bonesiii

I sort of get it, about the transilluminator, but I have no idea why the guy was saying all that.

Well, the protagonist had criticized the old woman, and thought that the "bum" would agree with him. The bum was basically realizing that once the protagonist saw him more clearly he'd talk about the bum behind his back too, and didn't appreciate it. So he wanted to make it crystal clear to the protagonist not to assume he understood people at a glance.

It's funny cause I was talking with one of my mom's friends, and he went to medical school, so he was talking about a transilluminator. If I remember, it just projects light to help during eye surgery or something.

 

But excellent work here. Very entertaining, and somewhat suspenseful.

 

-SK

That's actually partly what inspired the title, although it's not quite what I mean. Someone I know has to have eye surgery. What I mean by it is actually a fairly simple play on words about the psychological principle that's going on here in several places. I'll give you one extra point though.

4) I like these three best: One, Two, Three.

No opinion on the rest.

Also, it uses the fallacy known as "strawmanning," which is similar in its emotional/mental effects on the person being labeled. People basically think, "This guy doesn't get what I'm saying, so how can I explain anything to him?"

Yeah, good point. Although, there are cases when negative labels can be true, and thus aren't Straw Men. But we shouldn't just go assuming it; we often accidently use the Straw Man fallacy because honestly misunderstand what people are trying to say or misread what intent they have in saying it.

Woah there, Ad Hominem isn't always a fallacy.

I'm glad you brought this up, because I was hoping for an opportunity to elaborate on what I meant there without drawing out the actual entry. I mean that purely from the perspective of established logicspeak. Within the study of logic, Ad Hominem is always a logical fallacy. But you're right to point out that it isn't that simple. Just in case anyone used the bold-skimming method and missed part of the following, lemme quote what I said about that FTR:

Now, caution: this doesn't necessarily mean the conclusion is wrong, merely that the reasoning used to reach it is wrong. There could be other reasoning all the people involved are missing that would prove the same conclusion.

 

But when people see a logically invalid argument -- even when they aren't well educated in logic; these principles are built into the human psyche -- they're a lot less likely to agree with your conclusion even if their concern is logic rather than emotion.

What I'm alluding to in the first part of that is another fallacy called basically "The Fallacy of Fallacies." Which basically states that it's a fallacy to reject conclusions just because they're supported by fallacies.

In the second part, notice that I made no mention of what happens if someone's concern ISN'T logic; it's true that some people who are swayed by emotion, as with your politics example, Ad Hominems can be "effective at reaching the politician's goals." (But immoral IMO but yeah.) I was talking only from a logical perspective in that specific part.

Ultimately, I think that all use of clear insults is ineffective at what every person truly wants deep down. We all want positive emotional experiences, more or less, and throwing insults around to gain emotional loyalty has other bad side effects (which people who use them tend to ignore or be unaware of), which always come around to hurt the user of that tactic in the end. In my experience.

The attack could have to do specifically with the argument--for example, in a presidential debate, one side could say, "As president, I will pledge a budget of [x amount of money], which will go towards arranging that all governmental institutions in the state capitol will begin utilizing 'greener' options for energy usage."

 

The opponent could reply, "I believe that a man who invested in companies with some of the largest carbon emission statistics won't hold true to a promise like that."

 

The opponent's statement is an example of Ad Hominem

Technically that is not considered Ad Hominem, because the opponent both has reasons to believe in that "negative label" or judgement, and most importantly, is using a debating technique of intentionally appealing to those in the audience who also believe they have reasons to believe that legitimately. The alternative, to list things you already know your audience knows, can turn audiences off (though not always; it's complicated ). Basically a good speechsmith has to judge how much of the audience will be turned off by hearing the backup and how much will honestly not have known it or realized how it's relevant (and how many who do know it believe that others need to hear it, so will tolerate or cheer its repition.

but it's totally valid since it is a specific example of why the first person isn't expected to fulfill what he promised he would in his argument.

Logically speaking, though, it is still invalid if there is no valid outside chain of logic to support it. When such a valid chain is missing, that's what is labeled as the Ad Hominem Fallacy by logicians. In non-logic studies the latin term may be used to refer to "negative labels" in general, yes, though.

Also, I personally think people shouldn't use Ad Hominem to label anything other than the fallacy, personally. Basically for the same reason as this, reflexively XD. Poeple shouldn't negatively label the concept of fairly labelling things negatively lol lol. But maybe that's just me.

An Ad Hominem is also okay when the persons character IS whats being argued about.

