poignant quote:"It is a limitaiton we must learn to acc

Post Reply New Topic

I just watched a particularly poignant episode of Star Trek,
TNG, S 3, Ep 16, "The Offspring"
where Data creates an android "daughter", Lal.

(taken from imdb -> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708814/quotes?qt=qt0359641 )

I assume the writers meant it in a poetic, universal sense, not specifically applying to Aspergers,
but it relates exactly to my own understanding of romance thus far.
Most every popular plot-line or love song implies that life without romantic love is meaningless.
I find that ubiquitous premise irritating, because nothing within the scope of my experience makes
any sense until I assume that despite any amount of effort, it is impossible for me to earn love from others.
I am relieved to find a unit of pop culture that actually reasserts my dignity in the face of the impossible adversity.
(Dignity I hope I do not undermine by writing this post.)

What is your interpretation of the quote? Does it relate to you?
Do you think the writers meant it to be applicable to us Aspies (among other minorities)?

The quote is applicable to androids only.

Is it?
Star Trek is rife with allegory.
Many if not most episodes contain themes applicable
to universal human traits and/or current events.

Boy, if we aspies have to accept that love is an unattainable goal, that'll be a lot of aspies jumping off bridges and lying down in front of trains to end their misery! The quote "it's a limitation we have to learn to accept" applies to androids only. Sorry.

I didn't say or imply that it was unattainable for all Aspies.
I claimed it was unattainable for me.
(Any 1.57meter-tall Aspie male with a stutter like mine would reach the same conclusion I have.)
Besides, the attitude conveyed by "... it is the struggle itself that is most important. We must strive to be more than we are ... The effort yields its own rewards"
doesn't sound suicidal to me, but maybe that's just my own interpretation.

I admit I may be misinterpreting the writer's intent, but the context and performance
makes it clear it's application is not limited to androids.
For example, Lal faces discrimination from the other children for being "different",
so her having to overcome that is probably a metaphor for kids of ethnic/racial
minorities growing up among prejudiced peers.
Why wouldn't her having to accept her limitations also be a metaphor for
a handicap/disability, either internal or applied by external social circumstances?
Blindness and deafness are disabilities that people learn to accept with dignity.
Simply because the populations which serves as a basis of comparison has an
advantage over them does not mean they have to surrender any dignity for it.

Do you also read the content of classical mythology or superhero stories so literally?
They would not stand up to the same superficial scrutiny that you applied to this SciFi excerpt.

A lot of thought goes into what I write, believe it or not. I've written 6 screenplays, one novel, hundreds of songs, 32 fairy tales, and many many poems. When it comes to the craft of writing I understand conflict well - man vs man, man vs supernatural, etc. I'd initially began college as an Electrical Engineering major but switched over to the School of Art & Design with a minor in English because I had more of an affinity for the arts than EE major.

I wouldn't insult your intelligence by posting superficial scrutiny in regards to your post. I'm 49 years old. I have a relatively long history with science fiction - Star Trek, Lost In Space, Philip K. Dick, Isaac Asimov, George Orwell...when I was in college I went through an Ayn Rand phase. She's not science fiction but her writing is as broad in its scope as an in-depth science fiction story.

In reference to your OP I stand by my assertation that the comment was meant for androids. Purely speaking, if you wrote a SF story who's core conflict was man vs machine, this android question of "who am I?" would apply.

Believe me, I fully understand 100% when you state "the context and performance makes it clear its application is not limited to androids." That allegory is not lost on me. What I was attempting to do - and you sound intelligence enough to perhaps see through it - is to give you hope that being 5'1" and a stutterer is not a harbinger of doom. A lot of us on WP have unbelievably low esteem, me included. I'm so outside of "normal" I may as well be from Mars. But I'm not ready to throw in the towel, though. At 49 I've only had sex once - I was 29. I guess it's something that's not first and foremost in my mind. I like being creative. Writing, playing music, watching movies gives me some hope that, hey, maybe life is worth it - at least for today.

I'm back. Busy night.
Sorry I belittled the value of your narratological analysis earlier.
Your qualifications sound impressive.

I respect that the writer & director may choose to
work in absolutes: that Data can exist as a character extreme that no
human mind or personality would ever attain. However, the challenges
confronting this character extreme, and the methods he must
use to overcome those challenges, are so vastly closer to my own life
than those of characters from more "realistic" genres.

The probability of me attaining love is not statistically zero.
However, it is remote enuf that I cannot plan my life on my sincere hope
that I win love, any more than a sane economist (oxymoron?) can balance
a checkbook by assuming that he/she will win the lottery that week.
I have to plan my life (short and long term) in the absence of "emotional"
resources that others subsist on in abundance.
When I see a fictional android "live" well with that absence also,
and proclaim that a love-less life is made worthwhile by effort alone (and I do try),
I take comfort in that. By contrast, the typical thesis of a classic paradigm
story dictates that either you win the girl, or you die in misery and disgrace.
Data's outlook escapes this false dichotomy.

The core of this thread was intended to be optimistic,
but it seems my original post has missed its mark.