Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Most Star Wars literature is written for the "avarage joe" to read and to understand.
Really?
"[...]the laser cannons being mounted into the open skeletal frames required bracing and recoil-dissipation casings that would have withstood explosions measured in the giga-tonnage range. Anything less, and a single shot fired in battle would rip a destroyer or battle cruiser in two, a victim of its own lethal strength". - Slave Ship, p. 248
So your "average Joe" is familiar with the SI unit system and with the different orders of magnitude, allowing him to fully comprehend the above statement? But, perhabs more important: How many "average Joes" do you think would ask themselves, why the hell an energy weapon would generate recoil?
So stop acting like everyone here is ignorant on fictional sources of SW except for you.
Thanks for attemting to straw man me once again. I'm not assuming that anybody here is ignorant to the sources. If I were, I wouldn't talk to anybody here. I'm just saying you're far away from reading the sources like I do it, because you lack my training in the field. I can give you six possible ways of reception for the statement above, ranging from taking it literal over tech appreciation to critical statements, with five possible intentions of the author derived from the ways the quote can be received. In addition, I automatically consider methods from the fields of discourse analysis, hermeneutics and intertextuality, in order to get a "better" access to the text - or context. The latter being commonly ignored here. Or did you ever consider the idea that some statement apparent in a fictional source might, indeed, be a figure of speech rather than being meant literal? If you did, I must have missed the event of the century.
Sometimes you have to take a step back, putting your own (favored) interpretation of a source aside and perceive other ways to deal with them. Sometimes you have to take other passages of the same source or even other sources into consideration, in order to understand what you've just read. Did you ever do that?
Originally posted by Slash_KMC
Why... why would you study something like that? What's the point?
I studied a subject called "Linguistics, culture, literature and communication", formely known as "philology". The analysis of fictional sources, ranging from literature to movies, was part of the subject. As my second subject was history, I went through even more literature analysis, because German historians are pretty pedantic when it comes to the study and verification of sources. Before that, I've done some philosophy, focusing on related concepts (e.g. logic, narratology) and theories regarding human perception. And I learned some additional languages.
The point? Earning money. Works pretty well. And what did you do in the past five years?
-Microsoft IT Academy Coordinator and Network Engineer at Edison Community College.
-Owner of Computer Salvation
-B.S., Western Governors University; A.A.S., Edison Community College
Certified as such: A+, Project+, CIW Web Professional, CCAI, MCT, MCSE, MCSA, MCP
You're not the only one with an education around here Borbarad. So please quit peacocking like you are.
Other than that, I appreciate the in-depth analysis, whether I agree with it or not.
Nai, i find it VERY ironic that you are telling someone else to look at something from a fresh perspective, when you consider your own perspective infallible. As you said yourself, one should never interpret fiction on their own, you should do so with the opinions of others, and their perspectives considered. However, in many arguments on this forum, you hold to your own interpretation as INFALLIBLE, despite the fact that every other interpretation of the text besides yours disagrees with you.
Originally posted by truejedi
Nai, i find it VERY ironic that you are telling someone else to look at something from a fresh perspective, when you consider your own perspective infallible. As you said yourself, one should never interpret fiction on their own, you should do so with the opinions of others, and their perspectives considered. However, in many arguments on this forum, you hold to your own interpretation as INFALLIBLE, despite the fact that every other interpretation of the text besides yours disagrees with you.
And I find it VERY ironic, that, despite of me lecturing people on it multiple times, you still haven't understood my modus operandi. My behaviour forces people to look at topics in a way the would probably not have considered. Hence my user title (to which I've also pointed multiple times before), which also incorporates considering different interpretations to a certain subject. I do that. Which doesn't mean I deliver an argument based on that considerations. I'm here to argue, not to have people agree with me (another thing I've told the audience multiple times now).
If I was really considering my interpretations INFALLIBLE, I'd do the Gideon here and write essays about how right I am. Did I do that? No. Did I ever type a reply here with the intention to convince people I am right? Hell, no. I'd treat them in a different fashion, if that was my goal and I would deliver arguments following classic rhetorics / sophistics if that was my intention.
Couple that with the fact that my main "antagonist" here is a guy that wants to convince people "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that his opinions are correct (read: Gideon) and you might come to the conclusion, that you're lecturing the wrong person here.
Aren't you?
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
You guys picked some boring ass majors.Where are all the engineers and other manly fields?
Underclassmen Engineers (the ones too young to drink) are unbearable. (Actually, underclassmen college kids in general are unbearable.)