It's interesting, what pings negatively with whom and why and all the differences there. Those with a military background are bothered by this, and those with science backgrounds by that; English majors get thrown out by writerly technical slips I probably make myself, and canon hos can get worked up over even teeny deviations from the show that I might never catch. I'm thinking about the review you did where several people were bothered by Rodney taking classified work out with him on his laptop, for instance; that one sailed right over my head, didn't bother me at all.
tightropegirl made a series of posts (beginning with this one (http://tightropegirl.livejournal.com/10920.html?nc=16)) about doing the research and getting it right and how rarely one succeeds at that with everyone. I agree, though, that if an error is more objective (a character's rank) than subjective (the presence of donuts) and is easily checkable, I'm probably going to tend to read it as laziness or sloppiness, or maybe just a level of glee for the characters that's so high it bounds over mundane things like facts. (The donuts might bother me, though, unless I'm told they're some kind of alien donut substitute--and I do think that McKay might note, in an annoyed way, that they're not real donuts. Or maybe not; if he's busy enough while he's eating and has had enough time to get used to them, maybe they don't jar him when he takes that first bite, anymore. They jar me, though. *g*)
I know the science in the SG uni is, well, silly, a lot of the time (the 'instant aging' thing bothers me SO much, as does the retrovirus mutation thing), but that doesn't mean I don't want writers to at least try to make the science (or anything else) in their story plausible. It's annoying on the show, so it's okay to make your story annoying in the same way? Erm. I really appreciate an author who works at reconciling what we're given with what's somewhat more real and who doesn't add to my annoyance over the implausible aspects by adding some of her own. That said, sometimes a story is otherwise so good that I'll bound gleefully over the unlikely or incorrect bits. *g*
I do find myself on the 'huh, that really didn't bother me' side of the discussion a lot (when it's a story I've really enjoyed, usually), but I know what you mean about wanting that perfect story that's brilliant in every way, with no niggling (and, sometimes, easily catchable, woe) flaws. I think stories get harder to write 'accurately' the more like an episode one tries to make them. I mean, once our OTP gets out of bed, the potential for factual error just increases. (Well, and even before, I suppose--sometimes people just don't bend that way. *g*)
The stories that really blow me away are those that are jam-packed full of plot and people and setting and action and still seem to get it all right, in that nothing seems to be wrong, you know? I'm thinking of some of Auburn's stories, here, and I know there are others. That level of attention to detail awes me.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2006-07-11 07:50 am (UTC)I know the science in the SG uni is, well, silly, a lot of the time (the 'instant aging' thing bothers me SO much, as does the retrovirus mutation thing), but that doesn't mean I don't want writers to at least try to make the science (or anything else) in their story plausible. It's annoying on the show, so it's okay to make your story annoying in the same way? Erm. I really appreciate an author who works at reconciling what we're given with what's somewhat more real and who doesn't add to my annoyance over the implausible aspects by adding some of her own. That said, sometimes a story is otherwise so good that I'll bound gleefully over the unlikely or incorrect bits. *g*
I do find myself on the 'huh, that really didn't bother me' side of the discussion a lot (when it's a story I've really enjoyed, usually), but I know what you mean about wanting that perfect story that's brilliant in every way, with no niggling (and, sometimes, easily catchable, woe) flaws. I think stories get harder to write 'accurately' the more like an episode one tries to make them. I mean, once our OTP gets out of bed, the potential for factual error just increases. (Well, and even before, I suppose--sometimes people just don't bend that way. *g*)
The stories that really blow me away are those that are jam-packed full of plot and people and setting and action and still seem to get it all right, in that nothing seems to be wrong, you know? I'm thinking of some of Auburn's stories, here, and I know there are others. That level of attention to detail awes me.