Lian wrote:You keep thinking that. But you think alot of things. You are arguing the only effective method of communication is to sink to the lowest common denominator.
I'm arguing for "sinking" to the BEST common denominator.
Obviously, if you "sink" too low, then that causes confusion among the other people who are reading your work, and you've solved nothing.
I am saying the reason why in the real world we have lingustic standards is because its not true.
Linguistic standards vary wildly from audience to audience. You chose to write on an internet forum.
A writer writes for his audience.
Yes. Yes there is. The reason why one might use a long and more complicated word greater presion of meaning. This is generally why highy technical fields have theirown jargon.
That is true. However, if nobody understands that very precise word - and worse, you know that your audience probably won't understand it - then there's no value in that precision, is there? You've tried to be as accurate as possible, and yet people are left scratching their heads.
Of course, this isn't an absolute either; there's value in technojargon in Sci-fi, since if you use extremely complex theories and words that few people understand, they're not liable to question how much of a stretch the science is.
You do still run the risk of someone knowing what it means and figuring out you BS'd them, though. If someone throws out "Schadenfreuda" in their explanation of a high-tech device, I'm calling them on it.
This is generally why the engineer won;t dumb it down. Not because he doesn't want to but because using more commonly understood words destroys the meaning.
What makes you think engineers won't dumb down their projects? Last I heard, layman terms were very popular.
So if they used the word "Schadenfreuda" instead of wormhole would it matter?
Yes, because I know what Schadenfreude is and it has nothing to do with big, glowing gates that transport people around the universe.
They used a word I was familiar with to describe something completely different from my understanding. Confusion abounds.
Because it would ruin the difficulty needed by the story. Those plots were contingent upon someone not being disitegrated.
That's the only reason? "It would be too easy otherwise"?
It's a possibility, I suppose. I find it far more likely that someone realized how stupid it was and did away with it.
Think about how many episodes there are after the first season, and when that ability just drops out. Are you claiming that ALL the stories after the first season had that necessary difficulty that would have been ruined with disintegration guns? As opposed to the first season? That's more than just a stretch.
So the specifics here are.. IF you are given a visual representation it doesn't need an explanation. Only in the purely written word do you need anything resembling explanation. Is that what you are saying here?
Please stop taking my arguments and putting them into extremes.
I'm saying that movies have different standards than fiction writing when it comes to creating a plausible scenario. Because you have a strong visual component, it becomes easier to suspend disbelief.
In writing, there usually is no visual component, so the scenario's construction is entirely dependant upon the author's ability to create a fictional realm, with words, that clearly establishes what's happening without confusion.
Again, in the Star Wars novels, they actually DO explain blasters and hyperdrives. It helps better explain the mechanics of what's happening in the world around them, and how the people interact with these devices.
I don't think knowing them are particularly problematic. I think explanations thrown in the middle of story make ti crap. I think that's what apendixes, rpg books and so on are for. I think Luke suddenly thinking about in detail how hoverlifts work would be like a detective novel suddenly explain the combustion engine in the middle of a chase scene.
Well, that's your opinion, and I'm certainly in no position to challenge it.
Well, except that combustion engine thing. As I've already stated, no one needs to write out explanations for technologies that actually exist.
So you think that explanations within the story for fictional technologies detract from the scenario (do try to be a little less crude with your language; we're already on watch, here). And likewise, you insist that bizarre, ridiculous technologies without an explanation do not impact your enjoyment of a scenario at all.
We now have a firm, irreconcileable difference of opinion. I intend to work from that in the future.
You are the one who said most common fantasy just adds magic. I am pointing out one of the better known fantasies that does far more.
When did I say that?
My points about magic are as follows:
Magic doesn't require an explanation for its function.
Magic does not have any assumptions attached to its use.
That's it. I recall explicity saying that magic is better when it DOES have an explanation, but that it still doesn't require one.
And I really don't see how this particular point affects the greater debate here, besides...
That's cute. You don't know what amateur means either. In all fairness you write Fanfics. Write a novel get it published. Then you can be condesending about it.
All right, all right, that was mean.
I'm an amateur too. Or at least, I've never accomplished anything that warrants greater merit than that title. But as a writer, I know the tenets and convents of good writing, and work constantly to improve toward those ends.
