David Gerrold on TNG and the Behind-the-Scenes Drama

Right. I think the survey of college students is telling. In a community or society where there's no stigma or discouragement toward same-sex behavior, a lot more people would probably be willing to explore or experiment with it. But when there is a stigma, even people who have experimented with it might think of it as an exception to their "actual" orientation.

 

Be careful what you wish for. I have cerebral palsy, and wanted to see a disabled character in Star Trek. I finally got my wish (sort of) with the DS9 epsode "Melora", but could not have been more disappointed with the results if I tried. Melora was written to be the typical "angry disabled person who lashes out at everybody", which, while It may be true for some disabled people, is not even remotely true for myself and other disabled people I've met throughout my life. I HAVE encountered the type of people Melora was written to represent, but those are the exceptions rather than the rule.

Hell, the writer of that episode, a disabled man himself, expressed disappointment with it for similar reasons.

Trust me, you might be better off if you never see it.

 

They already did that on DS9 with the Bashir.

 

Doesn't Geordi count?

True, he was Arab by ancestry, but he couldn't have been more British and wasn't remotely Muslim. I always found that disappointing. Of course not all Arabs are Muslims or vice-versa; there are Muslims of every ethnicity. But it would've been such a potent statement to have a positive portrayal of a Muslim protagonist at a time -- even before 9/11/01 -- when the predominant image of Muslims and Arabs in American media was as terrorists.

 

Certainly, a problem with depicting minorities is when addressing them is solely within the context of a single episode, but in the case of people with disabilities, that wasn't the case.

There are at least seven other disabled people in Star Trek who were regulars or central guest characters: Christopher Pike, Geordi La Forge, Reginald Barclay, and the genetically-engineered savants in DS9's "Statistical Probabilities" and "Chrysalis", Jack, Lauren, Patrick, and Sarina.

Geordi was a regular cast member, he was very well-adjusted*, and his disability of congenital blindness was anything but debilitating.

* - At least as far as his disability was concerned.

 

^I think it's an overstatement to call Barclay disabled; he was just shy and neurotic.

One could make a case that Data was emotionally disabled. In some ways he was similar to someone on the high-functioning end of the autism spectrum. Still, if so, it wasn't a very flattering portrait, because his lack of emotion was seen as a defect and he aspired to be more normal.

 

He was almost bounced from the Enterprise, so I really have to disagree there. That is to say, his neuroses were a serious enough problem that kicking him off the ship was discussed.

 

Barcley appeared to me like a typical schizoid personality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder#World_Health_Organization

 

I don't know if he was intended to have that disorder or not.

My main point here with respect to Barclay is that on a ship with a less enlightened captain, he would have lost his position because of his disorders—whatever they were. His disorders jeopardized his ability to function with the crew and work, to the point that allowances had to be made that included treatment for his condition. To me, that seems like a reasonable definition of disability.

 

A discipline problem, yes. That doesn't equate to a psychological disability. And frankly I'm troubled that you seem to be treating disability as synonymous with bad behavior or an incapacity to hold a job. That's really a rather derogatory assumption.

 

If you think that Barclay's problems were only disciplinary in nature, then we must have watched different shows.

If you're frankly troubled by a difference of opinion as to the nature of his problems*, then frankly by all means, be troubled.

* edit - or more precisely, since we are discussing a work of fiction, difference in interpretation as to the natures of the root causes of his various maladaptive behaviors

 

Yes and no. Schizoid personalities are pretty productive even today; they often work in jobs that require abstract, analytical abilities, like science or justice. Schizoid personalities have trouble to relate emotionally to others and themselves, which enables them to see their environment and themselves somewhat disconnected from personal interests and puts them as result in a more objective position - their view on things is less clouded/filtered by a strong ego/personality.

While schizophrenic personalities cannot differentiate between phantasy and reality (too much emotion), schizoid personalities differentiate "too much" between phantasy and reality (not enough emotion). Both personality disorders disconnect the person from the environment, but from opposite sides.

 

I guess he should, but so little was done with it that it was practically a non-issue.

 

I suppose they didn't really know how to exploit Geordi's blidness, so he finally turned to be the guy with glasses.

 

Where was that bit of drama in the Phase II version? All the drama, stakes and consequences are leeched out of the script to show the crew acting more as a jolly "band of brothers", the very thing Gerrold complains about it in TNG.

I hate Uhura's line, "Captain Kirk would never put us in danger." Yes, he would. That's his job. The best Trek scripts are the ones where Kirk knowingly puts the ship and crew in danger —*"Where No Man Has Gone Before", "Corbomite Maneuver".

"Blood and Fire" (PII version) proved to me that Gerrold no longer knows what makes good original Trek, despite his claim at Fedcon that he is one of two people still alive who really knows how to write original Trek.

Either that or he was too close to the work to be objective about it anymore.

 

It was Howard Rollins and that roll was black because the series was based on the book and movie of the same name revolving around a black dective sent to Sparta Missisippi.

Carl Weathers stepped in Carol O'Connor (who was very progressive) to allow the later to reduce his workload.

So it wasn't really that groundbreaking in the original casting (Tibbs originally being portrayed by Sidney Potier in the movie).

 

Blood and Fire (as a whole) left me with mixed feelings. I can see what was trying to be done, but it came off as exploitative. It wasn't bad but it wasn't good either. It needed some refinements. Maybe different actors. (perhaps a real gay couple.) Things felt uncomfortably forced. Not to bash anyone involved with the work. It was a solid effort. But I felt the heart wasn't in the right place. My eyes were drawn to the flashy special effects rather than the story and the characters which just didn't feel like the TOS counterparts.

It's mainly why I don't watch fan films too often. They certainly have the look no doubt about it, but they don't capture the feeling of the characters well in my opinion.

 

The opportunity to have a main character who was a practicing Muslim never happened with Bashir, too bad, it would have been interesting if the writers had been consistent about it through the series run.

Don't forget Miranda Jones, who was blind and could "see" by way of a advance sensor device ... long before LaForge.

 

Which, of course, starred Avery Brooks, and thus was not on at the same time as DS9. I didn't say it was the first drama to have a black lead, just that it didn't have much competition in that regard. In the Heat of the Night overlapped with it for about a year and a half but then was gone.

 

While I agree Enterprise missed several key opportunities, I can't fathom any other Trek show having a Muslim character on board. Why would Bashir be Muslim just because he has was of Arab descent? To cast the one brown guy as a Muslim is sort of absurd and offensive, particularly since no one ever references Jesus nor do there seem to be any Jews, not to mention zero indication of people from non-Abrahamic religions (save for maybe Chakotay - and we all know how that went). The reality is Trek never handled organized religion (from Earth) all that well (compared to say, Babylon 5), you would have to totally reconceptualize how these people interpret spirituality as a whole if you were to introduce a character who follows a world religion from Earth's storied past. Besides, I can't imagine that someone with Bashir's superhuman knowledge could actually be intellectually swayed by a 7th century religious treatise, except for perhaps moments of philosophical inspiration.