 

"John is not a good person"

"yes he is he mowed my lawn for free"

"He may have but he also kicks puppies and drowns cats when he thinks no ones looking"

It's debatable whether it's always okay, which is a big part of what I wanted to point out here. But again, I would not use the term Ad Hominem to describe that. I would call that "a negative label" in general. Ad Hominem, at least when I use it (being a logician ) refers specifically to the logical fallacy.

The reason I wouldn't call that "okay" is basically the painting thing. Maybe it's true, but to speak it that way in many situations can actually only strengthen it or make it worse, rather than helping John to improve. Yeah?

With Deafness, though, it's not so much negative as it is meant to be sympathetic. But that's another type of negative labelling: when a person thinks that they need to be sympathetic to another person, they may only end up offending that person because that person does not think they need any sympathy.

 

This usually stems from the misconception that Deafness automatically equals disability

Yeah, this is basically a misconception about the human brain, IMO. The more I look into this stuff the more I conclude that short of death (even that's debatable but not on BZP ) there are equal pros and cons to virtually any mental "disorder." In the case of loss of a sense (as in sight, hearing, smell, etc.), it's basically only bad in the category of things benefitted by the sense, but overall, it simply allows the brain to adjust to be better at other things.

Or to use myself as an example -- I don't know of any psychobabble term for this except the plain English, though I'll use Treespeak here for the heck of it -- I'm slowthinking. To people who are fastthinkers (and don't know better), in situations where fast thinking is important (which is what our modern society is more and more based on), I look 'handicapped.' But given time to think, I naturally think much deeper, and I can spot better ways of doing things that 'fastthinkers' have more trouble finding, so in other ways, to me, they look like the ones with a handicap.

Basically it's both. Weaknesses and talents are merely two sides of the same equal coin.

Actually, I think it's fair for me to say that I have a "sense" that virtually nobody else has (seemingly, and I mean, not as much so; everybody has it but most not this extent it seems). I don't even know how to label it yet or describe what it is except as something close to (but not ideally labeled as) intuition, but I feel like I've had exceptional talent in it all my life, and I've always been amazed that other people didn't have it anywhere near as much.

But only recently have I finally come to grips with the fact that the others can be just as content not having it as much, and with that comes the ability for me not to get upset when I see others not seeing what I see -- so be content myself.

I think there might be a comparison there to people who have all the normal senses but behave poorly towards those who are deaf, blind, etc. (And as such I've tried to apply this lesson to myself in that category too, heh.) Basically they are content yet in who they are, in that category, it would seem.

I think a big part of that is false notions of "I am better than others", and a misunderstanding of allocation. Basically, we're all equal, no matter what. We're all simply better at some things than others, and worse at other things than others. Equals equal.

Even if there was a hypothetical human who had a sense that literally nobody had, at all, they would still be equal.

(Like in my Paracosmos fanfics, Hujo has the ability to sense Soulsongs, which is basically like a psychic version of what fish can do by sensing slight vibrations, except sensing the vibrations of the "strings" that souls make as they move through time. I've started to play with the theme of his struggling about this already, especially when he went blind for a while in TI, and probably at some point I'll do something directly about it.)

That ties into your observation of how negative labelling can cause suffering in others and then come around as more suffering for you. Society in general suffers a little more than necessary because it doesn't realize that it's trying to solve a problem - underdeveloped and financially impoverished Deaf communities - the wrong way. Money from taxes are put in the wrong places for the wrong purposes. And it's all because of misplaced sympathy.

Super glad you brought that up. I'm planning a big series of entries soon expanding on my basic society theory (which I've mentioned many times before but only in summary). Actually, that helps me pin down another idea I need to tie some major parts of the whole thing together, thanks ever so much!

I still haven't figured out how to access LU mode. Anyways, so it basically needs to be something from Bionicle but made out of system pieces? (in LDD4 of course.)

MechaFizz told me how to do it in an LDD MOC topic of mine recently. If you look at my latest blog entries, it's the one about Hatman and the wooden ship.

And correct -- also, there are some Technic/Bionicle pieces (Bohrok teeth, etc.) in standard mode too which are also fair game.

A separate category would be nice. The files could just be emailed or uploaded to Brickshelf.

Alright, consider an LU category approved. I'll edit something in about it...

Well, how about if I add a category for LU mode?

