sholio | The Disambiguation Thread

Entry tags:

The Disambiguation Thread

This followed from a conversation with

with_apostrophe, who pointed out (very aptly) that American fic writers don't tend to consider people from other countries when they throw cultural references into their stories. I was trying to figure out how to annotate mine in a way that wouldn't be obtrusive or annoying, and also trying to figure out just what needed to be annotated. What's obscure and what's well-known? Eventually I came up with this instead.

Here is where you post questions about my stories. It can be a reference that you didn't get, or something plotwise that didn't make sense, or why I made a particular story decision, or, heck, somewhere that I screwed up on technology or medicine or grammar. Remember:

- There are no stupid questions (no matter what Rodney McKay might claim).

- Questions that are critical of my stories are fine. I wouldn't have posted this thread if I minded being asked about something.

Ready ... set ... ask!

(Note: The word disambiguation is snurched from Wikipedia.)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Not at all! There's always time for cultural references in banter!

That's it, the next story I write, there's going to be comic book references while they're running from the Wraith. Just for you. (hee hee hee)

Actually, I was thinking more of the two times I've gone off on old muscle cars -- two stories of mine mentioned them. I even had a whole scene that surrounded the conversation of the mustang from Bullit versus the Gran Torino from Starsky & Hutch. Then there's also the fact that Failure to Communicate heavily referenced The Great Escape and Cool Hand Luke. Maybe it's not so much *whether* you reference, but *what* you reference? Yes, something like Cool Hand Luke is a very American movie, but it's also such an American *guy* movie, and every guy I know can quote the damn thing. And the same with cars. It may not be the most current of references, or a reference that most girls or women would know, but I can totally see two almost forty year old guys talking about it easily and naturally. I don't want to take that away--to me, it's that sort of thing that makes them more real.

That being said, I can't see either of them being a big fan of, say, American Idol, or even being aware of most of the pop culture of the last three, four years. First off, they don't get TV and, if they get movies, it's going to be older ones. I would expect more Blues Brothers and Star Wars references before the latest LOTR movies, for example, no matter how awesome they were. Maybe it's just me, and a factor of my age, but...when it comes to cultural references in dialogue, I go for the older stuff. Now, is that better than newer stuff? Is that going to be more known? Probably not. If anything, for the younger set, it's probably even more obscure.

I'm sorry, this is really getting off topic. And I should be working. Don't mind me!

Maybe it's not so much *whether* you reference, but *what* you reference?

I'd also say it's *how* you reference as well. I've never seen either of the movies that are referenced by "Failure to Communicate" (yeah, I'm a cultural backwater), but I didn't feel like the conversations were going over my head -- I could tell at times that there were references I wasn't quite getting, but not in an "OMG I don't understand any of this!" kind of way; it was more like the way that sometimes a couple of your friends will start talking about a movie you haven't seen or a sporting event you don't follow, and you can still enjoy the byplay without really understanding all of the nuances of what they're saying -- if that makes any sense.

Regarding old vs. new references -- that's an important thing; whatever cultural references you're using have to be appropriate to the character and the situation that they're in! I've seen stories where John or Rodney were quoting from something that's just completely WRONG for a 40-year-old guy. Rodney quoting Buffy? Or listening to contemporary pop music? (Yes, I've seen both of these MORE THAN ONCE.) I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it. Rodney knowing the names of all the female guest stars on the original Star Trek, or being able to quote from Starsky & Hutch -- that's a whole lot more plausible. *grin*

I've seen stories where John or Rodney were quoting from something that's just completely WRONG for a 40-year-old guy. Rodney quoting Buffy? Or listening to contemporary pop music? (Yes, I've seen both of these MORE THAN ONCE.) I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it. Rodney knowing the names of all the female guest stars on the original Star Trek, or being able to quote from Starsky & Hutch -- that's a whole lot more plausible. *grin*

YES. yes yes yes. I've seen them too, and it just makes me cringe! David Hewlett, I could see it, maybe, but Rodney? Good God no. The show we know he enjoys the most is Outer Limits, for goodness sakes. He missed it so much, he imagined watching it in "Home". Plus, the other shows he's referenced are Jeopardy and the original Batman. I'm thinking there's a trend that one could spot there...

Actually, just to be a minor stick in the mud, I don't actually find Rodney quoting Buffy all that much of a stretch because in addition to being a man in his late 30s, he also such a total GEEK. And since Buffy is a such a "cult TV" icon, as much as a pop culture icon, I can see Rodney knowing a reasonable amount about the subject.

