Hat tip to Malcolm the Cynic.
There are two kinds of people involved in this game, whether as writers, readers, or what have you: Those who agree with Calvin, and those who wish to use writing as an actual means of communication. Which is as much as to say that there are parasites, and there are hosts.
Speaking of Malcolm the Cynic, he has an interesting piece up on Superversive SF: ‘Fixing the Abrams Star Trek Movies’. Very much in the vein of what I did with elements of the Star Wars prequels in ‘Creative discomfort and Star Wars’. I like his take on the Abrams Trek reboot very much.
Much thanks for the link! I did have you in mind, as well as the linked Novel Ninja post. The idea, though, came from discussions of Wright’s blog (which you’ve seen, I believe) and in the comments section of Superversive SF.
Here is my perspective on the films, which I suspect is the perspective of most non-Trekkies – this is both films, by the way:
Me: “Wow that was great! Love the cast, cool action scenes, and a fun time overall. Great popcorn flick!
Star Trek fans: WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THAT WAS THE WORST THING EVER DID YOU NOT SEE ALL OF THE PROBLEMS KIRK WAS THE WORST AND KHAN WAS THE WORST AND SPOCK WAS THE WORST AND NIHILISM AND RELATIVISM AND –
*Backs away slowly*
There are legitimate writing flaws, but I still enjoyed both films.
I think you’ll find my “Into Darkness” take even more interesting.