News Discovery New Character Breakdowns

[Awesome Possum]

Sorry, but no, I don't think so. As I said upthread, if you want to use a sci-fi setting to its fullest (e.g., the "literature of ideas") you need to do one of two things:

1. Deal with imaginative technologies, concepts, and settings and see what the ramifications are,
2, Use a setting which isn't the mundane present to tell an allegorical story.

I do agree that in general fiction cannot be viewed as anything other than "of its time" and regardless of intent science fiction will seem antiquated in some measures just due to the faulty projections that are made about the future. Trek has many examples of this - most notably that computer technology has generally been shown as less advanced than what is possible even today. Even Berman-era Trek basically didn't have anything resembling the internet shown on any of the shows, even though it was fairly well established by later period. Then again, a lot of "pros" effed this up too.

Regardless, this isn't the case of making a bad call about a future tech. This is a case of basically ignoring a tech which exists right now, which could be much sloppier. I will reserve judgement because we don't know how it will be depicted onscreen, but at minimum I would hope there would be some on-screen reference to use of wheelchairs being far more limited in the 23rd century than today.

But there is of course the other point - the one of allegory. This is why you didn't need 23rd century wheelchairs to tell a story about disabled people. Because a sci-fi setting allows you to expand the concept of disabled considerably.

Here's a hypothetical Discovery episode. The Federation makes contact with a race of beings who have augmented their neural functions with circuitry for generations - similar to the Borg, but to a more limited extent. Everyone is outfitted with a brain-computer interface in childhood. Information is "downloaded" directly into the brain as needed, with written language even falling out of favor. Physical or verbal interfaces have become a thing of the past, because people can just think computer commands. Most people that is. A small minority of the population has an overactive immune system which rejects the neural interface. They must do everything the old fashioned way. They have to learn things through the laborious process of study. They need to have special interfaces installed in order to get anything done. They might not be openly stigmatized, but they have their otherness constantly thrown in their face, having to work their way through a culture not designed for them.

See, I just put together the framework for an allegorical story about disability. Even better, the potential protagonist (er, guest star, I suppose) is someone we wouldn't see as disabled in our own culture. Hence it gets across the idea of what it means to be "disabled" to someone of normal ability. This is the core of what can make a science fiction story unique - what can only be done in a SFnal setting. And it's why just having a "future wheelchair" just seems monumentally cheap to me.

That's just a single one-off episode, this seems to be a recurring character. Why do you think that representation should only be a single event in a show? If we made TOS now, we'd have fans argue that instead of Uhura, we should have an alien with dark skin show up to teach us about racism. Then they go away forever.

The very best scifi is taking present day situation and exploring them in the future. Part of this is going to include having people who were normally ignored by the media except as guest stars or random appearances for a moral lesson, in this case wheelchair bound people. Exploring the how others fit into society is far more interesting than exploring a wacky alien race. There are lives that are rarely explored in any form of media. Scifi allows far more freedom with that and opens up new possibilities. You're wanting to cut that off forever just to have another alien race entry on a wiki. It means nothing, it's just an episode of the week with a new forehead alien. Another forgettable episode with a moral that gets forgotten by fans judging how many of them behave here and elsewhere. They can join the list of aliens meant to be stereotypes that we'll look back at in horror one day. Do you understand why Uhura and Sulu were important as characters? Why having Sisko or Janeway as captains of the series meant something? Why Burnham and Stamets as main characters mean something?

If you're still having trouble understanding how someone with a disability can exist in Star Trek despite current medical advances outpacing the show.

In the future we can probably regrow eyes or recreate vision identical to what humans are used to, we've had success with it to some extent. Wearing a bulky device that required a brain implant just doesn't make sense. I guess we'll just need a species that's blind, but uses echolocation.

 

[eschaton]

That's just a single one-off episode, this seems to be a recurring character. Why do you think that representation should only be a single event in a show? If we made TOS now, we'd have fans argue that instead of Uhura, we should have an alien with dark skin show up to teach us about racism. Then they go away forever.

