Aller au contenu

Photo

On 'smart' and 'scientific' protagonists.


  • Ce sujet est fermé Ce sujet est fermé
170 réponses à ce sujet

#1
David7204

David7204
  • Members
  • 15 187 messages
I wrote this yesterday but felt it deserving of it's own thread. I want to talk a bit about supposedly 'smart' protagonists.

There have been countless posts on this forum suggesting that Shepard or one of her allies solve problems by 'doing research.' Kill the Reapers by 'doing research.' Control them by 'doing research.' Develop some super-duper weapons by 'doing research.' Cure Thane by 'doing research.' When I ask people what Shepard should have been doing when they complain about incarceration, pretty much the only answer I hear is Shepard 'doing research' on the Reapers. The list goes on.

There's a reason why conflicts with great enemies in epic fiction tend to be solved by violence, not by 'doing research.' And a reason why people need to give up this idea of protagonists solving problems by 'doing research' or whatever it is they imagine smart people do. It's poor writing.

All the things the audiences associate with science -beakers of bubbling chemicals, equations on whiteboards, lasers and lab coats - those are all just props. The real science is the thought. And the thought is invisible. The audience can't see it. Can't perceive it. Can't appreciate it.

Technology begins with an idea. An applied principle or series of principles. And once the ideas are in place...it's just a matter of work - the tremendous and often difficult process of building and refining that applied principle. But work is work. There's no interesting themes in a villain being defeated with work.

So when a problem is solved by 'science' and science alone...it's really nothing more than a Deus Ex Machina. One moment a person has no idea how to solve a problem. The next they do. One moment the galaxy is helpless as the Reapers are on the cusp of invading. The next moment Shepard comes up with an idea for a super-weapon. Or super-technology. Or super-whatever. After which, it's just a process of refining the idea and building the thing. And even if the weapon is actually somehow scientifically and logistically possible against the Reapers, it would be ridiculous. Because where's the conflict in that premise? Where's the drama? Where are the themes? There are none.

So allthrough scientific work requires intelligence and experience, it's thematically no different than other work. And conflicts solved by work and nothing else are boring and narratively pointless. How thematically ridiculous would it be to have the Reapers defeated and conflict lasting millions of years solved because factories produced a certain amount of weapons? Because shipyards built a certain number of ships? Incredibly ridiculous and incredibly lame. Scientific work is ultimately no different. There's no meaning in a great villain being defeated because a bunch of scientists spent X number of hours in the lab.

Which brings us back to what seems to be the general BSN sneering at violence in stories as immature and mindless and praising science as the supposed smart and mature writer's way to solve conflicts.

Stories have protagonists confront conflicts with violence because violence does carry themes. Themes of courage. Themes of unity, friendship, and love as characters see their friends and lovers at risk. Themes of loyalty and sacrifice. Themes of strength and honor. Of despair, of loss, of hope, and of triumph. And these themes simply don't apply to the labors and invisible thoughts of a scientist 'researching.'

I think of Gandalf speaking to Pippen in Minas Tirith about 'a far green country' as a troll and their death hammers on the door a few feet away. I think about Aragorn speaking to his men before the Black Gates. (Lord of the Rings is very good with this sort of thing.) I think of Shepard kissing Liara after the battle in Lair of the Shadow Broker. Incredibly strong moments, and all heavily and directly associated with violence.

You know how many such moments I've seen taking place in a laboratory? Taking place as characters sit and type at computers? Zero.

Consider Breaking Bad. A protagonist hailed as someone who solves their problems with science. But look carefully. When the audience knows about the plan beforehand, Walter never comes up with the idea himself. Every time the plan is known ahead of time to the viewer, the original idea comes from somewhere else.

Walter builds a battery in the desert...after Jesse suggests it. Walter breaks into the evidence room using a magnet...after Jesse suggests a magnet. Robs the train using a clever weight idea...after Jesse suggests the method how. Why? Because the writers understand that a person just coming up with an idea and successfully applying it is off the table. Because it's boring. Because it carries no themes.

Science always exists on the periphery in these kinds of stories. There's science in the weapons and defences the characters use, science in the ships and other vehicles they travel on. Science in AIs and electronic warfare. Science in the characters overriding locks and hacking drones and disrupting shields. But thinking science to be some sort of glorious arrow of rationality and intelligence that pierces through the muck of mysticism and immaturity to solve whatever conflict the story focuses on conveys a failure to understand both stories and science.

