Comment

USSBurritoTruck@startrek.website ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

Mushrooms have significantly less mysticism associated with them

Ah yes, psychedelics are famously not associated with mysticism.

The closest comparison to the mycelial network is Yggdrasil, which is solidly in the high fantasy category rather than sci-fi.

The closest comparison is actual fungal networks that exist beneath forests supporting life through the transference of nutrients and biochemical communication, are some of the largest organisms on the planet, and are actual nonfiction science.

All that is to say, I think the mycelial network needed more time to set up than the show gave it.

I think I can agree with you to some extent there. Stamets, by virtue of being standoffish and prickly when the character is introduced, is not the best at explaining things, and the concept could have used a better explanation early on to mitigate the response I’m complaining about with this post.

source

Sort:hotnew top

VindictiveJudge@startrek.website ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

Ah yes, psychedelics are famously not associated with mysticism.

Might depend on your area? I mostly just associate them with stoners. Mystic folks in my area are really into crystals.

The closest comparison is actual fungal networks that exist beneath forests supporting life through the transference of nutrients and biochemical communication, are some of the largest organisms on the planet, and are actual nonfiction science.

I meant in terms of ‘a thing that links worlds together’. Typically, a trans-dimensional plant or plant-like thing is depicted as a tree, patterned off of the mythic Yggdrasil. World trees are also typically a high fantasy thing, since they’re mimicking Yggdrasil. The mycelial network is essentially a world tree, or rather a world shroom. It’s not exactly an expected trope in sci-fi. Mixing the genres is definitely doable, but you need to get your foot in the door with some shared concepts before you spring a wrong-genre thing on the audience.

I think I can agree with you to some extent there. Stamets, by virtue of being standoffish and prickly when the character is introduced, is not the best at explaining things, and the concept could have used a better explanation early on to mitigate the response I’m complaining about with this post.

Stamets not being a great vehicle for exposition is definitely a problem, but I think the real problem is that season 1 in general has weird pacing. They spent a lot of time getting Burnham situated on the Discovery and the Mirror Universe arc took up a lot of time for how little actually happened in it. They wound up course-correcting near the end of the season by literally skipping ahead a few months on the return trip. I’m sure it’s partially a too many cooks situation with the early show’s revolving door of showrunners, but the second season did greatly improve in that regard while still having to swap out showrunners mid way through.

My point is, season 1 is kind of wonky structurally.

source