Is there an intelligence test TV writers have to fail?

[--Pete]

Hi,

Stargate is a target-rich environment for this game. There's the scene where Col. O'Neill makes fun of a Russian commando having a gun that was made in Yugoslavia, not Russia. In of itself, it's a smarmy line, but you really shouldn't say such things after showing the guy your own weapon, which came from Belgium.

I guess that could go either way. There's a lot of subtle humor in SG-1 -- that could go either way.

When the Prometheus had to eject its faulty hyperdrive power core, the captain of the ship ordered the crew to pull away from the exploding device at full military power. Which does explain why they took damage from the energy wave, I guess.

Except for the redundancy, I don't get it. Isn't full military power the maximum power without afterburners? And the Prometheus doesn't have afterburners, AFAIK. Or is that the joke?

Then there was the destruction of the aforementioned Prometheus: in order to save the ship, you need to bypass a battle-damaged circuit and tie in an auxiliary power source so the ship can escape. Do you instruct a damage control team that is already stationed nearby? No, you waste several minutes watching Sam Carter and a redshirt climb down some ladders before they reach the repair point.

Yeah, that's a common peeve of mine, too. Not just in the SG universe, but all over. In all the cop shows, when the main characters figure out where the victim/villain/bomb is, they rush to the scene, racing against time. It never occurs to them to call on the cops already patrolling the area who are probably hours closer.

--Pete

[LennyLen]

The plague was intentionally started as an act of war. It was, indeed, an intentional extermination.

Ah, well yes, that changes things.

I probably know the episode you're talking about, but they've all just melded into each other in my head over the years (even the SGU episodes have done that).

[Rhydderch Hael]

When the Prometheus had to eject its faulty hyperdrive power core, the captain of the ship ordered the crew to pull away from the exploding device at full military power. Which does explain why they took damage from the energy wave, I guess.

Except for the redundancy, I don't get it. Isn't full military power the maximum power without afterburners? And the Prometheus doesn't have afterburners, AFAIK. Or is that the joke?

With jets, 'military power' is maximum dry thrust, yes. But in the old days of piston-driven warplanes, military power is the maximum sustained power without risking acute damage to the engine. There was a 'notch' above that: War Emergency Power. For example, a P-38L had a rated military power of 52 inches, but it could push to WEP for a maximum of 60 inches.

I once made mention of this in a Stargate forum after "Memento" aired. I couldn't help but notice that in subsequent episodes whenever a ship's captain wanted to push his engines to the redline, he ordered "Emergency" speed or thrust.

[Treesh]

I once made mention of this in a Stargate forum after "Prometheus Unbound" aired. I couldn't help but notice that in subsequent episodes whenever a ship's captain wanted to push his engines to the redline, he ordered "Emergency" speed or thrust.

Silly little side story, but the Farscape actors have all said at one point or another that if they were confused about how something in the script would actually work, then they'd just wait to see how the fans would figure it out on the forums. That was a series that assumed intelligence in their fans (after they saw the reactions over the internet) and didn't fall into the trap of dumb writing too often.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . Farscape . . .

That was a fun series that didn't fall into the trap of taking itself too seriously. I think it was too tongue in cheek for the SiFi types and too SiFi for anyone else -- a shame, since I think it deserved a longer run. In some ways, it reminded me of Lexx, another series that I enjoyed for the most part, but would rather it had died than degenerated into what it became its last season.

It seems that those are two common occurrences. Either a series is pulled when it is still going good, or a series continues past its expiration date (i.e., it's gone bad). Other than mini-series, I can't think of any that were ended 'just right' (although Lost might do it today). Any candidates?

--Pete

[Jim]

Hi,

Writers do also have to take their target audience into account (I often had to dumb things down when I was writing for community newspapers). Though in this case, I think you're probably correct in assuming the writer just did a bad job.

