Dave Polsky in 04E04 “Daring Don’t” hurts the sale of the Comic Books.

This blogpost started off as a comment, but someponies suggested that it would make a good blogpost:

http://fimfiction.net/group/760/the-lunaverse/thread/66541/why-daring-dont-is-a-good-episodespoilers

So much is wrong with S04E04 “Daring Don’t” that I do not know where to start. Luckily, the other posters already covered it. Instead, I shall point out how undermining the continuity of the Comic Books hurts their sales:

> “And for those who want to use the FIM comics that are supposed to be canon with the show, which say Twilight Sparkle’s mother writes the Daring Do books? Yeah those are only canon as far as the actual show writers allow them to be.”

Let us look at novels based on Star Wars versus Novels based on Star Trek:

Both sets of novels started selling well, for derivative fictional works, but the novels based on Star Trek saw a decline in sales which the novels based on Star Wars did not. ¿What happened? Star Trek decided that only what happened on the screen is canon. Other than novelizations of episodes in movies, the novels are irrelevant. As a result of being irrelevant the novels based on Star Trek became irrelevant. Sales of novels based on Star trek dropped. The CanonPolicy of LucasFilms is more complicated:

LucasFilms realized that it is impossible to make everything equally canon, but decanonizing 90% of the franchise is a bad idea. Instead, multiple grades of canon exist:

The canon is lettered, but I shall cut to the chase:

The movies their novelizations, and radioplays are the official history of the New Republic, written several decades after Star Wars Episode Ⅵ: Return Of The Jedi.

The bulk of the novels can be thought about as drunken barstories told by veterans. The stories are mostly true, but the storyteller is drunk and embellishing.

The novels published before the canonpolicy can be thought of as barstories told by drunken posers pretending to be veterans. The are generally not true, but they might have some truth in them, but they are severely embellished and unreliable.

Then there are the stories in Infinities. Infinities take place in alternate other universes As an example, an InfinityNovel might take place in an alternate universe where the Galactic Empire won the Battle Of Yavin in Star Wars Episode Ⅳ: A New Hope. One can think about InfinityNovels as told by drunken posers pretending to be veterans in alternate universes. In InfinityNovels, anything goes.

Not only is Dave Polsky AntiScience and ProGenocide, but he just cost Hasbro millions of dollars in future sales of the comic books about MLP:FIM. If the comics have no bearing on each other or the show, ¿why bother reading them at all? Frankly, I do not know why Hasbro employs such a terrible writer.

Comments

[Walabio]

2117976

You said "he just cost Hasbro millions of dollars in future sales of the comic books about MLP:FIM". How on earth do you know Hasbro will loose millions of dollars on this deal? It could be tens of millions, it could only be several thousand, or it could remain unchanged. One example of a Star Trek comic series is hardly enough evidence to come to a conclusion like that.

it is an estimate.

Secondly, you said Twilight's mother wrote the Daring Doo books. I could be wrong here as I haven't actually read the comics, but we knew from "Read it and Weep" that the author of the Daring Doo book series was called A.K. Yearling. If this was Twilight's mother, shouldn't her surname be "Sparkle"?

The comics imply that Twilight Velvet wrote the stories. A. K. Yearling could be a pseudonym (in reality, it sounds like J. K. Rowling and uses the initials of Amy Keating Rogers). Ponies have nameswhich sometimes run in families like the prefix “Apple” of the family Apple or the or the prefix “Twilight” mares have in a certain family. The Cakes adopted the suffix “Cake”. Most ponies have no familial naming scheme at all. Many ponies seem to remain themselves after their CutieMarks.

And lastly, you said Dave Polsky was Pro-genocide. Where is the evidence? If you're talking about "Too Many Pinkie Pies", I urge you to rewatch this episode again and listen to what Twilight says about the nature of her spell. She doesn't kill the Pinkie Pie copies or even "terminate" their existences. She simply turns them back into magic energy and sends them back to the mirror. The Pinkie Pies are no more "alive" or "dead" then they were at the start of the episode. (And if you're looking for a more evidence, remember MLP is a G-rated kids show. Hasbro wouldn't be allowed to show genocide to 5-year olds, so whether it came off that way or not, "Feeling Pinkie Keen" CAN'T be showing us genocide.)

After death, we disintegrate and return to the environment. Just because they recycle does not mean that they still exist in any way any more.

[Walabio]

2411907

> “Were all the Pinkie Pies at the end of Too Many Pinkie Pies sentient, and did Twilight murder them?” Polsky replied with “No, of course not! They were magical constructs akin to robots.”

His backpedalling does not interest me. He wrote the first Pinkietorn anxious, confused, and sad because she could not attend the barnraising and the picnic simultaneously. That Pinkie tries to figure out what to do, but because she had less than an hour of experience to guide her thinking, she failed. She is depressed.

The Pinkies have emotional states and cognition. They also show volition. They seem like sentient sapient being to me.

[Walabio]

2413592

Occum’s Razor:

They show emotions, thought, and volition, so until proven otherwise, I assume that the Pinkies are sentient sapient beings.

[Walabio]

2413690

> “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

I like Hitchens too. That does not mean change the fact that it is a simpler explanation to have direct expression of emotions rather than the emotions being a complex illusion. Basically, it assumes that the onion has fewer layers.

[Walabio]

2413930

The state must prove culpability. I merely demonstrate parsimony. As for Dave Polsky, he wrote the Pinkies as though they are sentient sapient beings. As to his statements, Dave Polsky has an incentive to not admit that he created sentient sapient beings, given the controversy of the episode.

[Walabio]

2414585

Sorry, but I meant simplest.

Basically, the simpler explanation is that the Pinkies could think and feel (even if their emotional states are elaborate reprogramming like a Teddy Ruxpin, the Pinkies demonstrated at least limited cognition) rather than have reprogrammed emotional responses.

[Walabio]

2416206

We reached an impasse:

I go with the simpler explanation, which is that the Pinkies are Sentient Sapient beings, while you disagree.