David Gerrold's Post- Fascinating

[Darren Mooney]

Neelix may be overly possessive and paranoid, but that doesn't change the fact that Kes was not a child (by any definition of the term) at the time. There is no connection between the two.

When they met, Kes was 2 years old, which by Ocampa standards IS ADULTHOOD.

How do we define adulthood in an alien species? Even on Earth, eighteen is an arbitrary age set by legislatures. The age of majority differs between countries, for example. At 18, I can drink a beer in Ireland, but not in the United States. Age of consent is equally variable.

More than that, do we know that she was actually two years old when they met? She is three years old half-way through the third season. The maths seems questionable.

Anyway, Kes' child-like qualities are what make the relationship between her and Neelix so incredibly toxic.

Kes is very young, has never been off her planet, whereas he is a veteran space explorer with his own ship. When we first meet Kes in Caretaker, she has clearly been physically abused. Neelix positions himself as "rescuer." It's not too hard to infer - particularly given the events of Warlord - that Kes simply doesn't have the life experience to realise that Neelix's behaviour towards her is abusive and that she does have the option of leaving him.

The third season is quite clear on this - stressing the point that Kes is maturing into an adult making her own life choices. The obvious inference is that she was not an adult before.

Doctor, I know that you care about me and that you have my best interests at heart, but everyone seems to be treating me like I'm still a child. I'm three years old now. If I'm attracted to someone it's my business, not the whole ship's.

The fact that the show worked so hard in the third season to make it clear that Kes was no longer a child - coupled with breaking off the relationship between Neelix and Kes - makes it quite clear that the show considered her to be a child beforehand.

(And this is an idea reinforced by more than just the scripts and the dialogue of the episodes. Look at the changing wardrobe and hairstyles that the production team afford Jennifer Lien. There is a conscious effort to move towards a young woman. Which demonstrates that they were transitioning away from the elfin child-like character.)

Well, if two break up and stay broken up, then, yeah, that's pretty much the definition of a non-functional relationship.

Yes, but healthy mature people do not need genocidal alien warlords to handle their break-ups for them, is the point that I'm making. But, I'm willing to concede I might be generalising here. If you need Saddam Hussein to break up with your boyfriend for you, it probably says something about the relationship.

Calling their relationship "creepy" doesn't carry any weight. Neelix never abused Kes, she never abused him (at least when she wasn't being possessed), Neelix never bullied Kes to remain with him.

You do realise that abuse does not have to be physical to be abuse? Emotional manipulation and controlling behaviour are pretty stock cards in the abuser deck, right? "You know where other men live on the ship? Why would you need to know that?" (see: Twisted) "Oh, don't worry about little old me, dying here on this table shortly after I whisked you away and saved you from the Kazon... you go on and live your life, never mind that I am in constant agony" (see: Phage) Coupled with the issue of Kes' age, it's a pretty damning indictment.

Anyway, that's all I have to say about this. It just gets rather tiresome whenever it comes up, and it does so repeatedly, that's all.

Cool. We agree to disagree, then?

 

[T'Girl]

Kes didn't become an adult during the early seasons of the show, she was a fully mature adult when we saw her for the first time in the pilot. It would have been quite odd (an a bit abusive in of itself) if Janeway had taken a immature child way from her parents and home world to travel aboard her ship.

Kes was never under Neelix's control within their relationship, he didn't cause her to live with him in his quarters, apparently they weren't engaging in sex, Kes had numerous friendship among the crew away from Neelix. Neelix seem surprised when Kes revealed she knew where various crewmembers lived aboard the ship. Kes had jobs aboard the ship outside of Neelix's supervision.

If Neelix was seeking to control and manipulate Kes he certainly wasn't doing a particularly good job of it.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Well he's Neelix. He's not a good guide or cook either.

 

[T'Girl]

To be fair he was a good guide until they went beyond the limits of his knowledge.

 

[Kemaiku]

Since that was two minutes in, why wasn't he in the airlock before the end of Caretaker?

 

[ThankYouGeneR]

Oh dear. I should have been clearer. The above quoted comment was about Star Trek rather than The Next Generation.

Strange, because while Gerrold submitted a half dozen story ideas to the original Star Trek, he only worked on a single script, The Trouble with Tribbles.

This would seem to make his statement of "Most of the stories we wrote were about social justice," sound (again) strange. Gerrold never wrote stories in the plural. And from reading his book, he didn't have much interaction with Roddenberry, but rather with Gene Coon.

Gerrold was on the staff creating TNG, and just from the sound of it the quote would seem to be referring to that show, and not TOS.