I do contend that I know what amateur means. A writer writes for the audience they've chosen (or, conversely, whatever audience is willing to read their work). And writing will ALWAYS be judged by those who read it. A writer's own opinion of his or her work is utterly worthless except for self-esteem issues (this is true for all writers; you, me, and even JRR Tolkien). If readers are coming to you with questions, or claim that they don't understand it, or that something's too complicated, then something is wrong, and it's not a good thing for a writer to simply assume that the reader is at fault and refuse to change anything.
An example:
As the Plush Controller, I was having some difficulty conveying the essence of a certain energy medium to people who were unfamiliar with it. This energy was haphazardly named "Chaos," and as it so happened, there were several people in the Muffin Room who identified Chaos as something else; their assumptions and understanding of that word was contrary to how I was using it.
Whose fault was it? Well, I can't exactly fault the readers for not having seen the particular definition of Chaos that I was using, so I explained what my Chaos was. But as it turned out, more and more people kept showing confusion when I used that term.
So then, who was it who recommended - and quite rightly - that I use a different term to describe the energy? One with a much less pronounced definition? And yet here you are, showing considerable resistance to the same suggestion.
To you BD. To you. Nikkou acknowledged that only plotholes properly fall under magic.
Ah, but you have told us that this isn't the first time you've had this debate.
How many times has this very discussion happened? How many times have you had lengths of OOC explanation, and even debate, to try and get this point across?
That's an indication that something is wrong with the way you're expressing it and building the scenario, and it's likely to keep happening. I'm sure there are plenty of people who can understand your take on things, but unless you want to gather those people together and just play with them, that's really not the issue.
Now since this has long since moved past a debate of words and concepts and into personal attacks i'd argue that there is personal stake in you intentionally not understanding my side.
I have stepped a little too far, and I apologize. But at the same time, I believe I have provided evidence and reasoning for everything I have said. If I have failed in this respect, please point it out.
That said, please respond to my evidence. I would rather not have my opponent attempt the old "my argument was perfectly compelling, but he refused to listen!" out.
I won't debate that she is a sorceress. Having looked up the word its pretty spot on.
Okay then.
So would you still describe her as an archeaologist? Or is it useful to make the distinction between the two words, despite them both being - arguably - accurate?
Mind you this was a very brief Survey and perhaps not the most scientific. I will try again with a larger group.
It doesn't have to be terribly scientific, but if you want, go ahead.
Of course, the more appropriate thing would be to ask those questions of the audience in question. It's very unlikely that you'd be explaining Slayers to the old man who's gardening.
If you were to look upon the people on this forum, you'd be hard pressed to find a one that didn't know every one of those terms, and that they were all mostly interchangeable.
Are there any form of magical item in arcanum? Does it use the term SCIENCE vs Sorcery and not sorcery vs Technology? Do sword or armor fail around magicians?
The forces are titled technology and magick (they spell it with a K! Oh noes! XO )
There are magic items. Mostly clothing that conveys extra protection, and melee weapons.
And swords and armor don't fail around magick. They explain why this is: magick alters the natural laws around with technology functions. This means that the more complicated the device - and therefore, the more precise and reliable the various reactions and whatnot need to be - the more likely it is to fail. Armor protecting against a sword blow or a sword cutting flesh isn't a particularly precise function of physics, so the effects of magick on these technologies are negligible. Likewise, they can be freely combined without one force interfering with the other.
Now if there were a force that kept technology from functioning it would effect every tool made by sapient hands.
No it wouldn't. I explained why just above. The Arcanum people took care of this.
Now rather than you understanding that you believe that technology just covers stuff that has happened in the last 100-200 years.
No, I DO understand that. Because I don't form my definitions of what technology is based on a video game, like I said. A sword is technology, but IN THIS GAME, it's not complex enough to "count".
Thus my argument that stating there is a difference between Sorcery and Technology has made you dumber. Just like the term "magitech" makes someone dumber, since they are showing a profound lack of understanding of technology(unless they include all magic items in said category, then it might properly be a subset like biotech)
How does hearing and understanding those terms show a lack of understanding about technology? You seem to think that merely knowing these things and recognizing that they're useful distinctions in these fictional contexts means that it alters our perception of reality.
But honestly, I'm indulging your discussion on this game making me dumber out of interest; even if you were to prove that, without a doubt, Arcanum makes people dumber, it wouldn't affect the argument at all. It's still a perfectly legitimate example of a fantasy medium that would be mush if it didn't bother to distinguish between technology and magic.
