to be an acceptable excuse for not making it.

Thus in a "Gotta git the Cap’n to the church on time" frenzy, Trip uses his engineering wiles to undertake an action that he reasonably foresees will kill the kidnappers–and himself–while leaving the captain free to go make his uber-important speech.

That’s the Big Decision.

Only the whole thing falls completely flat because (a) it’s implausible to think that the whole future of the Federation hinges on this speech and there are no valid excuses for not making it or being late and (b) Trip had no reason to think that this speech was so crucial that he needed to sacrifice his life for the captain to make it.

It might have been different if Trip had simply sacrificed himself for the sake of his captain out of duty or for his friend out of friendship, but dragging the speech into it casts a whole "saving history" aspect over the whole thing that is completely implausible. If they’d at least had a time traveller show up to tell them "The captain must make this speech or the future will come crashing down in flames" that would have at least given Trip a better reason to do what he did–even if it would still be acting on a totally stupid premise.

But then

STUPID THING #6

We get a post-Big Decision scene in sickbay where it looks like Trip might survive (except that we’ve been told by Riker and Troi that he won’t). Thus Trip goes smiling into some kinda big cat scan device, only to have us find out next thing that he really is D-A-I-D.

A pointless major character killing in the service of a boneheaded premise distracting the reader from the main plot the viewer tuned in to see, wrapped in a freakin’ holodeck story in a pseudo-Next Gen episode.

What drek!

Oh, and what about loose ends, like Cap’n Archer’s crucial speech?

STUPID THING #7

We never get to hear it! Not one syllable! All that build-up and we don’t even get to see what was so important that a major character had to die for it!

And what, then, about that two-season loose end: Trip’s relationship with T’Pol?

STUPID THING #8

Nothing comes of it!

After shoving the relationship down the viewers’ throats for two seasons, after establishing that there was ongoing romantic chemistry between the two, after establishing that they were telepathically linked on some level as a result of their relationship, after having the two of them discover a technologically-created daughter of theirs in the previous two episodes, after having that daughter die tragically (causing both of them to tear up), and after ending THE VERY PRECEDING EPISODE with the two of them holding hands and tearfully talking about how it would be possible for a Human and a Vulcan to have a baby together if they wanted . . . NOTHING COMES OF THIS!

Rick Berman and Brandon Braga, what the heck were y’all thinking?

After the viewers have been made to suffer so much from the incompetent set-up of this relationship, the least you could do would be to PAY IT OFF by having them become the first Human-Vulcan married couple, setting the stage for Spock’s parents later on.

After that tearful, hand-holding, "Y’know, T’Pol, a Human and a Vulcan could have a baby iff’n they wanted to, wink, wink, nudge, nudge" scene, simply dropping the relationship (and pointing out explicitly and repeatedly in the finale that it was dropped) is a TOTAL letdown.

I’m sorry. Y’all may have meant this as a love letter to the fans, but after watching it I feld like I’d received a "Dear John" letter instead.

You can see why.