technical jargon

POSTED BY: pedme84
UPDATED: Thursday, October 10, 2002 04:33
VIEWED: 2493
PAGE 2 of 2

PREV PAGE 1 2

JASONZZZ

Thursday, October 10, 2002 3:49 AM

I am going to take a poke here and have to guess there aren't many budding starship pilots, multi-dimension cruiser engineers, or astrophysicists amongst our viewers. With that said, I sincerely doubt that it would take much to convince the audience of Kaylee capabilities. A hardcore enough audience will in fact start making up excuses and justifications for the show as to why there is such horrific anomalies between the science and physics that are going on and what is coming out of the actor's lips.

Case in point - StarTrek Technical Manual. 'nuff said.

I am not saying that the viewers are dumb or stupid. I am just saying that they aren't *that* smart either.

Quote:
Originally posted by Thegn:
I think, the tech jargon is more important then you are making it. A character like Kaylee, for instance, is defined to a large extent by her jargon. For any other character maybe it's not so important, but Kaylee has to sound convincing when she remarks about her stuff or she fails to present the persona of a competent engineer.

Now of course, if your audience is stupid, the writer has more artistic freedom, but that's a dangerous assumption to make. If your audience is not stupid, they'll see through poorly constructed dialogue. I'm of the mind to beleive that, in any writing, one should never assume that the audience can be easily fooled. It's always better to do your homework and not leave the jargon to whim, even in cases where it may not seem important.

-----------
In the Dark Ages, Romano-Celtic Britannia was over-run by Viking-like cultures collectively called the Anglo-Saxons. They were led by warlords called Drytinns, and the greatest warriors among them were the Thegns.

THEGN

Thursday, October 10, 2002 4:33 AM

I know of at least one astrophysicists and one quantum physicists who watch the show. I think you'd be surprised how many are out there, but that's not the point. The point is to make it sound convincing. I can frequently pick out when someone has flagrantly violated the rules of thermodynamics or mechanics. If I don't pick it up right away, I'll usually pick it up later. It's often a disappointment when I finally realize that someone has really got their science wrong. Science fiction is about science. If it weren't about science it would be called something else. To suggest that you can downplay that aspect of it, because your audience isn't "that smart" is inconsiderate writing, and you run a serious risk of insulting people's intelligence.

The Star Trek Technical Manual is a good example, since you brought it up. I know a lot of people, who are not any where near being astrophysicists who can tell that book is hocky. So contrary to what you are suggesting, people can pick this stuff up. It is obvious when the writers have put very little thought into the show. People may not be able to pick out the exact technical problems, but they often are not fooled by poor writing. It is dangerous for any writer to write with the notion that the audience will not be smart enough to notice that they have not put enough thought into their story.

-----------
In the Dark Ages, Romano-Celtic Britannia was over-run by Viking-like cultures collectively called the Anglo-Saxons. They were led by warlords called Drytinns, and the greatest warriors among them were the Thegns.

PREV PAGE 1 2