Sure, I'd expect him to know more about Dr Who and Batman, even the X-Files, but I just don't see Buffy being out of his range.

But Rodney quoting Gilmore Girls or The OC would throw me utterly.

Hm, I don't know, Rodney seems to be a bit disdainful of unrealistic shows with beautiful people in them. :) I think Rodney's pop culture geekiness is all based on pre-college things and that college and grad school sapped the pop culture interest from him. I can't imagine him taking a break every Tuesday night for any TV show, though with DVDs today... I guess it kind of depends on how the person is writing him, sometimes people make him totally focused on work and other times he's more relaxed. Elizabeth worries that he's goofing off from work by researching whales, that's not quite the same as TV obsession. :) I think sometimes people add a little extra DH to the character. I mean has Rodney ever mentioned Dr Who? That seems to be the most common TV reference people throw into stories.

You know, I was trying to think why the idea of Rodney as a Buffy fan so totally doesn't work for me, and I think maybe the age thing is why. He's just the wrong age -- I wouldn't really see him having time for pop culture after college, at least not prior to the Pegasus Galaxy. I mean, maybe he did, there's no way to be sure, but it doesn't fit with my mental image of him.

Like I said in my answer to Derry, thought, I *could* actually see him watching Buffy as a way of picking up women ... and secretly liking it, but not wanting to admit to it. ;)

Hm, I don't know, Rodney seems to be a bit disdainful of unrealistic shows with beautiful people in them. :)

Yeah, there is that. LOL!

I don't believe that Rodney would necessarily into Buffy. I just don't find it such a huge "take me out of the moment" mental stretch, that's all.

Less so than an astrophysicist suddenly turning into a vulcanologist, let's say. ;-P

As a point of interest, David Hewlett once said that, although he utterly adores Firefly, he hasn't actually watched much Buffy.

But you are right, a lot of fics reference Old School Doctor Who which is one of Hewlett's passions and although I do know the show was available in at least some parts of Canada back then, I also know a few Canadian sci-fi geeks who are slightly older than Hewlett who don't know much about the show. Hewlett actually claims his English birthright when he talks about what a Who geekboy he is.

Less so than an astrophysicist suddenly turning into a vulcanologist, let's say. ;-P

Hey! Astrophysicists study stuff about planets, too, that's why they're not just physicists. :) Plus we don't know what his undergrad degree was in, or really what any of his degrees were do we? Do we even know how many there actually are? You read so many different things in stories...

Anyway, the stuff in that episode wasn't anything you couldn't pick up from watching Discovery Channel.

Anyway, the stuff in that episode wasn't anything you couldn't pick up from watching Discovery Channel.

LOL! I know.

Personally, when I saw that ep I explained it to myself that he watched the same BBC (but partially filmed in Vancouver) "Supervolcano" docu-drama that I did and then "geeked out" looking volcano stuff up online. (And I have a sneaking feeling that the writer did watch or work on that production because the parallels were substantial). Think I might have even said as much way back when I "reviewed" that ep, actually.

I'd seen the BBC show only a few months before and I actually predicted most of McKay's exposition dialogue - and my professional expertise is in the biological sciences!

I suppose that my point is that while it's far from impossible that Rodney would know that much about vulcanology, him suddenly being touted as a planet-saving (or not saving) expert on the subject "took me out of the moment" (I actually vocalised to myself "hey, isn't he an astrophysicist, not a vulcunologist") far more than him having geek knowledge or passion for "Buffy" would. But that just might be a personal thing about me and the way I view the character.

Oh, we all know Rodney is a closet soap opera fan. And they make him cry. *g*

No ... it's hard to say why the Buffy thing so totally throws my mental image of Rodney -- maybe it's just the general impression that I have of Buffy fans, or at least people who will admit to it in public, as being mostly college-age women. I could see him having *seen* the show; just not being familiar enough with it to quote it or recognize and remember the characters. Actually, I could see Rodney having watched Buffy mostly to impress women and secretly liking the show but not wanting to admit to it...