I feel I should cap things off by reminding the BSN that even if this sort of thing wasn't a huge problem from a narrative standpoint, the chancesof anyone coming up with a plausible scientific solution to a very difficult problem faced by people with lots of resources (which is going to be any epic story, including Mass Effect) might as well be zero. It  can be done with a small group of people facing a relatively small challenge (such as breaking into a vault), but it's next to impossible for large-scale conflicts. Either the science itself is going to be fabricated, or it's going to be so effective and obvious that everyone else looks like a complete and total idiot for not using the solution  beforehand. I'm reminded of science fiction stories where the good guys defeat the enemy ship by scanning and then 'matching their shield frequency' to the enemy's 'weapon frequency,' upon which the enemy's weapons apparently bounce off and blow up their own ship. Pretty much every 'Reaper killing' suggestion I've seen on the BSN has fit these two problems like a glove.

Modifié par David7204, 08 janvier 2014 - 09:37 .


#2
His Name was HYR!!

His Name was HYR!!
  • Members
  • 9 145 messages
Davey, be a good boy and take your meds now.

#3
SwobyJ

SwobyJ
  • Members
  • 7 376 messages
Ok David.

#4
Village_Idiot

Village_Idiot
  • Members
  • 2 219 messages
This is not going to end well.

#5
David7204

David7204
  • Members
  • 15 187 messages

SwobyJ wrote...

Ok David.

Nothing else to say, huh?

#6
His Name was HYR!!

His Name was HYR!!
  • Members
  • 9 145 messages

Shadrach 88 wrote...

This is not going to end well.



You can't end what doesn't start.

#7
In Exile

In Exile
  • Members
  • 28 738 messages

David7204 wrote...
All the things the audiences associate with science -beakers of bubbling chemicals, equations on whiteboards, lasers and lab coats - those are all just props. The real science is the thought. And the thought is invisible. The audience can't see it. Can't perceive it. Can't appreciate it.


You're not talking about science. You're talking about engineering, And you're so comically wrong about this that it's just kind of funny to read. The gap between "theory" and "practice" is ridiculous. The easiest way to see this is to look at how hard it is for an experimental physicist to implement half of what a theoretical physicist talks about. You can have the best elaborate theory in the world, but getting it to actually produce useful stuff is difficult and challenging.  

It's also a two-way street: something sounds quite sound and coherent in theory, but repeatedly fails in practice, which feeds back into revising the original concept (that only worked in theory). 

For everything else, you're just wrong that scientific endeavour can't carry themes. The best counter example being stories centered around the creation of an AI. 

Modifié par In Exile, 29 décembre 2013 - 08:58 .


#8
David7204

David7204
  • Members
  • 15 187 messages
The fact that I specifically introduced science as a means for characters to solve problems should really have made it clear I was talking about and am only concerned about applied science. I really do not particularly care about semantics between 'engineering' and 'applied science.'

And no. A story centered around the creation of AI would almost surely center around the questions of morality and consciousness and all that. The conflict wouldn't be centered around applied science or solved by applied science at all. Nobody is going to come along with 'Science!' and solve the central conflict of the narrative. And it would be a crap story if they did. The fact that AIs could be made would almost certainly be established right from the beginning.

Modifié par David7204, 29 décembre 2013 - 09:06 .


#9
Zan51

Zan51
  • Members
  • 800 messages
I am actually agreeing with you here David. Good stories, good movies and so on have 3 components - Violence, Humor and Sex. Violence and sex cause tension, give you reasons for the story, add the excitement etc, and the odd burst of humor diffuses it, lets us relax before the author starts building the tension again. As you say science is there, but off screen, possibly the setting for the story, as in stories like Babylon 5.
Now take the Apollo 13 real life story - how much time is ever spent in showing that room full of scientists with items that the astronauts had on board, trying to devise a solution to the need for a carbon dioxide air scrubber? The original movie back in 1995, invented tensions in the lives of the people in Mission Control to make the story more exciting and interesting.

You know, I cannot think of any exciting movie or story about developing an AI that I have seen. That one about the
"boy" David had to be one of the prettiest and most boring movies out there, ranking with 2001 A Space Oddyssey, book and movie both,  and the movie. Bicentennial man with Robin Williams in it. I hate anything where Science is the supposed character in the story and people are cardboad cut outs, moved about aimlessly just to chow of the super-duper science idea - just like AC Clarke's later works. Nothing was quite as good after his early work when he lost his connection with actual real people and just showcased his science ideas.

Modifié par Zan51, 29 décembre 2013 - 09:18 .


#10
In Exile

In Exile
  • Members
  • 28 738 messages

David7204 wrote...

The fact that I specifically introduced science as a means for characters to solve problems should really have made it clear I was talking about and am only concerned about applied science. I really do not particularly care about semantics between 'engineering' and 'applied science.'


You're just wrong. What you've described is not an accurate description of how engineering works, and it's not an accurate description of how science works. 

