View Single Post
Old December 23 2011, 09:15 PM   #194
Lieutenant Commander
j3067's Avatar
Location: Prepping for the next Great Tribble Hunt
Re: Before Dishonour....seriously?!

Christopher wrote: View Post
j3067 wrote: View Post
I definitely can't see any systematic favoritism, but I think the handling of the two non-white and non-male flagship characters of the franchise have been thoroughly mishandled in lit.
Again, you can't deduce a pattern from so few examples. If you want female or nonwhite characters to be treated equally, that means they're equally at risk of having bad things happen to them if it serves the story.
They are 100% of the non-white non-male population of commanding officers to be featured on a weekly series. I never said I want the CAPTAINS to be treated equally either. If bad things happen to them I don't want them to be treated like redshirts.

Christopher wrote: View Post
If anything, the common thread between Sisko and Janeway that might explain their handling in the literature is not their ethnicity or sex, but how they were positioned within canon the last time we saw them.
The franchise cashed in on their sex and ethnicity. I'm not concerned about how well adjusted society is in the 24th century in this case. I am concerned about a captain that serves as a focal point for an audience in the 21st. The net result is that some Captains are in a 'more equal' situation than others on this farm.

Christopher wrote: View Post
Picard and Archer were both captains in their latest canonical appearances, as was Riker, so it's straightforward enough to continue them in that role. And Kirk was a captain for most of his chronicled life and we know how that life comes to an end, so there's really no new place you can take him (short of Shatnerverse resurrection, and that comes with its own controversy). But canon promoted Janeway to the admiralty and took Sisko to be with the Prophets. They were both canonically removed from command/starring roles, so the initial conditions faced by the novelists having to move their respective series forward were different from those faced by writers dealing with Kirk, Picard, Archer, or Riker. So that alone is enough to explain why those two characters were handled differently than the others.

Cannon made Kirk and admiral for a little while too, but no one depicted him getting sucked into a wall. Spock did his Kolinar but did not go into a total emo superfunk when it did not work out.

Christopher wrote: View Post
In particular, I don't understand the objections to taking Sisko to a place that's uncomfortable for the readers to see him in. I mean, where was he in "Emissary?"
Where he was first and foremost a devoted father?

Christopher wrote: View Post
He was a depressed, broken man at a low point in his life. That was the initial problem that his experiences in the series helped him to deal with. What I see in Rough Beasts of Empire is the beginning of a new arc for Sisko, one that starts with him in a similar place to where he was when we first met him. It stands to reason that his situation will evolve as the books progress, just as it did before. DS9 has always been about characters going through big changes, often suffering painful setbacks and losses, and having to find their way forward again. For a lot of its characters, DS9 was about journeys of redemption or healing or self-discovery. If a character starts out happy and fulfilled and content, where would you go from there?
Would have been awesome if that were as well handled as Kirsten handled Paris/Torres in Full Circle.

Christopher wrote: View Post
As for Janeway, I don't really know why the decision was made to kill her off, but I think Full Circle and Unworthy proved that killing a character doesn't mean mishandling her. Kirsten has handled Janeway's death and its impact on her friends and loved ones in a magnificent way that's made it very meaningful. If she were still alive as an admiral, giving the ship its assignments from a desk somewhere or constantly being given contrived excuses to join the crew on mission after mission, that wouldn't be a very meaningful role, just a contrived way to keep the character in play after she'd been canonically placed in a peripheral role. But having the characters have to deal on an ongoing basis with the emotional consequences of her loss makes her absence important and powerful, and makes her a more crucial character even though she isn't physically present.
I really enjoyed Kirsten's books and I think she did a great job. I think she would have done a great job regardless of her starting point. None of that makes me like Before Dishonor more

Last edited by j3067; December 23 2011 at 09:29 PM.
j3067 is offline   Reply With Quote