I suggested it for a show of the week mainly because direct brain-computer interfaces aren't a part of Trek's established canon for the Federation (though I think it's a plausible projection for our future into the 23rd century). But hell, we could make it the backstory for Ariaim or something.

The very best scifi is taking present day situation and exploring them in the future. Part of this is going to include having people who were normally ignored by the media except as guest stars or random appearances for a moral lesson, in this case wheelchair bound people. Exploring the how others fit into society is far more interesting than exploring a wacky alien race. There are lives that are rarely explored in any form of media. Scifi allows far more freedom with that and opens up new possibilities. You're wanting to cut that off forever just to have another alien race entry on a wiki. It means nothing, it's just an episode of the week with a new forehead alien. Another forgettable episode with a moral that gets forgotten by fans judging how many of them behave here and elsewhere. They can join the list of aliens meant to be stereotypes that we'll look back at in horror one day. Do you understand why Uhura and Sulu were important as characters? Why having Sisko or Janeway as captains of the series meant something? Why Burnham and Stamets as main characters mean something?

As a straight white guy, no, I don't. Although I'm not 100% neurotypical, and have never identified with any characters in any media, so the whole discussion of representation may just seem like a foreign language to me for that reason.

If you're still having trouble understanding how someone with a disability can exist in Star Trek despite current medical advances outpacing the show.

In the future we can probably regrow eyes or recreate vision identical to what humans are used to, we've had success with it to some extent. Wearing a bulky device that required a brain implant just doesn't make sense. I guess we'll just need a species that's blind, but uses echolocation.

As I stated upthread, I think the way that they handled Geordi's VISOR was pretty good, although admittedly the technology was a bit cruder than we would extrapolate today. Regardless, although Geordi was born blind, since his VISOR was installed he hasn't really been visually impaired in any sense we can determine (other than the rare occasions that his VISOR malfunctions). He doesn't have any trouble navigating the ship, or even new areas. He doesn't need to walk with a cane or use a seeing eye dog. He doesn't need to read braille - indeed he seems to have no issue reading visual displays at all. 95%+ of the time, the way he lives his life is nothing like someone who is unsighted.

That's exactly why while I'm just fine with someone who is mobility impaired being on the show, having them be in some sort of futuristic "space wheelchair" seems a bit shortsighted. Why not have some sort of light exoskeleton of braces, which would allow the character (and actor) full mobility the majority of the time?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Why not have some sort of light exoskeleton of braces, which would allow the character (and actor) full mobility the majority of the time?

Probably because that's not the story or visual they want.

 

[fireproof78]

See, I just put together the framework for an allegorical story about disability. Even better, the potential protagonist (er, guest star, I suppose) is someone we wouldn't see as disabled in our own culture. Hence it gets across the idea of what it means to be "disabled" to someone of normal ability. This is the core of what can make a science fiction story unique - what can only be done in a SFnal setting. And it's why just having a "future wheelchair" just seems monumentally cheap to me.

some times you don't need the allegory. There is such a thing as visual shorthand in media.

Also, wheelchairs are already a part of Star Trek.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I suggested it for a show of the week mainly because direct brain-computer interfaces aren't a part of Trek's established canon for the Federation (though I think it's a plausible projection for our future into the 23rd century). But hell, we could make it the backstory for Ariaim or something.

I prefer interesting characters over technology. Star Trek is a show about people, not technology.

As a straight white guy, no, I don't. Although I'm not 100% neurotypical, and have never identified with any characters in any media, so the whole discussion of representation may just seem like a foreign language to me for that reason.

It matters to people who aren't being represented. Given Trek's position in pop culture as the one of the two best known scifi properties, using it for representation is powerful, especially given it's history.

As I stated upthread, I think the way that they handled Geordi's VISOR was pretty good, although admittedly the technology was a bit cruder than we would extrapolate today. Regardless, although Geordi was born blind, since his VISOR was installed he hasn't really been visually impaired in any sense we can determine (other than the rare occasions that his VISOR malfunctions). He doesn't have any trouble navigating the ship, or even new areas. He doesn't need to walk with a cane or use a seeing eye dog. He doesn't need to read braille - indeed he seems to have no issue reading visual displays at all. 95%+ of the time, the way he lives his life is nothing like someone who is unsighted.