Understood. Here is the link to Gerrold's Facebook page I excerpted from. His article itself is a much broader response to someone else's much broader article. I brought here what I considered germane to my conversation.


And I do have some information on writing the episodes and his 'the stories we wrote' statement.

On any one episode there will be an idea written and submitted by a person.

The idea is accepted, then frequently re-written/added-to/changed dramatically, going through several writers... one at a time.. and sometimes back again, including Mr. Roddenberry, until Mr. Roddenberry either approves it or decides against it and it's shelved.

Then comes the script writing which usually is written/re-written/changed dramatically by many writers... one at a time, including Mr. R until he either approves the script or decides against it and it's shelved.

There are only single digit numbers of story-to-script-to-production episodes that made it from story to production with one and only one writer.

Typically there were six or seven writers ...one at a time, working on each episode writing and re-writing over weeks, sometimes months.

The rules for who gets credited and who gets $$ are a minefield to traverse much less even understand.

There are all kinds of Rules. There are all kinds of people on the payroll that reworking these stories/scripts is a small part of the reason they get a paycheck. There are people hoping to break-in, who will hang around making themselves useful to the PTB unpaid, who are also in on the writing at times and/or giving ideas and/or script reading and note making while they hope it will lead to actual employment.

There can be one or three (whatever) people 'credited' with the writing when actually seven to ten writers also may have done the major share of the writing. Sometimes more than the credited writer(s).

There can be writers of an episode who get the lion's share of payment for writing the episode... who are un-credited and that we hear nothing about unless a LOT of digging is done, which for the layperson regular viewers was extremely difficult to ferret out before the Internet.

Especially back in sixties television. But this still goes on in the business right now.

It was not that long ago that I worked with a First Assistant Director on a film who was working for no pay, just to get the gig on his resume. The director directly under 'the' director. Working. For months. On the whole film. For nothing but a resume line.

My friend's daughter is in cinematography working in "Hollywood" or where ever "Hollywood" is currently in production at the time who only in this last year was 'hired'.... after doing several years of working for nothing to finally get the resume, to be able to get hired once to be able to get her union card, to be able to get hired regularly.


In this sense, listening to Mr. Gerrold talk about his involvement aspects back then, reading the things he's written about his involvement back then, he can in honesty and in accuracy say 'the stories we wrote'. Whether or not his name is credited. And though in my quote of him he is speaking of the OriginalSeries, he could also honestly and accurately say the same of NextGen in his time with it: 'the stories we wrote'.

 

[IrishNero]

Sometimes we think these writers are stolen away behind a typewriter in seclusion whereas the reality you describe is very different. Thanks for that post. It was very enlightening.

 

[ThankYouGeneR]

You're welcome!

 

[T'Girl]

Gerrold

He also has an uncredited rewrite of "I, Mudd" and the story credit for "The Cloud Minders". Then he has two credits on the animated series: "BEM" and "More Tribbles, More Troubles".

Okay, add all of those together with The Trouble with Tribbles and how many involve "social justice?" Tribbles, I Mudd, more Tribbles were comedy's, BEM as well contained no message of social justice.

Only The Cloud Minders carried any kind of message, Gerrold created the story premise but not the script.

Gerrold: "Most of the stories we wrote were about social justice" Again, where are we seeing "most?"

 

[ThankYouGeneR]

Well, there it is then. Peace and long life, dear. Peace and long life.

 

[BillJ]

Gerrold

He also has an uncredited rewrite of "I, Mudd" and the story credit for "The Cloud Minders". Then he has two credits on the animated series: "BEM" and "More Tribbles, More Troubles".

Okay, add all of those together with The Trouble with Tribbles and how many involve "social justice?" Tribbles, I Mudd, more Tribbles were comedy's, BEM as well contained no message of social justice.

Only The Cloud Minders carried any kind of message, Gerrold created the story premise but not the script.

Gerrold: "Most of the stories we wrote were about social justice" Again, where are we seeing "most?"

Just correcting the inaccurate credits.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Rants aren't really designed to stand up to detailed analysis and dissection.

Any value that can be derived from them comes from the basic point or broad statement being made.

 

[Nightdiamond]

The "social justice" line is a lovely piece of myth-building. However, it's largely not borne out. That multinational crew? Not Roddenberry's idea. It was added at the behest of the network. The evil network.

Look at the way fandom treats Uhura. You would imagine her to be a torch-bearer, a character who broke the mold. It's great that she inspired people like Whoopi Goldberg and Mae Jameson, and Nichelle Nichols deserves credit for that.