The reason I wanted to limit it to normal is that LU mode can't be uploaded, plus it's good practice to work with a limited selection of pieces, just like we would with the pieces we own. Also LU mode has so many pieces it can be difficult for many to handle timewise so I didn't want to let it be unfair. But a category would solve that...

I would totally enter this if I knew anything about Bionicle anymore.

Bionicle knowledge not really required. All I did for that mask example was make a mask after all lol. And it could help to look at pics on BS01 or whatnot.

Want entries. lol

Does Pre-mutation Karzahni count?

I'll allow it. He's a "normal being" which I said I'd prefer not to do, but it's not a rule (and he was weird; I can definately see how you could do him in LDD4, 'specially with the chains).

This is definitely a suprising move, but if it makes the series better overall, I fully support it. I do have one question though: regarding the "filler villians," will we still see them appear or at least referenced? Because honestly, with your skill in writing, I doubt they'd be anywhere near boring.

 

~~END~~

Sorry for belated answer -- apparently I thought about answering this, thus thought I answered it.

But yes, I think I should be able to feature all of the filler villains.

I think I can do something similar to what I did with the Ghomboka in Twisted Island; I consider that the climax of the "Hidden Enemy" Saga, but the main enemies of that particular story are the Ghomboka rather than the Hidden Enemy. Also how the Rahi were used in many of the stories. So the "filler" villains will be lesser villains worked into the larger scheme of the Kuambu.

I'm not disappointed at all. I can imagine you went through a similar thought process as I did when I decided to end This World as quickly as possible. Then again, it's different because I knew I couldn't go into university still having the burning need to conclude the series by writing it out in full - so I compromised and wrote summaries instead. Kind of unfortunate for me and my readers, but I think I made the right decision because it's given me room to start thinking about a new epic - a standalone that I think could really turn out well.

 

I'm still looking forward to your upcoming epics! And let me know when you've read the other This World books.

Yeah for me I'm coming out of the end of college now, heh. But yeah, similar I'm sure. And I'll try to read those soon.

This means that, for example, 2006 will be represented only in one epic? (I'm refering to main 2006 story; Mindifire is also 2006)

Not for every year per se. In the case of 2006, probably, if only because Mindfire (and several others of the Bonus Series, if not all) already told much of my 2006-7 story. Also, I will probably conclude 2002's story in Endless Blue, mostly containing it all in one story (partly because I see Kal 2003 as simply an extension of 2002, and I did feature the Bohrok's Awakening in Twisted Island though they hadn't quite started their island-cleaning yet).

I will have at least two, maybe three in 2003, because of that one I've already written which doesn't have the main 2003 plot; as for the others I'm not yet sure.

The main reason I'd like to do at least two or three per year is that personally I feel mystery is best attained when I explore a mystery in one story, but do not answer it until the second or third related story, so that one story is about the thrill of the unknown, the other about the thrill of the revelation and its (ideally cool ) secret. That way the reader has time to feel left hanging and wonder after one story has had a climax that is emotional in a different way. Just a theory but yeah.

Edit: Also, keep in mind that though I had a large number of total epics (and stories) in 2001's story, many of them were fairly short. I do plan to continue to include the occasional short epic or even short story, so I can do roughly the same length for a year as if I had put it into all one interwoven epic.

I've done three epics in a row that are increasingly heavily interwoven with more and more threads, and I have come to believe that if it can be avoided, it should be. EB has probably double the number of threads of TI, which already had so many readers were getting lost -- I've started it that way before I got that feedback, so I'll finish it, but I would like to try to avoid it after that.

I'm also fine with going for it in EB because a big point of doing the BP is to experiment and practice different method so I can use the ideal in my real goal; my non-Bionicle fiction. There were also suggestions about ways to make the intercuts of the different threads flow better that I'm trying out in EB, so maybe more threads could work, plus I'm doing clearly defined sections of thread focuses. So for example in the first ten chapters & prologue, there's a major focus on a handful of side characters' threads, whose problems are largely resolved in chapter ten, and the focus moves on to others in the next thread, etc. yet the main two protagonists of Bhukasa and Lewa remain consistent throughout.

Anyways, sorry if I'm rambling or boring yall but when I get axed a keschun I ansur it.

So, what will happen to the rest of the story? Will we just assume it happened more or less the same as Cosmos/MU, or will the BP story deliberately vear off so it doesn't matter?

 

-TLhikan

Probably neither -- I intend to try my best to make it clear what differences occur and what is kept the same. That'll be a major plot point in the Kuambu Saga. And I do intend to make the differences matter a lot, in some ways you guys hopefully haven't guessed yet.