But I guess that totally comes down to my fanon interpretation of the character as opposed to the way he's presented in canon. And you're right, we know he's a giant geek. *heh* There was a passing comment in

synecdochic's LJ recently that the SGA writers -- I forget exactly what she said, "hate SF" or are dismissive/scornful/condescending towards SF, I forget the specifics but you get the idea. I love her writing meta, she writes awesome writing meta, and I agree with a lot of what she says, but every once in a while there'll be a total WTF? moment -- like that one -- because I can think of very few shows in the sci-fi genre in which some of the characters are such total, unrepentant *geeks* ... without being dorks too, if you know what I mean. Heck, Sheppard, the big gun-toting hero, is an obvious comic-book geek! I love it. The show is so obviously written by SF fans, for SF fans.

because I can think of very few shows in the sci-fi genre in which some of the characters are such total, unrepentant *geeks* ... without being dorks too, if you know what I mean. Heck, Sheppard, the big gun-toting hero, is an obvious comic-book geek! I love it. The show is so obviously written by SF fans, for SF fans.

John Sheppard = closet comic book geek and math nerd

Dean Winchester = TOTAL AND UTTER MOVIE GEEK BOY!!! (Have you seen the Hollywood Babylon ep?)

And both are utterly adorable. It just has to be said!

But yeah, I think Stargate is obviously written by SciFi fans - and Supernatural was created by a bunch of horror-fantasy geeks (with some sci-fi geekdom thrown in "Who as a kid didn't wanna be Han Solo?"). The number of genre in jokes in both shows is very telling IMHO.

Oh yeah, the Dean fanboy thing in Hollywood Babylon -- too adorable for words. And I utterly agree with you about the horror-geek thing in SPN; it is, come to think of it, very much like the sci-fi geek feel to SGA. It's very obvious that the show is written by people who are well acquainted with the genre and like to throw in a lot of goofball background references that longtime genre fans will catch.

There was a passing comment in synecdochic's LJ recently that the SGA writers -- I forget exactly what she said, "hate SF" or are dismissive/scornful/condescending towards SF, I forget the specifics but you get the idea.

It just occurred to me (not having read the meta) that maybe she might be referring to the way some of the writers "antagonise" the fandom sometimes. As well as Stargate, I've seen it done on Star Trek and I think they do it on Supernatural too. They "poke fun" at some fandom obsessions, in a way that I see as more "affectionate" than "hateful".

I recently had a bunch of local geek friends over for lunch (and videos) at my place and the Hollywood Bablyon ep of SPN came up in conversation. I tend to only be "fannish" about SPN with people I know (on LJ and elsewhere) rather than really getting into "the fandom". So I didn't know what the reaction to the ep was, but apparently a lot of fans "hated" it, calling it "too self-congratulating" or "insulting to fans".

My reaction was WTF? And then one of my friends postulated that the fans who hated it probably were not also into the Stargate franchise - because that way of "sending themselves (and their fandom) up" is so rife in Stargate. Those who were also fans of Stargate would "get it" in a way that maybe others (who IMHO just might take themselves way, WAY too seriously) wouldn't.

So maybe when she said "hate/dismissive of sci-fi", what she was referring to was that sort of "affectionate antagonism" in the show - which I totally LOVE. McKay and Sheppard's geekouts, the references to TV being "ridiculously attractive people in absurd situations", the "what if they made a TV show of us" episodes, the sometimes sly references to things like shipper wars and slashdom (in a kind of "mess with the heads of fans" way) - to me, it's all good.

It's not "hate", it's love demonstrated with a touch of snark. And well, that is and always will be a beautiful thing IMHO - and fundamental to many of my favourite shows and characters.

;-)

Hmm, that's a thought!

I guess I could just go find that old post (wherever it was) and ASK ... but somehow that seems rude. (Moreso than talking about a person behind their back? I do debate the ethics of that with myself occasionally -- because there are definitely times that I want to reference something that someone has posted elsewhere, in either a positive or a negative way ... and it seems more honest to me to name them rather than doing the vague "well, someone somewhere once said". But I don't really feel comfortable going into the journal of someone I don't know and disagreeing with them -- that's how wank gets started!)

Anyway, I like the way you describe the "affectionate antagonism" of the show poking fun at its fans in a sly, tongue-in-cheek, "been there ourselves" kind of way. Buffy used to do that, too. And you can feel the difference, as a viewer -- I've seen stereotypes of fans on TV that made me cringe, because they're ONLY there to poke fun at the most superficial characteristics of fandom. The Stargate shows don't do it that way; you get the idea that a number of their writers have more than a passing acquaintance with sci-fi fandom themselves.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The Disambiguation Thread

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

In defense of astrophysicists

Re: In defense of astrophysicists

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject