Before Dishonour....seriously?!

[Bob Karo]

I too want to thank Kirsten. It really needed to be said.

[Christopher]

MattWallace wrote:

---

Gender doesn't have to be the overriding fact the vast majority of the time. But if it's not going to be a factor at all, why did you, Keith and David decide to add female characters? If their gender isn't important why go with women instead of men?

Oh, make up your mind. First you accuse us of treating female characters worse, then you take the fact that we've gone out of our way to be more inclusive of female characters than the shows were as confirmation that we're sexist pigs? Don't you see what a fundamental contradiction that is?

I create female characters because I like and respect women. But when I'm writing a woman, I don't write her as "a female character," but as a character who is, among numerous other traits, female. I don't define her every action and decision by what sex chromosomes she has. It's just one facet of who she is. In the aggregate, I'll try to maintain a good balance of male and female characters, but I won't treat any single character as being defined by his or her gender above all else. I think your problem is that you are defining characters by their gender above all else, and you're assuming everyone else does too, so it doesn't occur to you that it's possible to make choices about characters for reasons that have nothing to do with whether they're male or female.

Let's not forget the very first female captain we saw. The Saratoga was disabled by the whale probe in TVH. Last we saw of her, she was calling for someone to help her. When we later saw that captain of the Yorktown, who was in a similar situation, he said that they were trying to generate power with a makeshift sloar sail (should be panel but let's assume he meant what he said). In his care, he's doing something to help himself and his crew and she's asking someone to rescue her.

Even if that's valid and not more cherrypicking, what the hell does it have to do with your accusations toward those of us who write Trek literature? We are not the same people who made that movie 25 years ago. Most of us were in high school or college at the time and didn't yet have any connection to the Trek franchise. I for one have always wished the Trek franchise would be more inclusive of women than it has usually been onscreen, and I've striven to live up to that goal in my writing. And I feel my contemporaries have successfully done the same.

[Therin of Andor]

MattWallace wrote:

---

In his care, he's doing something to help himself and his crew and she's asking someone to rescue her.

And if the scenes were reversed, would it be the cowardly Asian Indian asking for help?

[JWolf]

captcalhoun wrote:

---

Dude, Shadows of the Empire is 15 years old. if people haven't read it after that long, they ain't likely to.

Given that a lot of people could be getting a reader or a tablet for the holidays and given that the Star Wars back catalog was just recently put out as eBooks, there could be renewed interest in reading the Star Wars novels. Just because a book is 15 years old does not mean that every person on the planet has read it. So get real and use spoiler tags even for a 100 year old book.

[Elias Vaughn]

Rosebud was his sled.

[JWolf]

I do think that Kirsten did some very good writing with Voyager. The way she handled Janeway's death among the crew of the Voyager was very well written. To invalidate all of that by bringing Janeway back to life would be a tragedy worse then her death. So let's leave her dead and let's move on.

[DonIago]

JWolf wrote:

---

Given that a lot of people could be getting a reader or a tablet for the holidays and given that the Star Wars back catalog was just recently put out as eBooks, there could be renewed interest in reading the Star Wars novels. Just because a book is 15 years old does not mean that every person on the planet has read it. So get real and use spoiler tags even for a 100 year old book.

That's not how spoiler policy has ever been handled here to my knowledge, but if you have a problem with it, I suggest reporting it so a Moderator can look into the matter rather than trying to play Moderator yourself.

[MattWallace]

JWolf wrote:

---

I do think that Kirsten did some very good writing with Voyager. The way she handled Janeway's death among the crew of the Voyager was very well written. To invalidate all of that by bringing Janeway back to life would be a tragedy worse then her death. So let's leave her dead and let's move on.

I don't think that's there's any question she'll be back at some time. Q being the untimate "Get Out of Death" card. Just like the Borg, there may not be plans for her return at this time but there's nothing that would prevent her from returning at some point in the future.

[Relayer1]

As far as I am aware, policy is that we are careful around spoilers for a month or so, and after that it is assumed that it is not necessary - if you are worried about spoilers for old stuff, you avoid the Treklit threads.

PS - Vader is Lukes father...

[MattWallace]

Christopher wrote:

---

Oh, make up your mind. First you accuse us of treating female characters worse, then you take the fact that we've gone out of our way to be more inclusive of female characters than the shows were as confirmation that we're sexist pigs? Don't you see what a fundamental contradiction that is?

I create female characters because I like and respect women. But when I'm writing a woman, I don't write her as "a female character," but as a character who is, among numerous other traits, female. I don't define her every action and decision by what sex chromosomes she has. It's just one facet of who she is. In the aggregate, I'll try to maintain a good balance of male and female characters, but I won't treat any single character as being defined by his or her gender above all else. I think your problem is that you are defining characters by their gender above all else, and you're assuming everyone else does too, so it doesn't occur to you that it's possible to make choices about characters for reasons that have nothing to do with whether they're male or female.

Even if that's valid and not more cherrypicking, what the hell does it have to do with your accusations toward those of us who write Trek literature? We are not the same people who made that movie 25 years ago. Most of us were in high school or college at the time and didn't yet have any connection to the Trek franchise. I for one have always wished the Trek franchise would be more inclusive of women than it has usually been onscreen, and I've striven to live up to that goal in my writing. And I feel my contemporaries have successfully done the same.

Christopher, at no point have I referred to you personally giving female characters the short shrift.

MattWallace wrote:

---

Part of the problem is that most of the writers are men and generally don`t do as good a job writing women as they do men. The reverse is usually true as well. This is of course a general observation and there are authors of both genders who can handle characters of the opposite equally well.

Nowhere does this say that you do not write female characters well. None of this has been directed at you.

You don't believe that there is a bias against female characters in Trek lit now. I agree that it's much better than it has been, even just a few years ago.

How often has it been seriously considered to permanantly kill Picard? Or Sisko? Or Riker? Or Archer?

[Therin of Andor]

JWolf wrote:

---

So get real and use spoiler tags even for a 100 year old book.

Mmmm, I thought that spoilers had an accepted one-year amnesty around here, but a delay for hardcovers that will have a MMPB followup. Or that a proviso of common sense should prevail if a person asked if a certain ST book was worth reading, thus making it obvious that they'd probably not want spoilers in incoming recommendations.

Otherwise, don't we just declare the entire board one big spoiler alert?

[Therin of Andor]

MattWallace wrote:

---

None of this has been directed at you.

When you make open declarations of authors in general being sexist, you can't blame individual authors for taking your personal comments very personally.

[MattWallace]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

When you make open declarations of authors in general being sexist, you can't blame individual authors for taking your personal comments very personally.

In which case he is wrong and I have said so.

[Therin of Andor]

MattWallace wrote:

---

In which case he is wrong and I have said so.

So which ST novel authors do you accuse, so the right ones know to come and defend themselves?

[MatthiasRussell]

JWolf wrote:

---

Way to go. You really need to learn to use the spoiler tag. And now it's been quoted too. Some people may not have yet read Shadows of the Empire and there you go giving out a major spoiler.

Way to go. The same spoiler even more out there.

People, use the spoiler tag. Stop spoiling things.

That book is over a decade old. Why would I use a spoiler tag? BTW, Bruce Willis is dead for the entirety of 6th Sense.