(And BTW, I have said previously that after the series ends, which will now take place at the same point as the main-end of canon Bionicle plotwise, the Paracosmos would majorly deviate. Well, things just so happened to turn out just right in the canon that I might not even need to do that. But I still might if the Arena Method forces me to. )

Good. So basically, people can edit their entries up until EMC Voting is over, correct?

Correct.

Just to be clear:

EDIT: To be clear, I'm NOT talking about by LEGO, but by a fansite like BZP or some such thing, for those fans who wish Bionicle could continue (who are mostly on here only).

This is true.

Proving that the list of rules is incomplete, lol -- citing sources sure helps. I hadn't heard that one. Yayz. And yeah, that makes sense, especially about the blue hues of glaciers. (But I'm keeping the list this short anyways. )

The sky refracts sunlight with a blueing effect. Water only reflects that blue light. Water by itself does not cause blueing effects at all. Put it under a grayscale sky (or ceiling, etc.) and you see no blue (or put it under red and it appears red, etc.) In other words, water is totally clear.

(At least in the real world. )

Good to know.

Concise?

 

 

You?

I can try. Notice, BTW, that rules 3 and 4 sorta contradict themselves (on purpose ) -- I think it's good to say everything you think needs to be said, it's just that often we use way too many words to say them, etc. Concise doesn't necessarily mean every post is super-short (although that's usually best).

You answered Tils, so I don't feel so bad about asking. What about me?

 

~EW~

You're good too. I think I'll stop answering that question though.

So, let me reply to and partially disagree with bonesiii's blog entry in a fair and concise way, for I have spotted some errors in logic:

 

RE: 1) Listen fairly

While I have no idea what kind of system you use, but unfortunately, my notebook isn't able to read BZPower posts out to me, so I can't listen to them. I am, however, able to read the posts carefully myself, which is what I recommend my fellow members to do as well.

 

RE: 2) Avoid negative labels

I can't disagree with that.

 

RE: 3) Be concise

No objections, though I can't help but laugh, seeing as you, bones, of all people ask others to be concise.

 

RE: 4) Speak your mind

Feel free to speak your mind, but unless your PC is able to take notes while you speak, it may be recommendable to actually type what you want to express so the other members will be able to process your post as detailed in 1).

 

And with that, I conclude this over-pedantic test argumentation. I hope I was able to put all of your recommendations to good use, bones.

 

NtM:

 

P.S.: As a BSS member and occasional BZP visitor, I strongly approve of this blog entry.

That's a good example. My response:

I did mention these seem to work well in most or all walks of life, so it would include literal speaking and listening. And where it wouldn't, those are common "figures of speech."

One thing I've always found pleasing when having a civil debate, is when the person views multiple angles. Nothing bothers me more than when people are close-minded and won't see all the different, or amazing points of view (is this sentence hypocritical...?).

I agree. I've blogged about that before (I like to call it "possibilities attitude").

I dunno. Stone sets changing from brown to yellow and orange is a favorite subject of mine.

rocks aren't really...orange or yellow by normal standards. '-'

Right, and neither is Air green or Water blue (though Water's is a stronger connection). Also, most rock isn't brown but gray. The principle used with Air was to use an association to get a more vivid color, and it sold well. Brown didn't sell well, so they applied that principle. It's a looser association, granted, but it does make some sense. Sandstone is a "dark yellow" color, for example, and most brown is "dark orange."

That said, I personally love brown, fave color behind blue... and third favorite is orange, heh.

I think it's time for a practice argument, what's your topic of choice?

I dunno. Stone sets changing from brown to yellow and orange is a favorite subject of mine.

Do I disagree well, bones?

 

- Tilius

I'd say you're one of the best on BZP right now. Sometimes you do the negative label thing more than I'm comfortable with, but yeah. You speak your mind, you listen well, you're concise, and not usually overly negative. Actually, T, you're one of the main examples that helped me to learn these rules, to be honest.

I'm afraid my problem is I do the last one too much. I end up insulting people because usually I express my thoughts in a way that seems like I'm explaining a complex topic like it was rather simple.

 

The problem is, to me, it usually is simple. Things that makes sense to me often end up being what confuses others.

By the last one did you mean "be concise"? But regardless, yeah, that's a big hurdle. I run into that problem a lot too. I'll try to remember to work in something about it in the more in-depth entries.

I don't agree with this.

