Ribbonfarm is evolving through the equivalent of Star Trek in the 80s... blogchains are like the first 6 movies 1979-1991 between TOS and TNG. Lowkey hunting for a high concept to spin up TNG, and a new cast to go on new adventures 🤔
And I have to grow up from Spock to Picard.
Conversation
Currently seeking people auditioning for Riker, Worf, Data, Troi, etc.
No challenging me for captain's chair. I shall maintain an iron grip on editorial authoritah.
Replying to
I think I was kinda like Kirk 2007-15, then I slipped into Nimoy/Spock into more of an editorial role (Nimoy was more director/screenwriter than actor during the movies era), but now need to switch to Picard gear. He was actually an excellent lead for an elder-franchise.
1
It's actually kinda fascinating that they chose to write the captain as an older, more mature executive-leadership character in TNG as opposed to the lead-the-charge mission-leadership Kirk mode. The Kirk archetype was taken over by Riker as first officer. This makes sense.
2
1
Though as a very good piece I can't find now argued, the TOS Kirk was not actually the hothead id-driven character he was remembered as (and reincarnated as in Riker, who is more homage to fan-memory Kirk than the actual TOS-Kirk, as is the Chris Pine version)
2
1
But to return to the point, they HAD to write Picard as older, because he had to work off an existing Act 1 legacy cultural context. Almost like a growth-stage CEO or something. Kirk 2.0 would have failed badly, but as Riker (refracted through fan perceptions) it worked
1
2
Interestingly, Picard's foil was the opposite of Kirk's foil. Troi was the anti-Spock. Again, a necessary evolution from IQ to EQ as part of the aging of the franchise into an elder franchise.
1
3
Weirdly (and excuse the narcissism, in the interests of some actually fun musings), I've gone through a similar evolution. In my Kirk phase, I think the rationalist crowd (aka Spocks, modulo strawvulcan defenses) was my foil 2007-14.
1
1
Since then, it's been a composite foil comprising mainly female writers who see with clarity stuff I struggle with: Arendt, Le Guin, Harraway, and closer to home, the 2 Sarahs (Perry and Constantin). They're my Troi egregore (on stage little early, before I find my Picard voice)
1
2
Self-mythologizing/self-narrativizing is risky business, even apart from the egoism inherent in such an exercise, because the narrative template you use can blind you to possibilities. Still, the downside is low when you're fully blind to begin with.
1
1
The accurate part of such narrativizing is that I'm still going to be one person so makes sense to identify with evolving roles that still have some continuity to them. That's why I like Kirk --> Picard and Doctor Who to get me thinking about what to try next.
1
1
The inaccurate part is probably mapping everything else. Is a spaceship a good metaphor for a bunch of writers exploring together? I've used the analogy in Boat Stories, where I focused more on Voyager for the Star Trek ref (it's my favorite ST). Should there be multiple forks?
1
2
The common factor to stories I seem to gravitate too for sense-making is that they center a high-agency male having adventures. But I do break out sometimes. Lately, I've been on an Alice in Wonderland kick. Identifying with her in wonderland is interesting.
1
1
Alice is actually a bit of a high-authoritah jerk like Cartman, crossed with a high-ADHD weirdo improv artist who just rolls with whatever. Alice in Wonderland is just one giant Yes, And to absurdity, navigating murdered time with high agency, but low meaningfulness.
2
2
2
I also like stories where I don't identify with a particular character, but with world as a whole (so implicitly the author). The value of HHG and Discworld is seeing like Adams or Pratchett, not as any particular character within those worlds. The author as viewpoint character.
1
3
I think I'll conduct auditions by blogchain sparring. Anyone who can can go 3 rounds with me gets regular contributor spot if they want it.
6