Yes, I know. I took journalism in high school and worked on the school paper. As a photographer, but I still had to turn in the occasional article. Given that 'exterminate' and 'decimate' are both complex Latinate words, either would be red penciled and replaced with 'wiped out' (as you suggest below).

I don't really think exterminate would have been better however. It has too many connotations of being a deliberate act . . .

Thus making it even more appropriate in this context. The plague was intentionally started as an act of war. It was, indeed, an intentional extermination.

--Pete

Hi,

Please allow me to apologize for my cut & paste, I can not express myself as well as Petewiki, that's why lenny has to dumb down his newsletters for me.

This whole debate is about "Artistic license" decimate was correctly used. Today on Meet the Press decimate was expressed at the roundtable by a New York Times writer Tom Friedman, he could have used "Destroy" but the meaning would still have been the same.

Artistic license (also known as dramatic license, historical license, poetic license, narrative license, licentia poetica, or simply license) is a colloquial term, sometime euphemism, used to denote the distortion of fact, alteration of the conventions of grammar or language, or rewording of pre-existing text made by an artist to improve a piece of art.

For example, if a visual artist decided it was more artistically desirable to portray St. Paul's Cathedral next to the Houses of Parliament in a scene of London, even though in reality they are not close together, that would be artistic license.

The artistic license may also refer to the ability of an artist to apply smaller distortions, such as a poet ignoring some of the minor requirements of grammar for poetic effect.[1] For example, Mark Antony's "Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ears" from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar would technically require the word "and" before "countrymen", but the conjunction "and" is omitted to preserve the rhythm of iambic pentameter (the resulting conjunction is called an asyndetic tricolon). Conversely, on the next line, the end of "I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him" has an extra syllable because omitting the word "him" would make the sentence unclear, but adding a syllable at the end would not disrupt the meter.[2] Both of these are examples of artistic license.

In summary, artistic license is:
*Entirely at the artist's discretion.
*Intended to be tolerated by the viewer (cf. "willing suspension of disbelief")[3]
*Useful for filling in gaps, whether they be factual, compositional, historical or other gaps[4]
*Used consciously or unconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally or in tandem[5]

Critical voices are sometimes raised when artistic license is applied to cinematic and other depictions of real historical events. While slight manipulation for dramatic effect of chronology and character traits are generally accepted, some critics feel that depictions that present a significantly altered reality are irresponsible, particularly because many viewers and readers do not know the actual events and may thus take the dramatized depiction to be true to reality. Examples of films and television series criticized for excessive use of dramatic license include Oliver Stone's Alexander, the HBO series Rome and Showtimes' The Tudors.

Writers adapting a work for another medium (e.g., a film screenplay from a book) often make significant changes, additions to, or omissions from the original plot in the book, on the grounds that these changes were necessary to make a good film.[9] These changes are sometimes to the dismay of fans of the original work.

edit in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_license

[--Pete]

Hi,

This whole debate is about "Artistic license" . . .

Only if by 'artistic license' you mean ignorant usage of your native language and stupidity beyond comprehension. Artistic license is "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" Obviously, a person is not an interval of time nor a season. But with this line, old Bill the Quill starts the string of metaphors that comprise the bulk of that sonnet and lead to the conclusion. 'Artistic license' is expanding the range of the language.

In this case, the language is not enriched. It is diminished. To use 'decimate' as a synonym for 'eradicate', 'exterminate', and 'extirpate' (and possibly others) makes it redundant and loses a term for severe losses short of annihilation.

Artistic license? Bah! Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.

--Pete

EDIT: In the long cut and paste you provided, you could have stopped at " . . . to improve a piece of art." If you can explain how misusing 'decimated' improved that dialog over using the correct term 'exterminated', then you have a point. Especially since, as has already been mentioned, extermination was exactly what had happened and the person speaking was a highly educated and intelligent linguist.