 

 

Haha, J/k. Someone just had to say that. This is an excellent list, Bones. It's clear, quick, and hopefully it works (not that I mean to doubt you, lol). It seems so easy to do, yet there are few who take the time to go about methods such as these. :|

Hey, I'm in the same boat, like I said, of hoping it works. So far it usually has, or at least better than the alternatives, but it might not always.

Perhaps more importantly, I've collected scientific research, psychological principles, and sound logic to back these things up.

I disagree.

 

 

 

How'd I do?

:]

 

 

Although I could pretend to be totally serious... after all, with you talking about effective arguments, you may want to review the the logical fallacy of suppressed evidence.

</dork>

 

Well, it's concise.

Congrats!

Both plants and animals, yes, Mr. Mayno.

Brilliance!

Have. It is (well, was; hasn't been together in maaany years) highly recommended.

Another thing I really liked was that the Tohunga acted like adults! Check out Takua and Nuparu having a war briefing with Kongu and Tamaru in this episode. They're definitely not the child-like figures that mid-2003 and onward portrayed the Matoran as!

Sorry I saw this late, and only because of HH's entry that mentioned this... Anyways, I just wanted to point out that this appears to be selective memory (or selective review? ). Especially since you're focusing on MNOG, of all things -- the protagonist himself is a case in point of an immature character! Though admittedly he had recently grown somewhat in his adventures from the GBA game.

To some extent, what you say here is true, though, to be fair (but there were "adult Matoran" moments in later stories too; I'm especially thinking of the Matoran Resistance in 2006).

But go back and play through the scenes that involved Taipu, for example. He behaves very childlike in almost every scene. Onepu is another great example (lol, maybe it's just Onu-Koro). There were several scenes with Kapura, even early on, that were like that. Tamaru, etc. (Heck, even Matau lol.)

In reality, there were simply varying personalities, just like in real life. You can't fairly lump them all into one box.

What IMO Bionicle really lost is basically hinted at in your entry, and it's the same thing we've all been saying for years -- they lost the MNOG style. Those things you are saying you dislike in later years were always present in Bionicle, even in 2001. But there was never anything like MNOG and the updates in later years. A few things came close, but yeah.

Heck, there's no Tolkien influence in sight.

Eh, there are Tolkien-esque themes. Tolkien is a pretty rich literature source. It's hard to get away that when you have epic journeys to a face-off like MNOG essentially is all about.

And as someone else pointed out, Makuta himself was essentially a copy off of Sauron (at least how Makuta portrayed himself, which is what you said you took as how Bionicle was portraying him -- another common misonception, BTW).

Just off the top of my head, here's several other examples.

- Immature adventurous character finally stepping up to join a defense force (Pippin or the other guy, I forget which, and Takua).

- Part of a defense force has not been heard from (this one's weak in all fairness, but the horse guys, and the Tren Krom Pass guards).

- Quaint, small communities that spurn travel and adventure (Hobbits, most "Tohunga"), with one guy who doesn't fit in who goes out on adventures and thus is looked down on by hometown folks (Takua and Bilbo, then later Frodo).

- Underground, shortish, strange enemy you don't want to attract the attention of, and if you "wake one you wake them all" (Orcs in the mountain caves in the first book, and Bohrok, though the Orcs weren't literally asleep).

- After small hero gets past obstacles to get to his destination, big bad guy who is (again) basically destruction incarnate, personified by a dynamic, liquid-motion-like spherical object floating high in the air, explodes. (Sauron and Frodo, Makuta and Takua.)

- Small hero must accomplish his destiny in order for the more powerful heroes to have a chance (Frodo and his friends, Takua and the Toa).

- Someone who isn't really your enemy can be corrupted by an evil influence to oppose you (the Ring, Infected masks).

- Mystical villain inside a suit of armor who isn't really physical (Makuta, Sauron's original form). Who, incidently, later returns in a different form since he's a shapeshifter (both, again).

- Someone is attempting to travel through a mountainous cold area and almost gets buried in snow (another weak one, but the Fellowship, and Takua... sort of Kopeke and the Tren Krom Pass guards).

I'm out of time, but this just scratches the surface.

I know I'll probably get a ton of people in here who will write huge walls of text explaining how I'm wrong, and the Bionicle story just got better and better, and that I'm inferior because my opinion is different, or whatever. But that's okay - I think comparing these episodes to the books and comics and movies of the later years really speaks for itself. And I for one and just going to choose to remember Bionicle for its great two-and-a-half year run. Because it was really fantastic.