Uhura seemed to have become a symbol just because of her very presence, and then all the documentaries, articles, interviews just expanded on that. But somehow, she did have an impact.

And the same for the myth of social justice. Some of those messages are twisted in a way.

Measure of a Man-- Data, despite his intelligence, is judged to be property of Starfleet. Picard fights in court for Data to be seen as a sentient being with rights.

The court agrees. They saw their own error. This shows that Federation society is seen as being a fair place that is equal and just for all.

Except at first, they were almost going to rule Data as property and force him to undergo a dangerous experiment against his will. Forget that part.

And that's before getting into the whole "lack of homosexual characters" thing. The writers may have wanted it, but that isn't enough on its own. Gerrold, to be fair, at least wrote a script. Producers rushed down to the set on The Offspring to prevent Jonathan Frakes from shooting a same-sex couple holding hands.

This "social justice" narrative is a nice one, but it is a piece of retroactive mythologising by a lot of those involved in the show.

The ironic thing is, if Trek is just another entertainment show, there would be no reason to feature a gay character if they (the writers, producers, whoever) didn't want to.

If it's just for entertainment, why should they have an obligation to show gay characters, or anything involving equal rights?

The ironic thing is, being perceived as a "message show" would probably be your best bet to ever see homosexual relationships on the show.

Because if it's just for entertainment, it's just that easier to avoid the issue if they want. They'd be out for ratings only.

There's was obviously some squeamish element that had some influence on what made it into Trek shows.

It attached itself to the franchise, and made it their own. It willing to tolerate some ideas, but a same sex kiss, a female captain, was going too far, and that's when they let everyone know it.

 

[T'Girl]

Just correcting the inaccurate credits.

For which I thank you, I didn't know about Gerrold's involvement with I Mudd.

Measure of a Man-- Data, despite his intelligence, is judged to be property of Starfleet. Picard fights in court for Data to be seen as a sentient being with rights.

The JAG court only said that Data did not have to submit to a transfer, not that Data was a "sentient being."

The ironic thing is, if Trek is just another entertainment show, there would be no reason to feature a gay character if they (the writers, producers, whoever) didn't want to.

And they in fact didn't want to, which is why they didn't.

 

[Darren Mooney]

The ironic thing is, if Trek is just another entertainment show, there would be no reason to feature a gay character if they (the writers, producers, whoever) didn't want to.

If it's just for entertainment, why should they have an obligation to show gay characters, or anything involving equal rights?

The ironic thing is, being perceived as a "message show" would probably be your best bet to ever see homosexual relationships on the show.

Because if it's just for entertainment, it's just that easier to avoid the issue if they want. They'd be out for ratings only.

There's was obviously some squeamish element that had some influence on what made it into Trek shows.

It attached itself to the franchise, and made it their own. It willing to tolerate some ideas, but a same sex kiss, a female captain, was going too far, and that's when they let everyone know it.

Two things:

(A.) if you claim Star Trek is about social justice, the fact there are no LGBTQ people in the "regular" universe is a legitimate stick with which you can be beaten; if you really want to argue the franchise is genuinely progressive, you have to acknowledge that;

(B.) a lot of non message shows feature LGBTQ characters; was Buffy more message-driven than Star Trek? 24 had a couple of LGBTQ characters, even; even The X-Files. Good television is good television. Diversity is inherently good. More viewpoints mean more stories, mean more opportunities.

 

[fireproof78]

The ironic thing is, if Trek is just another entertainment show, there would be no reason to feature a gay character if they (the writers, producers, whoever) didn't want to.

If it's just for entertainment, why should they have an obligation to show gay characters, or anything involving equal rights?

The ironic thing is, being perceived as a "message show" would probably be your best bet to ever see homosexual relationships on the show.

Because if it's just for entertainment, it's just that easier to avoid the issue if they want. They'd be out for ratings only.

There's was obviously some squeamish element that had some influence on what made it into Trek shows.

It attached itself to the franchise, and made it their own. It willing to tolerate some ideas, but a same sex kiss, a female captain, was going too far, and that's when they let everyone know it.

Two things:

(A.) if you claim Star Trek is about social justice, the fact there are no LGBTQ people in the "regular" universe is a legitimate stick with which you can be beaten; if you really want to argue the franchise is genuinely progressive, you have to acknowledge that;

(B.) a lot of non message shows feature LGBTQ characters; was Buffy more message-driven than Star Trek? 24 had a couple of LGBTQ characters, even; even The X-Files. Good television is good television. Diversity is inherently good. More viewpoints mean more stories, mean more opportunities.