That's the point, a blind man is able to get around without issues and the crew and his friends think nothing of it. Some even admire his ability to see what others can't. His differences are celebrated. The technology itself is meaningless, it's just serves as a minor story tool to explore a person.

That's exactly why while I'm just fine with someone who is mobility impaired being on the show, having them be in some sort of futuristic "space wheelchair" seems a bit shortsighted. Why not have some sort of light exoskeleton of braces, which would allow the character (and actor) full mobility the majority of the time?

It seems to be a hover chair, so it would float. They could go over any surface and even go up vertically allowing them to work on normally out of reach equipment or provide a stability that legs would not allow. Maybe it's capable of going faster than the rest of the crew. To them it would be a benefit over their legs, giving them abilities the rest of the crew lack. Instead of thinking of possible drawbacks, imagine the benefits. Then imagine some kid in a wheelchair watching Star Trek and seeing someone like them saving the day. Letting them know that they had a place in the future and that they could be an engineer when they grew up, just like their hero.

some times you don't need the allegory. There is such a thing as visual shorthand in media.

Also, wheelchairs are already a part of Star Trek.

Yeah, Pike needed one.

In the JJ films, Kirk's mom needed one while being moved to the shuttlecraft and later Pike was in one after his injury. Later on he required a cane.

 

[Timewalker]

Do you watch Doctor Who? Eventually even daleks needed to fly, but I digress.

The Fifth Doctor used a wheelchair temporarily in the story "Castrovalva" because he was having a great deal of difficulty coping with his regeneration. He was stumbling around in the TARDIS, when a closet door popped open, a wheelchair rolled out, and the Doctor was very pleased to see it. "Transport of Delight!" were his first words.

That wheelchair saw plenty of use in that story.

Say we accept someone cannot be cured or changed from being able to walk in any capacity in the story, so they need a device to get them around. To get them around Discovery in particular with the science that Discovery has shown and is capable of. Why not go for something more liberating than wheels? Of course maybe this 'wheel' chair is a hovercraft version, I hope it is.

Yes, there are things more advanced than wheelchairs in Star Trek.

But I get the impression that the people in this thread who dismiss and denigrate wheelchairs as some primitive, "ridiculous" thing have never actually had to depend on them in RL.

I used to be in a wheelchair, 18 years ago. After some weeks of physiotherapy, exercises, and learning to manage canes, I was able to lose the wheelchair (the first time the receptionist at the clinic saw me without it, she said she hadn't recognized me at first).

After a bad fall a few years ago I've had to rely on a wheeled walker outside the apartment. Would I like a hover-walker, or some other way of getting around that isn't restrictive?

Sure. But mobility devices are nothing to be ashamed of or mocked. They're essential to a disabled person's ability to live as normal a life as possible, and they are absolutely critical if someone becomes unable to walk and there's no other way to get around. They don't need to be fancy. They just need to work, and if a wheelchair is what works, so be it.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I prefer interesting characters over technology. Star Trek is a show about people, not technology.

Preach, sister! Preach!

 

[Spot261]

Regardless, this isn't the case of making a bad call about a future tech. This is a case of basically ignoring a tech which exists right now, which could be much sloppier. I will reserve judgement because we don't know how it will be depicted onscreen, but at minimum I would hope there would be some on-screen reference to use of wheelchairs being far more limited in the 23rd century than today.

But there is of course the other point - the one of allegory. This is why you didn't need 23rd century wheelchairs to tell a story about disabled people. Because a sci-fi setting allows you to expand the concept of disabled considerably.

True, but that's akin to TOS using Spock as an allegory for racism. The principle plays out as far as it goes but by itself it misses an important aspect, the idea that it is natural for people to want to see some version of themself on the screen, not as a depiction of an issue or a moral quandary, but simply as part and parcel of a world where they are valued.

Where whole swathes of the human race are simply not visible and the explanation you propose is "but we don't really need to show you onscreen in your current, it's sci fi, we can just represent you allegorically" the message becomes "actually we don't want to show you onscreen, but the setting allows us a get-out clause anyway, we can represent the idea of you without having to dirty our hands with the reality".