Smeag, the thing that you seem to still not grasp is that different people have different preferences, and that's okay. I'm not 100% sure if you were trying to talk towards me with your first sentence, but if so and either way, you appear to be missing the point. You're trying to act as if there's some objective way to judge whether Bionicle was cooler or not, but you are using your own subjective tastes to try to argue that -- or at least, that's how it comes across. (I suspect most of this is just appearance, but that too is a problem -- there are easy ways to avoid that appearance.)

We don't need huge walls of text to explain why your feelings on this don't mean Bionicle wasn't cool in later years.

All we need to realize is what I said in italics above -- that different does NOT equal inferior. In all these years, it still seems to me that you have not quite grasped this? It really wasn't as cool -- to you -- and it really was as cool or better -- to others. And so no need to use that to "prove" something we all already know, that it did change, or prove something false that you don't need to prove -- that it changed in ways it really didn't.

(But I'll take as long as it takes. )

And that's the key to avoiding this:

Honestly, it makes me kinda sad inside.

I lost things I liked, like brown sets for example. But I don't have to feel sad about it, because I don't look at the majority as inferior to me, as your wording would seem to imply you do. You might not consciously think that, but over and over again, that attitude seems to seep through in things you've said. I am happy that more kids got toys in colors they liked better, like yellow and orange (though I love orange too, but anyways).

Still, I do think that MNOG's style of presentation, and I would agree with you, characterization, dialogue style, etc. were a bad loss in later years. Very few people that I have ever seen disagree that MNOG was the best Bionicle game, bar none, and that it was bad that they lost it.

The point I'm getting at is that Bionicle changed. Maybe you like its new form better, but I sure don't.

Smeag... You don't have to! It makes for an interesting blog entry, don't get me wrong. I always enjoy these sorts of entries, these things aside.

I just keep getting the vibe from you that you haven't yet come to accept this, and it seems to be causing you angst. I don't want you to suffer angst. It feels like I'm seeing something you're not, that's helping me be more content, and I don't want to hoard, yanno?

The thing was, I had thought that it was I who changed, and that Bionicle had stayed the same. But I've come to the conclusion that that's not really true: Bionicle did, empirically change, and as I said the difference between the original MNOLG/flash episodes and new story speaks for itself. I feel.

It's both, and it always has been. (Well, not "always" but always since the changes. )

"It speaks for itself" is, again, where I think you're running into trouble. It does not speak for itself. Your tastes influence how you feel about it -- you know this. So why do you use your taste reactions to (again, appear to) argue that there's something objectively worse here. Then again, maybe I'm the one making a mountain out of a molehill here, and you didn't mean anything negative by this.

(Lol, at this point I'm sure I've miserably failed to have the minimum smilies, and no time to fix so nuking the enable check... >__>)

There were superhero powers and technology in 2001. You admitted the latter -- and look Toa elemental powers, and Kanohi powers, for the former. I caught you making a false statement (not on purpose I'm sure, but false nonetheless, and I don't see how you could disagree) about childish versus mature personalities as one example. But in later years, there WERE a mix of both, and same in 2001.

Did the balance change? Of course.

But there was always a balance, and the things you say you dislike in later years aren't new. Also, about being like other stories, in some years, that is true. But 2001 was a lot like certain other stories. If you like mysticism with mechanical things involved, for example, Terry Brooks wrote the book(s) on that with the Sword of Shannara, and especially later incarnations in his series. "There is nothing new under the sun" -- and that applies to 2001 too. You can't get away from resemblance to other things.

But on the flip side, there was something unique about 2001. And so there was about others. You might not like the later years' original parts, but that doesn't mean they weren't there. Right?

For example, the giant robots, the giant stalactites, the floating island, the Shattering. All of these things can be compared to other things, but so can biomechanical beings in a mystic land, or wielders of elemental power, etc.

I think we can both agree that the later years (2006 - 2010 most definitely) would've been much better had they simply maintained the quality of the dialogue and characterization.

I sympathize with this as far as dialogue, but Emzee, this is the sort of statement that gets yall into trouble. The keywords here are "better" and "quality." What you really mean is that you and Smeag (and I) would have enjoyed the dialogue in later years more if it maintained the same style that happens to appeal to our tastes in dialogue. That doesn't make our style "better" or higher quality -- especially since all of us are older fans, who don't see things the way they come across to younger fans -- and especially younger fans of the more majority taste than us, who like "kiddy dialogue."