[Jester]

Artistic license is a concept that, I think, has been stretched far beyond its intended purpose. It is meant to be a rule that, in the service of some greater work of art, you may occasionally break a known rule if obeying that rule would be more harmful. Beethoven can, occasionally, write parallel fifths to make a certain progression work. Shakespeare can be ungrammatical for poetry's sake, or bend poetic form in order to be understood. Boldness and artistry should be favoured over nit-picky rule-following.

It is not an "artistic license to kill". You cannot simply break rules without thought, and deflect all criticisms with it. Bad writing is still bad writing.

I'm not sure where I stand on "decimate" (whether it has irrevocably changed meaning or not), but since there are a dozen words that work just as well, I don't think "poetic license" fits here.

-Jester

[Jim]

Hi,

This whole debate is about "Artistic license" . . .

Only if by 'artistic license' you mean ignorant usage of your native language and stupidity beyond comprehension.

Hi,

Oh YAH!!! I may be stupid beyond comprehension today, But you will be Pete tomorrow.

My cut & paste is in reference to your original post. The language I speak now in 2010 is a modified/evolved verson of the English language [UK] used by the first settlers in America. Words have changed over time and will continue to do so. The word "decimate" has not changed by definition, it's just no longer used in the sense of 1 in 10, this meaning is now obsolete. To me decimate means destroy, for me the words are interchangeable.

Pete my dear friend, this web site is for you, please advise when your page is up.
Common Errors in English Usage

Aren’t some of these points awfully picky?
"This is a relative matter. One person’s gaffe is another’s peccadillo. Some common complaints about usage strike me as too persnickety, but I’m just discussing mistakes in English that happen to bother me. Feel free to create your own page listing your own pet peeves, but I welcome suggestions for additions to these pages. First, read the Commonly Made Suggestions page, and if you still want to write me, please do so, after reading the instructions on that page."
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/index.html

In this case, the language is not enriched. It is diminished. To use 'decimate' as a synonym for 'eradicate', 'exterminate', and 'extirpate' (and possibly others) makes it redundant and loses a term for severe losses short of annihilation.

Common Errors in English Usage
"People sensitive to the roots of words are uncomfortably reminded of that ten percent figure when they see the word used instead to mean “annihilate,” “obliterate,” etc. You can usually get away with using “decimate” to mean “drastically reduce in numbers,” but you’re taking a bigger risk when you use it to mean “utterly wipe out.”

Artistic license? Bah! Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.

The END

[--Pete]

Hi,

Only if by 'artistic license' you mean ignorant usage of your native language and stupidity beyond comprehension.

Oh YAH!!! I may be stupid beyond comprehension today, But you will be Pete tomorrow.

You're older than I am, Jim. You also were born in the USA. By my calculation, you've used English for ten years longer than I have. And you still don't understand the impersonal you?

--Pete

[LennyLen]

Other than mini-series, I can't think of any that were ended 'just right' (although Lost might do it today). Any candidates?

Babylon 5. The entire five-season story arc was in place before they even began production. There had also been multiple plot variations written in advance should they have to write out any characters due to actors quitting, etc.

[Jim]

Hi,

Only if by 'artistic license' you mean ignorant usage of your native language and stupidity beyond comprehension.

Oh YAH!!! I may be stupid beyond comprehension today, But you will be Pete tomorrow.

You're older than I am, Jim. You also were born in the USA. By my calculation, you've used English for ten years longer than I have. And you still don't understand the impersonal you?

--Pete

Hi,

Yes to all the above, except the "impersonal you?" I don't understand what you mean, could you please explain.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Yes to all the above, except the "impersonal you?" I don't understand what you mean, could you please explain.

From your question, I'm not sure if you don't know what the 'impersonal you' is or if you don't see how it applies in this situation. So, first, an impersonal pronoun is a pronoun that does not refer to a particular person or thing. An example is "Wherever you go, there you are." Clearly those 'you' don't mean the person or persons spoken to. The actual meaning of that sentence is "Wherever one goes, there one is." Another example is "It is raining." although some argue about this one.