The kind of episodes you are proposing aren't inherently objectionable, on the contrary they have definite value, but they address a specific aspect of the question, they treat people as being defined by one specific part of who and what they are and risk reduce those people to being a disability, to only having a purpose onscreen as a way to address a moral or ethical question. Representation goes beyond that by showing the person as a greater whole, by making their disability simply part of that whole, something which the audience for the most part will tend to forget next to the more important aspects which drive and shape that character.

 

[eschaton]

some times you don't need the allegory. There is such a thing as visual shorthand in media.

What visual shorthand is a wheelchair supposed to convey?

Could an observer who knew nothing about TNG tell that Geordi was blind from visuals alone?

Also, wheelchairs are already a part of Star Trek.

Yes they are, for better or worse. As I said upthread, we know, canonically speaking, that not only did Pike need one after his accident, but that they were still being used for paralysis during the ENT era, and still being used by some people throughout their life by the TNG era. They also seem to be used for short periods of time during recovery from medical issues semi-frequently.

I prefer interesting characters over technology. Star Trek is a show about people, not technology.

I concur that Trek is a story about people. At the same time, if you are telling any SFnal story, you should take advantage of the SFnal setting. This is one of the reasons although I liked a lot of aspects of NuBSG, I thought the show didn't quite live up to its potential due to the shallow worldbuilding - the writers being so focused upon writing compelling characters they didn't give much thought to constructing a plausible setting. Frankly, if I wanted to just watch compelling characters, I wouldn't be reading or watching science-fiction - I'd watch normal people drama or read literary fiction. But I don't, because I find character development in mundane settings boring.

It seems to be a hover chair, so it would float. They could go over any surface and even go up vertically allowing them to work on normally out of reach equipment or provide a stability that legs would not allow. Maybe it's capable of going faster than the rest of the crew. To them it would be a benefit over their legs, giving them abilities the rest of the crew lack. Instead of thinking of possible drawbacks, imagine the benefits. Then imagine some kid in a wheelchair watching Star Trek and seeing someone like them saving the day. Letting them know that they had a place in the future and that they could be an engineer when they grew up, just like their hero.

Still not sure how it will work in the jeffries tubes, unless it can unfold to make the legs vertical. More broadly, honestly if it were that advanced, and I was really paralyzed with no hope of recovery of function in my legs, I think I'd just want them amputated so I wouldn't have to carry around the extra weight.

Oh, and as a total aside, we don't really know how gravity plating works in Trek, but given how technobabble seems to work in Trek (e.g., as the plot requires), it seems like it would be easy enough to cancel out gravity over a small area, allowing someone who is paralyzed to float around as needed.

 

[eschaton]

True, but that's akin to TOS using Spock as an allegory for racism. The principle plays out as far as it goes but by itself it misses an important aspect, the idea that it is natural for people to want to see some version of themself on the screen, not as a depiction of an issue or a moral quandary, but simply as part and parcel of a world where they are valued.

But in regards to race, that's exactly what Trek did! Plenty of "nonwhite" humans have been depicted in the Trek world, but aside from a couple comments by Sisko (maybe even just one, IIRC) there is no real evidence that "race" as a concept, really exists in humanity any longer. 95% of the time the show has touched upon racism it's been through the use of alien races - either with human xenophobia towards the alien races, or the racism of the aliens themselves.

If we wanted Trek to reflect the issues of the day directly, and not through allegory, we'd want to depict racism as still existing in the Federation. But this would cut against not only established canon, but also against the general thrust of the Federation as being an optimistic portrayal of the future of humanity where we have left many of the old things hehind.

Where whole swathes of the human race are simply not visible and the explanation you propose is "but we don't really need to show you onscreen in your current, it's sci fi, we can just represent you allegorically" the message becomes "actually we don't want to show you onscreen, but the setting allows us a get-out clause anyway, we can represent the idea of you without having to dirty our hands with the reality".

