{original post had no questions}

Your friend should learn a few things from history. Your friend
should learn that virtually everything the Political Officer said was
taken, in one form or another, from actual speeches from people like
Goerring and Goebbels and Hitler and McCarthy and other members of the
House Unamerican Activities Committee, stated right out in public.
Your friend should learn that some epidodes are meant to be lighter,
some darker, because you can't have despair, sturm und drang every
episode or you're going to lose viewers left, right and center. Your
friend should learn to speak for himself. You should stop hiding
behind "your friend's" comments.

That "your friend" doesn't like something doesn't make it bad,
any more than liking something makes it good. Your friend should learn
that the universe does not revolve around his opinion. Your friend
should try writing something, and selling it, before he sets out to
tell a writer the "better ways" that writer should be telling his
stories. Your friend seems to think that unless it's done *his* way,
the "better way," then it's not good.

"jms...not having the time to find better solutions to each
scene." I had plenty of time to find solutions to each scene. I chose
the solutions that I liked. And that most folks seem to have liked.
Again, if your friend would've chosen a different way, then it's your
friend's story, not mine, and it's not "better." Because I don't
happen to tell my story the way your friend wants to tell a story
doesn't make his "better."

So I guess all the people who enjoyed VoA, who enjoyed the
dialogue, who laughed out loud at all the right places, who liked
it...they're all fools and idiots because your friend says otherwise,
huh? Because clearly it's *bad*. No subjective opinions here, your
friend says it's bad, well, then, by golly, it's bad...and the rest of
the viewership is just plain dumb not to perceive it.

"Your friend" has clearly never been through a writing workshop,
or learned how to present constructive criticism. It's his way or the
highway.

When "your friend" has written 145 produced television scripts,
and been nominated for multiple writing awards, written columns and
books on scriptwriting, *then* he can tell me the "BETTER" way to
write. Meanwhile, if he has logical concerns, questions, flaws to
point out, mistakes that were made, I'm happy to hear them. But anyone
who sits there and says that he knows the *better* way to do
everything, because his way IS the better way, and if it's not done HIS
way then it's wrong...doesn't have the first idea what the hell he's
talking about.

jms

Esther Schindler [EXEC] <72241.1417@compuserve.com> asks:
> How often do you tell someone that you write, only to have them
> tell you that they've always intended to write a novel one day? as
> if their intention is just as valuable as the effort you really
> put into it, as the late nights spent struggling with the nasty
> paragraph that refuses to sound right, as your pride in
> re-reading your text and saying, "yes, that's what I wanted!"?

Yeah, every so often, I get somebody who says, "Yeah, I could be
a writer too, if I just had the time for it." Yes, and I could be the
Prima Ballerina of the Bolshoi if I just had the time for it. They
don't understand that it takes *years* of training, work, isolation,
trial and error...that it's a *craft* that, like any other craft, from
woodworking to brain surgery to playing the violin, takes years to get
right.

jms

{original post had no questions}

Ivanova wanted to get in the face of the First Ones, to say,
"Look, you can blow me away, but damn it, listen to me." If she'd said
that "more reverently," as your friend noted, it would've worked
against the logic of the scene and the resolution.

(Also, the political officer never "stormed into Sheridan's
office." She was waiting there, quite demurely, as he entered. So
again, when he says that his complaint is "with Sheridan's lack of
response when the political officer stormed into his office," and that
never happened in the first place, you can understand why I might have
a problem with this.)

jms

{original post had no questions}

Thanks....

jms

{original post had no questions}

She didn't say that she was from the "B5 advisory council." She
said that she had been dispatched by the Senate Oversight Committee,
which as we have established before, has jurisdiction in many ways over
B5.

This is the difference between TV logic and Real logic. In TV
logic, yeah, she should've tossed her outta there...but we try to be
rigorously real about the B5 universe. She was sent by the Senate
Oversight Committee, as is their province, with the backing of several
governmental offices, in an area over which Sheridan doesn't have
jusrisdiction: the political arena back home. In the real world, you
can't just toss somebody out the door because you don't like them...not
if you're a career military officer who answers to a civilian authority
or government.

jms

{original post had no questions}

"...didn't seem to announce her authority well enough...the
Babylon 5 Advisory Council...."

Once again, as I noted elsewhere, this is NOT what she said, she
specifically noted that this was from the Earth SENATE. How much does
one need to explain the senate? (Jokes aside.) As it was, that scene
went about 2 full minutes of carefully balanced exposition...more, to
explain the senate, when we've been seeing senators all three years is
silly. It WAS announced well enough.

One simply has to pay attention. Thus far, the "better ways"
have struck out consistently. Most have been based on totally
incorrect perceptions of what was said or done in the episode; the
others are matters of personal taste that are, frankly, just lateral
moves. Most, again, are simply from not paying attention.

There's a great story about the first time Van Gogh met Gaugain,
his role model. Gaugain looked at Vah Gogh's paintings, which had been
hung on all the walls for his inspection, and after a moment announced,
"You paint too fast."

To which Van Gogh replied, "No, you LOOK too fast."

Take the lesson for what it's worth.

jms

{original post had no questions}

Yeah...real horrorshow...to quote somebody else....

jms

Kevin P. Kenney <104102.352@compuserve.com> asks:
> Anyone got any year two examples?
> Demure?

Two comments, and two only.

He's still wrong. She was waiting, demurely, when Sheridan
entered. The argument didn't start until well afterward. Tell him to
run the episode again and maybe LOOK at it this time.

Second comment...I suspect that Hank has a problem with women.
His concerns repeatedly are with the women characters, that they're too
much in your face, that they're not reverential enough, that they're
"pushy," doesn't like that they can be sexually aggressive.

In short...the problem may not be the show....

jms

John A. Lewis <76740.1520@compuserve.com> asks:
> Could you please help me understand one aspect of VoA that I
> found a bit confusing? Is one or the other behaviour simply an
> *act* that this character assumes in relation to who she is
> dealing with?

Basically, like many manipulative people, she projects whatever
she thinks will work best with her audience. Appealing to Zack's
patriotism, trying to find Sheridan's affections by flattering him
mercilessly (on many levels), playing the straight-chinned leader in an
address to security forces...she puts on whatever face she thinks will
work.

jms