Only if by 'artistic license' you mean ignorant usage of your native language and stupidity beyond comprehension.

OK, so parse this sentence in light of the conversation to that point. You claimed that the usage of 'decimate' was artistic license. My reply was that your (meaning 'you' Jim) argument would only be valid if you (again, meaning you Jim) defined 'artistic license' to be " . . . ignorant usage of your native language and stupidity beyond comprehension." Since this is a definition which I'm counter-factually attributing to you (Jim), then the 'your' in that phrase cannot refer to you (Jim). It must refer to some unnamed generic 'you' (not Jim). Indeed, it refers to some generic, unnamed writer -- or possibly many such.

Clearly the use of 'impersonal pronouns' can be a bit tricky and prone to misunderstanding. Which is why I gave you a link to what both explained what they are and why not to use them, at least in formal writing.

--Pete

EDIT: It is a sign of the times that the best online English writing guide I could find is from Sweden. Then again, anyone taught in the USA and under the age of 50 has probably never had a grammar course. They pretty much quit teaching it around '70.

[Vandiablo]

...and the person speaking was a highly educated and intelligent linguist.

I give partial credit to Occhi here:

Many movements come from the efforts of cunning linguists.

V

[Vandiablo]

Then again, anyone taught in the USA and under the age of 50 has probably never had a grammar course. They pretty much quit teaching it around '70.

We got to easily learn that stuff because we did had Grammar Rock to learn with.

[Lissa]

EDIT: It is a sign of the times that the best online English writing guide I could find is from Sweden. Then again, anyone taught in the USA and under the age of 50 has probably never had a grammar course. They pretty much quit teaching it around '70.

I'd say more like 90 to 95%. Someone that got into AP English or someone from a smaller school district might have seen more of grammar in their curriculm than those in larger school districts (A or larger districts).

[Treesh]

Someone that got into AP English or someone from a smaller school district might have seen more of grammar in their curriculm than those in larger school districts (A or larger districts).

I disagree. I had AP English in high school in a smaller school district and they assumed you already knew grammar so they didn't bother with teaching it at that point. The only time I ever learned English grammar was a smattering here and there when I was taught Spanish, German, and Russian. None of my English courses, including literature ones, ever taught grammar. I don't see why you think smaller vs larger districts would cause a difference.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I had AP English in high school in a smaller school district and they assumed you already knew grammar so they didn't bother with teaching it at that point.

In college, I used to talk about 'the missing year'. Throughout our freshman and sophomore years, we'd be told that 'that will be covered in your future courses'. Then in the junior and senior years, when the same topics came up, they'd be prefaced with 'as you already know'. It's not good, but it is understandable at the college level where there is a large degree of freedom in what a professor chooses to cover. But in K-12, it is inexcusable.

--Pete

[Lissa]

I don't see why you think smaller vs larger districts would cause a difference.

I came from a smaller district (Omak was barely A sized when I went through school), yet we still got some heavy grammar built into the Middle School level English classes (7th and 8th grade, that was early/mid 80s). When looking at the curriculms of some of the large school districts in Washington state, you didn't see that kind of thing. As Pete mentioned, grammar was pretty much forgotten in the large school districts, but most of the small school districts did continue to push grammar, maybe not as a seperate course, but it was there.

[kandrathe]

I came from a smaller district (Omak was barely A sized when I went through school), yet we still got some heavy grammar built into the Middle School level English classes (7th and 8th grade, that was early/mid 80s). When looking at the curriculms of some of the large school districts in Washington state, you didn't see that kind of thing. As Pete mentioned, grammar was pretty much forgotten in the large school districts, but most of the small school districts did continue to push grammar, maybe not as a seperate course, but it was there.

I came from a small school as well. I still vividly remember the year I spent in Ms. Fitzgerald's class diagramming sentences, reviewing parts of speech, and giving a thorough analysis of Strunk and White's "The Elements of Style".