As far as characterization, I do wonder where you get that; there have been many great characters throughout the story, and that did not seem to, in my observation, significantly change much. Except that there were more characters later on, of course, and that did change the dynamic a little (annoyingly so IMT).

Although I'm also miffed about losing the tribal mysticism, because that was so large a part of what was appealing about Bionicle.

I cannot not agree with the jist of this. But again, I hope you understand that what you really mean is, what was appealing about Bionicle to you. You probably do, but the wording just bugs me. To others, that wasn't appealing, and they liked it better when it was dropped.

But I won't bother to repeat myself on that again, since you sorta said the same thing above. Just wanna be clear what I mean.

And the miffed part... I can't agree with that. I don't think it's right to be angry, even a little, about a story daring to do what a story must do; adapt to its core fanbase, even if I'm not among them -- or even simply change for variety's sake, which is important too. (Nor is it beneficial to myself to do that.)

As a writer myself, I make no apology about my stories do what really does occur in real life -- and change in stylistic ways over time. I as an author wouldn't personally appreciate past things that were cool being abused to tear down future things cool (though I know it will happen if I am successful enough to have readers, heh). Shackling a writer to such ridiculous rules seriously harms the realism of characterization, IMO.

For example, if Bionicle had stuck to mysticism in the only ways it ever truly had it in 2001, the Matoran could never progress beyond their primitive, decayed culture. That was a character trait that was developed over years of constant attack and virtually forced segregation. That which is not understood is mystic, to that mindset.

In order for them to progress as characters -- which is what quality storywriting, objectively, must do -- IMO they should be free to move beyond that. Even if it alters the style of the story -- the sort of reader I personally want is mature enough to be able to handle more than just one rigid style. Diversity.

But that, again, might be just me.

Okay, have been proofreading, but way out of time to finish... apologies for any errors from this point on...

Silly Primis.

 

You have different tastes than I (and most of the people commenting here) do.

 

What you think is good I think is yucky. And vice-versa.

 

And that's okay, so trying to argue your tastes against mine makes you look silly.

 

It's also not the point of this entry at all.

 

So yay!

*detects humor* (Hopefully. )

That aside, there is a problem with your entry, though. For one, you made some claims that I think are clearly false, as I said. Also, it is worded as if to imply that your own taste reaction to it "proves something." That it wasn't as cool in later years. And nowhere in the entry did you "asterisk" () that with clarifying that you don't actually believe that, you just mean it wasn't as cool to you.

You and I both know the response you'll probably have to that. I've seen many people argue against this, missing the point by focusing on the fact that it's your blog, so of course it conveys your opinion. The point, though, is people are reading your blog, and you aren't clear about what you're saying, they can misunderstand. Your entry wasn't worded as just your own tastes, so naturally he took it the way it was worded. I just want you to see that that really is a mistake on your part -- do you agree?

Besides, IMO it isn't healthy to spurn discussion of our different tastes. You post an entry about tastes, IMO, you should be ready and willing to engage others in discussion of where they disagree, etc. But maybe that's just me.

Anyways, though, what's more important to me is accurately observing what was actually in the years, not your reactions to it. If you aren't aware of what was actually there, it's hard to have a fair judgement, even just a purely subjective one. I think that's a bigger concern, so don't mind my long-winded taste stuff too much.

No matter how much Greg F says that BIONICLE was the same and never changed from year one, LEGO originally planned for the story to be much more mystical, mysterious, and, for lack of a better term, tribal.

Jord -- first of all, I suspected Smeag or others might have made this mistake. This is what logicians call the "Straw Man" argument. I am wondering if this might be why Smeag strangely seemed to think earlier that Bionicle didn't change -- even though everybody's been documenting the changes for years, and looking into the reasons for them, including and especially Greg.

Greg never said that Bionicle was exactly the same year after year.

What he HAS said is that sometimes people make false claims that things in later years are new (and thus bad, or whatnot), when in fact they have been there all along.

I caught Smeag in one in this very blog entry (see my first comments above). Did I not?

Greg was objecting to that sort of bad reasoning. And with good reason. He was NOT saying that applied across the board to Bionicle. Nobody has (at least nobody that has been active in this debate).

I hope you realize that to see you (and apparently others) on the "against the newer years" side fail to even understand that basic point, it only makes me further convinced you might be wrong about some other things. And maybe even it shows a basic blindness, that if you could work past, you might actually even like the laters years better than you do. Which I would hope for everyone -- not for Bionicle's sake, but for yours.

