• Rhaedas@fedia.io
      18·
      2 days ago

      It’s been a while since I actually watched it, but the damage was more to the rest of the crew than to Tuvix. Letting him interact with them and become a new individual created the situation. There’s still the issue of how he felt, and that’s unavoidable, but he also had no previous life to lose and would be right back where he came from afterward (nowhere). SNW showed stasis fields are a thing for critical medical situations, so he should have been put into one until they figured out what to do.

      So Janeway did do something wrong, just not the moral trap people want to use.

      • Sculptus Poe@lemmy.world
        8·
        2 days ago

        Stasis was the right thing… the other thing they could have done is pull a “William Thomas Riker”, duplicated Tuvix and then immediately defused one of the two. (I am afraid that all it takes to pull a Riker is to disable the destruction of the original as it is copied up to the ship. Probably this is a closely guarded secret so they don’t get more ‘Bones’ situations with people refusing to transport.)

        • Rhaedas@fedia.io
          12·
          2 days ago

          That gets into the “why can’t they do this” part of transporters. If they can do too much, then lots of things become unnecessary. Lots of episodes where the transporter cures an illness or gets people out of a situation. IRL it’s what you want, but not in a story (insert three panel “intro problem/quick solution/credits”)

          They explained Riker’s as a very unique situation that couldn’t be duplicated (convenient). Ignored various episodes that solved it through transporter filtering, never using it again.

          What about the mass problem? Did the transporter create more mass for the two Rikers? (It’s a particle beamer, not energy) Did Tuvok have double the mass? Is this a good way to lose weight?

          As a new scifi writer, I’ve run into that problem of where to cut off trying to explain too much about the pretend technology I’m using and hope the reader accepts that it just works that way and stop asking questions.

          • verity_kindle@sh.itjust.works
            1·
            22 hours ago

            Joss Whedon did a remarkable job of this in Firefly. They had a big spinny analog with mechanical parts that could be fixed by one woman with wrenches. Never explained interplanetary travel, never had to explain it. When you saw the engine room, you knew exactly what you were seeing, because you filled in the spaces with your own imagination. Simple, satisfying, character-driven storyline. “Engine breaks” was the driving plot point of one episode and it was effective, because the crew didn’t have time for technobabble. The ship was the deeply loved character in danger. They had to abandon her to save themselves. One part would fix her and they didn’t have it available.

          • binarytobis@lemmy.world
            5·
            2 days ago

            I heard a writer say once that you should internally have three layers of explanation, and provide those or more as it becomes necessary. Like “These are transporters. They break you into molecules, store your data, and reassemble you on the other side. What if there’s a malfunction? Safety features would keep the data in the buffer.” And maybe one more. Reader’s eyes glaze over if you talk about any more than that, so more can wait until it becomes plot significant.

            Or so I heard, I’m not a writer.

            • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.cafeEnglish
              2·
              20 hours ago

              I saw an interview with their physics/science consultant, who found it a very frustrating job. He said they’d bring him a script, and say “We’ve got this problem, and we want to get out of it by doing (some nonsensical science thing). What do you think?”

              And he’d tell them that it was ridiculous, no such thing exists, it wouldn’t work like that, it’s stupid, it’s impossible, WTF?, etc., and they’d say “Eh, we’re doing it anyway.”

            • Rhaedas@fedia.io
              5·
              2 days ago

              That sounds right. Have an outline of what might be necessary for a situation, but don’t over explain it. And while it’s for visual media, I think Roddenberry’s suggestion also works. Don’t take out a technology and explain it, just show it in use (don’t tell). The reader will get it.

          • Sculptus Poe@lemmy.world
            6·
            2 days ago

            I’ve always been suspicious of any explanation they gave for their molecule scrambler. Starfleet is at core a military establishment, and they will say any kind of lie to keep the plebs in line and everything running smoothly. Also, I think the buffer allows them to use some sort of mass reserve to fix missing bits, I think Scotty explained something like that when he put himself in the buffer and turned on the refresh to cycle, and it just did the whole thing for Riker. Now, whether that buffer is holding particles or just a record of the poor destroyed original, I don’t know what to believe. (All speculation of course, based on years of transporter incidents.)

    • Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.club
      5·
      2 days ago

      Janeway did nothing wrong.

      She waited the whole episode instead of shooting that monstrosity on sight.
      Tuvok & the orchid would have understood.

      • Impractical_Island@lemmy.world
        1·
        21 hours ago

        Now see, I interpret this as a message to begin the onslaught of heaven smiles - lil free speech domestic terrorists - but master doesn’t say how. Master only say “do” and “you’re wrong.” I’m done being wrong. Going to eat all three of master’s eyes. They crispy crunchy when I done fileting them!