And no. A story centered around the creation of AI would almost surely center around the questions of morality and consciousness and all that. The conflict wouldn't be centered around applied science or solved by applied science at all. Nobody is going to come along with 'Science!' and solve the central conflict of the narrative. And it would be a crap story if they did. The fact that AIs could be made would almost certainly be established right from the beginning.


It's almost sad how much you misunderstand science, and funny how the bolded portion is pretty much the plot of ME3 at every level, which you're somehow in favour of and simulatenously against, according to this OP. 

#11
David7204

David7204
  • Members
  • 15 187 messages
If you're talking about the Crucible, I'm very much against it. It's a stupid plot point which never should have made it into the game, sadly condoned by far too many people on the basis of little more than "I can't think of anything better and can't imagine anyone else doing so so I support this."

Do you have an actual argument here? Anything aside from pointless platitudes? Anything to counter the points I made aside from "You're just wrong"?

Modifié par David7204, 29 décembre 2013 - 09:34 .


#12
Astartes Marine

Astartes Marine
  • Members
  • 1 615 messages

David7204 wrote...
There's a reason why conflicts with great enemies are solved by violence, not by 'doing research.'

I'm just going to pop in here and say that this does not always occur.  The conflict is not always solved through violence.

I'm reminded of "The War of the Worlds", wherein the Martian Invaders are not defeated by any kind of conflict mankind can bring upon them, rather they constantly shrug off humanity's attempts to fight back, but by simple microbes and bacteria that we have long been used to but the Martians had no built up immunity.

#13
AresKeith

AresKeith
  • Members
  • 34 128 messages
Is David talking smack against Gandalf?

#14
SwobyJ

SwobyJ
  • Members
  • 7 376 messages

AresKeith wrote...

Is David talking smack against Gandalf?


See, Gandalf is not Frodo.

Regardless of all of Frodo and Sam's discussions about what to do and how to do it properly. Nevermind that.

#15
nos_astra

nos_astra
  • Members
  • 5 048 messages
When it comes to "doing research" to solve problems I'd recommend not having the protagonist solve species-wide, centuries-old problems on a whim.
It makes the universe look small and too simple when one person knows the answer to a variety of unrelated, supposedly complex problems.

Smart - the protagonist should acknowledge that there are problems that can't be solved in a split second and he doesn't have the answer to every problem he comes across.
Scientific - there can be problems that he's qualified to solve but even then running down ten corridors, shooting mooks and picking from A, B and C shouldn't be the standard approach.

#16
ImaginaryMatter

ImaginaryMatter
  • Members
  • 4 163 messages
I don't know, Star Trek was good when characters sat (or walked down hallways) and talked about overcoming their problems with science and then actually doing it. Those passive actions were interesting because they did carry themes; maybe they weren't 'heroic' ones, but they were certainly relevant and interesting.

Modifié par ImaginaryMatter, 29 décembre 2013 - 10:00 .


#17
David7204

David7204
  • Members
  • 15 187 messages
If the story exists on the basis of problems the protagonist is 'qualified' to solve and proceeds to solve, there's no conflict and thus no real story at all. It's just watching someone complete a task.

#18
sH0tgUn jUliA

sH0tgUn jUliA
  • Members
  • 16 818 messages
It's not just epic sci-fi either. If we take a story like "A Time To Kill" by John Grisham (1989) made in to a movie in 1996 by Rupert Holmes, starring Samuel L. Jackson and Matthew McConaughey, we have a smart protagonist named Jake Brigance. The story is set in a fictional town in Mississippi, and Jake is a defense attorney who faces an uphill battle defending his client in an all white town against two charges of capital murder. It's a good read and a fast read, so I'm not going to spoil it if you haven't read it.

The framework already exists: the law. What Jake has to figure out is how to best use the law to defend his client. Again as in the first post, he has a team helping him who are researching laws and previous cases he can cite in court. They present him with ideas. He's also doing research, but life is throwing piles of s*** at him and keeping him distracted so most of this work is falling on his team. So he gets these ideas from his team and he has to look through them and select the ones that he thinks best apply to the case. But again one of his team found the legal case precedent for him.

The story wasn't resolved by violence, but by brains. There was violence in the story, but it wasn't committed by the protagonist. Yet these kind of stories can be exciting if they are well written and this one is well written. The characters are very well written.

If you have smart protagonists, you up the ante. You have to have smarter more sophisticated antagonists and a more complex plot. You can't have the cartoon Kai Lengs and The Illusive Men. You have the spy on the Normandy whom you least suspect: one who has been helping you and who has been gathering intelligence for the enemy. This kind of character is extremely difficult to write well.