And perhaps more importantly, that selective blindness could be impacting other areas of your life that cause you degrees of misery, etc. so it could possibly be much more serious than anything about toys.

Thoughts?

One thing that always bothered me I think was the fact that Greg wanted to avoid spiritual and mystical powerful beings

Reactions aside, I do think you're right that he wanted to avoid that sort of thing. Which isn't really my style either, heh.

Just to be accurate, though:

that I think that's what ruined Mata Nui and Makuta (who by the way originally started out as "great" spirit people) by just making them people who were created with big responsibilities...

Actually, the original story Bible was not written by Greg; it was written by Bob Thompson. The truth behind the appearance of things was planned from the start -- not all the details, but things like Makuta being a species, etc. The hints for those were planted all along, it's just that many of you did not pick up on them.

Also, keep in mind that among "2001ers", very often the idea of the mysticism was way over-interpreted than even what was actually in the story. It seems clear to me that nobody on the original story team anticipated how big of mountains people would make of the molehills that were really meant to be nothing more than a primitive people's misunderstandings. Fun misunderstandings, and they were intentional -- don't get me wrong. But the fandom blew much of it waaaay beyond proportion, and took what should have been tentative theories almost as dogmatic fact.

So some of that was NOT a change, in reality. It was a change in appearance, as the originally intended truth behind the mystery came out.

That is unfortunate -- I would agree. I wish it hadn't happened, but the "blame" for that really lies among those who failed to keep a healthy emotional distance from their theories in 2001. But whatever -- if it made them happy in 2001, that's great. And selfishly, I walk away from that myself, intentionally styling my own fanfics more that way, as well as my non-Bionicle fiction, because that's what I love too.

Off-topic: BTW, whilst looking through your blog to find this entry, I stumbled on your Whakari MOC, and it is utter and sheer win and I love it and want it. :drools:

Did you have any intention for it in terms of fan fiction? Any willingness to farm it out for my fanfic use (with credit given)?

(Back on topic...)

Primis. Chill.

 

The point of this entry is just saying Bionicle changed and we liked its earlier incarnation better. Personally. That's all.

Smeag. Primis went overboard in his reaction, but how can you defend what Jordboy said? He put false words in Greg's mouth. That is NOT just about what you say here, so how is that an appropriate response to Primus's points? All of us need to play fair.

I hope you get where I'm coming from here, and don't take me the wrong way. (It's happened before with "certain types" of people, specifically on the staff, you know who yall are; this is a preemptive strike lol. I expect you to read what I'm saying as I intend it, not as anything objectionable, and if I'm wrong, simply calmly tell me why, rather than object that I said it. )

I don't think it was a lie -- that was too far, again. It's probably more of a misunderstanding -- a selective blindness. And my concern for that is NOT based on pride or a desire to Bionicle, just to be clear. I don't have a horse in this race, and I couldn't care less about Bionicle's reputation. What bothers me is seeing people so obviously experiencing emotional turmoil, even if it's just small, because of what to me appears to be a mistake in how they approach things. And I just know things like that bleed through to Bionicle discussion from other, far, far more important areas of life -- so while its effects here might really be trivial, its effects elsewhere might be far from it.

All that said, I'm a fallible human being too, and I'm often wrong, and yadda yadda yadda. So feel free to disagee -- I only ask that you self-check yourself and ask yourself if I might be right, before you do. And if you disagree, please know that I wanna know why -- I don't want just another "I'm different, that's all." You felt strongly enough about this to write a fairly in-depth blog entry, so should we not continue at least that level of depth in the discussion? And more importantly, if I'm wrong about something as important as what I'm alluding to, I definately wanna know about it.

And besides, it's not good to just leave these things unsaid. (In all seriousness -- there was a recent scientific study that backed that up. )

My mistake, Primis. I'd never seen that before, admitedly, and was just going by interviews and questions I'd had with Greg F in the past. I wasn't really trying to "blame" Greg for everything, I was just stating a few things that he said he influenced or suggested with LEGO from some of his interviews.

Thanks for clarifying that, Jordboy, and confirming my suspicion.

Well, I know this is long, and I don't expect you to reply to every point. I would greatly appreciate at least some on-point replies, though, and I've tried to keep it as short as I could while saying what I believe needs to be said. And I know I have been blunt and made no apology for calling you out where I think you're wrong -- I hope you appreciate that, rather than resenting it. Doesn't mean I'm necessarily right -- and it certainly doesn't mean my preferences are superior -- they are equal. Hope that in some way this helps. =)