conuly: (Default)
conuly ([personal profile] conuly) wrote2005-07-03 08:54 pm
Entry tags:

So, I was thinking about Star Trek and conformity....

And in my thoughts, I was rantling-ing about how we keep getting these characters who are not-human, and how a big part of their development is showing them how they really want to be human. Human, of course, means NT.

And then I was thinking about how this push for normality goes beyond mental normality. Geordie's visor makes him able to see differently from other people. In some cases, this is an advantage - he can see things we can't. And yet, consistently, his big wish is to see normally. Why? Because that's better?

I can forgive Star Trek for a lot of things, like the idiotic Universal Translators (not possible, as near as I can see) and the fact that aliens all look human and have human facial expressions (cheaper, easier, kinder on the actors) and the fact that Earth culture = American culture (tell me why Picard quotes a lot of Shakespeare, but not much Moliere. I often wonder how different Star Trek would be if it had been done somewhere else) and the anti-religion bent (hey, I'm an agnostic, I'm not whining) but... this is starting to irritate me.

I don't want to re-invent the wheel here, so I went to google to see what has already been said. And can you believe that I didn't find anything? Clearly, I'm using the wrong search criteria. I cannot possibly be the only person who's wondered along these lines.

If I decide I am, expect a mild, and probably less-well-educated-than-it-should-be rant soon.

[identity profile] scottrossi.livejournal.com 2005-07-03 09:20 pm (UTC)(link)
one quick question ... wtf is NT? call me backward but that is one abbreviation i havent seen yet. i imagine it is "normal" something right ...

[identity profile] brownkitty.livejournal.com 2005-07-04 08:10 am (UTC)(link)
Would "baseline" work as a reference term?