Tela Vasir was such a character, but they had to show you she was going to betray you with those shifty eyes and thus make Shepard look like a dumb ass because YOU as the player knew she was going to betray Shepard. Really, Bioware? Honestly, Bioware should have played her straight with no shifty eyes, and made her a good honest sociopath who is "helping" Shepard for the moment and biding her time. I've known sociopaths and they can come across as the most sincere people. What they did with Vasir? That's child's comic book stuff. Come on Mac, you can do better than that.

Reaper killing solutions? I'll quote ME Lore. "The Thanix's core is a liquid alloy of iron, uranium, and tungsten suspended in an electromagnetic field powered by element zero. The molten metal, accelerated to a significant fraction of the speed of light, solidifies into a projectile as it is fired, hitting targets with enough force to pierce any known shield or armor."

They knew about reaper armor and shields. They fought Sovereign. There were pieces of reaper hull from that. They fought the Collector ship which in all likelihood had reaper shields. They studied the derelict reaper. So they were known. However, here is the problem. You want to destroy the reapers conventionally? Go for it. You had three years. Forget the standard dreadnoughts. Don't worry about the Treaty of Farixen because "Carriers" are exempt (it says so in the codex that they're the same size and firepower) and you can slap those big guns on Carriers.

Here's the problem: Do you know how many thousand carriers and frigate class vessels you'd have to crank out in a period of three years to even stand a chance? You've bankrupted every single economy several times over. Then what if the Reapers don't show up for another hundred years? All those ships need regular maintenance. You had no idea they were going to show up in three years until they were already here. For all you knew they were stuck in dark space and trying to find a way in through the Citadel and that's what that human reaper was going to be for (rendered irrelevant by Arrival).

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 29 décembre 2013 - 10:02 .


#19
David7204

David7204
  • Members
  • 15 187 messages
No, Julia. Having a character the audience trusts turn out to suddenly be a traitor is silly and contrived. Using dramatic irony and hinting to the audience that characters aren't what they seem is good writing. What you suggest isn't.

Law works as a medium for solving problems works well (and thus explains the popularity of legal dramas), because law, like violence, is rich with themes. It's built on themes. Personally speaking, the original (and the only the original. And only the episodes until Jerry Orbach left) Law and Order is one of my favorite shows because of this.

Modifié par David7204, 29 décembre 2013 - 10:10 .


#20
Mr.House

Mr.House
  • Members
  • 23 338 messages

David7204 wrote...

No, Julia. Having a character the audience trusts turn out to suddenly be a traitor is silly and contrived. Using dramatic irony and hinting to the audience that characters aren't what they seem is good writing. What you suggest isn't.

:mellow:

#21
sH0tgUn jUliA

sH0tgUn jUliA
  • Members
  • 16 818 messages

David7204 wrote...

No, Julia. Having a character the audience trusts turn out to suddenly be a traitor is silly and contrived. Using dramatic irony and hinting to the audience that characters aren't what they seem is good writing. What you suggest isn't.


So then, in the case I cited, what would you suggest to make that hint less obvious. That clue was like beating you over the head - this character is going to betray you. They may have wanted to keep the police in the apartment and had perhaps more than one person act suspicious.

#22
Steelcan

Steelcan
  • Members
  • 23 358 messages

Mr.House wrote...

David7204 wrote...

No, Julia. Having a character the audience trusts turn out to suddenly be a traitor is silly and contrived. Using dramatic irony and hinting to the audience that characters aren't what they seem is good writing. What you suggest isn't.

:mellow:

The Freys would like a word David

#23
AresKeith

AresKeith
  • Members
  • 34 128 messages

David7204 wrote...

No, Julia. Having a character the audience trusts turn out to suddenly be a traitor is silly and contrived. Using dramatic irony and hinting to the audience that characters aren't what they seem is good writing. What you suggest isn't.


:mellow::mellow:

Bahahahaha :lol::lol::lol:

Just Stop david

#24
Guest_LagoonaLahaana_*

Guest_LagoonaLahaana_*
  • Guests

David7204 wrote...

No, Julia. Having a character the audience trusts turn out to suddenly be a traitor is silly and contrived. Using dramatic irony and hinting to the audience that characters aren't what they seem is good writing. What you suggest isn't.

Law works as a medium for solving problems works well (and thus explains the popularity of legal dramas), because law, like violence, is rich with themes. It's built on themes. Personally speaking, the original (and the only the original. And only the episodes until Jerry Orbach left) Law and Order is one of my favorite shows because of this.


That happened in swtor sith warrior story and people went berserk, mainly because they couldn't get revenge. It also got people to replay the story again to see what if any clues they missed.

Modifié par LagoonaLahaana, 29 décembre 2013 - 10:25 .


#25
MassivelyEffective0730

MassivelyEffective0730
  • Members
  • 9 230 messages
That's nice David. 

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 29 décembre 2013 - 10:28 .