![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eve_primeI watched a good DS9 episode today, the last one of season 5, where the Federation's war with the Dominion begins. DS9 took a while to get going, but the last three seasons were as compelling as any series I'd ever watched on TV. Every week, R. and I would look forward to the next step in the evolution of the storylines, and have fun discussions afterwards. A few of the regular actors were very good indeed (those playing Sisko, Odo, and O'Brien, especially), and the writers learned how to work around the lameness of a few of the others, but what we really loved were the recurring characters, complicated people made fascinating by the actors behind them. My favorite was Garak, the Cardassian tailor and former spy, who managed to maintain the appearance of being able to go either way in a crisis while, thankfully, rewarding our faith in him by remaining true to his friends throughout. We also liked General Martok, who possessed the trait of empathy despite his fierce Klingon nature; Weyoun, spokesman for the dominion whose chilling intensity was offset by the way he'd grovel before Odo, whom he believed to be a god; Kai Winn, also a religious fanatic, lusting for power but believing herself greatly virtuous; and of course Gul Dukat, our villain, and eventually insane, but someone we were brought to understand and care about. And of course we loved Quark's mom, who turned Ferengi society upside-down by daring to wear clothes and become rich in her own right.
I did spend more time with the Brady book I mentioned yesterday. I skimmed the whole book -- made myself keep turning pages unless something caught my eye, and although I wasn't reading closely enough to get the point of the "integrated aesthetic," I liked an idea she presented, "diachronic integrity," as a guiding principle for conservation decision-making. (dia through + chronos) She attributes this to Alan Holland and John O'Neill, writing in an obscure British paper. "Diachronic integrity defines integrity as being faithful to what has gone before but not in terms of preserving or returning to some natural state, free from human interference, and frozen in time." This is certainly a more pragmatic and less dogmatic approach than the alternative.
From this, Brady suggests two guiding principles:
"(1) sensitivity to the diachronic approach: aesthetic integrity requires that we be true to the aesthetic narrative of an environment. This requires us to take on board the history of the environment in question and decide how best to conserve its predominant aesthetic character in relation to past and present changes, and possible changes in the future (as far as these may be within our grasp).
(2) aiming for integrity by avoiding sharp breaks in the narrative through change on a grand scale that creates incongruity and strangeness."
Thus we needn't seal off humans from nature and restore the latter to a pristine state, but should be mindful of past interactions and make no dramatic, irrevocable, and ugly changes. Sensible.
I did spend more time with the Brady book I mentioned yesterday. I skimmed the whole book -- made myself keep turning pages unless something caught my eye, and although I wasn't reading closely enough to get the point of the "integrated aesthetic," I liked an idea she presented, "diachronic integrity," as a guiding principle for conservation decision-making. (dia through + chronos) She attributes this to Alan Holland and John O'Neill, writing in an obscure British paper. "Diachronic integrity defines integrity as being faithful to what has gone before but not in terms of preserving or returning to some natural state, free from human interference, and frozen in time." This is certainly a more pragmatic and less dogmatic approach than the alternative.
From this, Brady suggests two guiding principles:
"(1) sensitivity to the diachronic approach: aesthetic integrity requires that we be true to the aesthetic narrative of an environment. This requires us to take on board the history of the environment in question and decide how best to conserve its predominant aesthetic character in relation to past and present changes, and possible changes in the future (as far as these may be within our grasp).
(2) aiming for integrity by avoiding sharp breaks in the narrative through change on a grand scale that creates incongruity and strangeness."
Thus we needn't seal off humans from nature and restore the latter to a pristine state, but should be mindful of past interactions and make no dramatic, irrevocable, and ugly changes. Sensible.