Heck, even M*A*S*H had a guest character who was, and I think that Doctor Who, at least in the newer series, has done a decent job of having a different mix of characters.

I don't think a message show is necessarily the only way to do it. I think that "Blood and Fire" as Gerrold originally conceived could have worked at the time, but just having a character who is, would be at least an effort.

But, what do I know? I'm just a WASP

 

[Maurice]

And I do have some information on writing the episodes and his 'the stories we wrote' statement.

On any one episode there will be an idea written and submitted by a person...<snip>

Your explanation (the odd detour aside) is loosely correct, but while there are occasional issues with how credit is given or denied on WGA signatory productions, the basic rules are fairly straightforward and not as arcane as people make them out to be.

A production may buy a story or screenplay from a writer or a writing team, and scripts or rewrites may be assigned to other writers at producer discretion. However, even if the original writer(s) do nothing more than sell the story, they will always get "Story by" credit because they originated the idea on which the shooting script gets based. No matter how far the script varies from the source, so long as the paper trail of rewrites leads back to the original story.

To receive credit on any rewrite the writer or team must do work which can be said to constitute a change of 30% or more. This is where it gets slippery, because someone has to determine (if it goes to arbitration) what changes are substantive and what constitutes just shuffling things around or changing the words without changing what happens. Dialog polishes frequently fail to be treated as significant enough to merit screen credit because they do not usually constitute significant story changes.

Requiring that credit requires a certain minimum of substantial changes and that only the most significant of said contributors do get credit tends to discourage other from doing unnecessary "fixes" to get a share of the glory.

No, it doesn't always work equitably, but it does most of the time.

 

[Ithekro]

"Blood and Fire", as eventually filmed by New Voyages, seems like it has a normal homosexual couple in it, yet seems to me a little too in your face with it. Or maybe it was just the scene were the couple are pretty much going to make out gets a little too uncomfortable (possubly slightly more than you might have with a heterosexual couple) before they fall off the bed (making it funny). Or maybe it seems that way because it would be two new actors rather than the normal cast that are getting the B plot focus.

If what was shot was more or less what was intended for TNG version of the episode, than I can see why it wouldn't have gone over too well. It was a little too forefront I guess for what would be two guest stars, or perhaps a guest star and a reoccuring character (likely not one of the main cast unless they changed something from season one to two). It would be a little to straightforward than even Naken Now, though probably with more clothing.

I do wonder if they would have placed the couple in the skants from season one? Or just regular uniforms?

 

[Nightdiamond]

The JAG court only said that Data did not have to submit to a transfer, not that Data was a "sentient being."

She didn't have to. The entire trial revolved around whether Data was sentient, and whether he was property of Starfleet.
If he was found to be sentient, he can't be considered property.

And they in fact didn't want to, which is why they didn't.

At this point, it's a coin toss, because now everyone is claiming they wanted to act it, write it, produce it, etc, but was held back by someone else.

Two things:

(A.) if you claim Star Trek is about social justice, the fact there are no LGBTQ people in the "regular" universe is a legitimate stick with which you can be beaten; if you really want to argue the franchise is genuinely progressive, you have to acknowledge that;

(B.) a lot of non message shows feature LGBTQ characters; was Buffy more message-driven than Star Trek? 24 had a couple of LGBTQ characters, even; even The X-Files. Good television is good television. Diversity is inherently good. More viewpoints mean more stories, mean more opportunities.

One thing we've got to realize though, is that Trek has a built in escape clause.

You're always going to be reminded that bigotry is long gone and humans eliminated their prejudices long ago. And that's automatically going to cover LGBT.

It's a crazy excuse, yeah, but whether it's B.S or not,
it's Trek's official stance.

I don't think a message show is necessarily the only way to do it. I think that "Blood and Fire" as Gerrold originally conceived could have worked at the time, but just having a character who is, would be at least an effort.

But, what do I know? I'm just a WASP

But the thing is, with its reputation as a message show, it's probably going to be the only way, your best bet, to ever see a gay character on Trek.

Ironic that the one time they approached the topic, it was a message episode (The Outcast). Unless you count "Rejoined".

No one would have looked at Buffy, Dr. Who or 24-- and asked, "why didn't they ever have gay characters?"

But why do they ask Trek this? Because it is perceived as a social justice show.

Why do fans keep asking or wondering why Trek hasn't featured gays yet? What's the reason?

 

[Maurice]

Because it seems ever more backwards that it hasn't, and it looks more backwards with each subsequent entry, just as if the shows had an all white cast.