Whole sections of humanity have never been depicted in Trek, and likely never will be. Discounting Chakotay's weird fake mysticism, there has not been a single human being with any identifiable religious beliefs. The future has no Muslims, no Jews, no Hindus, no Buddhists, no Christians. Religion has only been dealt with allegorically through alien species.

The kind of episodes you are proposing aren't inherently objectionable, on the contrary they have definite value, but they address a specific aspect of the question, they treat people as being defined by one specific part of who and what they are and risk reduce those people to being a disability, to only having a purpose onscreen as a way to address a moral or ethical question. Representation goes beyond that by showing the person as a greater whole, by making their disability simply part of that whole, something which the audience for the most part will tend to forget next to the more important aspects which drive and shape that character.

I understand. I just feel like representation and deconstruction sort of run cross currents, and the latter is far more important if we want people to walk away actually questioning their moral priors and thinking about something deeper than "hey, ____ are people too."

 

[Timewalker]

Whole sections of humanity have never been depicted in Trek, and likely never will be. Discounting Chakotay's weird fake mysticism, there has not been a single human being with any identifiable religious beliefs. The future has no Muslims, no Jews, no Hindus, no Buddhists, no Christians. Religion has only been dealt with allegorically through alien species.

This is incorrect. It's quite plain that both Uhura and McCoy are Christians, if you pay attention to their dialogue in "Bread and Circuses" (for Uhura) and there are numerous instances in other episodes and even in the TOS movies that McCoy is Christian.

 

[Spot261]

But in regards to race, that's exactly what Trek did! Plenty of "nonwhite" humans have been depicted in the Trek world, but aside from a couple comments by Sisko (maybe even just one, IIRC) there is no real evidence that "race" as a concept, really exists in humanity any longer. 95% of the time the show has touched upon racism it's been through the use of alien races - either with human xenophobia towards the alien races, or the racism of the aliens themselves.

I know it did, but my point was, I think, pretty clear that allegory isn't enough and TOS acknowledged that. "Race" as a word isn't just a cultural concept, it also incorporates the associated biology. When we saw (as you put it) "non whites" onscreen that was an enormous step. You are confusing the concepts of (on the one hand) using allegory to address an issue and providing positive relatable examples of real world groups onscreen on the other. People are not issues.

I know from prior interactions you admit you often struggle with the idea of relating to characters on a TV show. That isn't a problem, but it can't be stressed enough that other people do in fact value being represented. Star Trek blazed that particular trail once, it should be doing it now.

If we wanted Trek to reflect the issues of the day directly, and not through allegory, we'd want to depict racism as still existing in the Federation. But this would cut against not only established canon, but also against the general thrust of the Federation as being an optimistic portrayal of the future of humanity where we have left many of the old things hehind.

Bigotry and prejudice do exist in the federation, we've seen it countless times and "canon" (whatever that ridiculous term is being misused as today) can go for a lovely long swim for all I care. Star Trek is not a religion with a holy book, it's a tv show which has long claimed to have a sense of social conscience.

Nonetheless we aren't talking about "issues" as such here, we are talking about seeing a black woman, a Russian man and an asian man as heroes in the 1960s, we are talking about seeing a blind man running an engineering team. We are talking about finally seeing gay people onscreen as being normal human beings and not parodies or stereotypes. Chekov wasn't an issue, Uhura wasn't an issue, Nurse Chapel running sickbay wasn't an issue, La Forge, Stamets and Culber weren't issues. They were just people.

Whole sections of humanity have never been depicted in Trek, and likely never will be. Discounting Chakotay's weird fake mysticism, there has not been a single human being with any identifiable religious beliefs. The future has no Muslims, no Jews, no Hindus, no Buddhists, no Christians. Religion has only been dealt with allegorically through alien species.

Who mentioned religion?

I understand. I just feel like representation and deconstruction sort of run cross currents, and the latter is far more important if we want people to walk away actually questioning their moral priors and thinking about something deeper than "hey, ____ are people too."

I'm drawing from this that you are white, straight and male? People of other groups are posting here stating that it most certainly does matter to them, that your perspective on their lives is missing the point that they are part of humanity too and when a show purpotes to represent humanity they don't want to feel excluded and nor should they.

 

[Spot261]

This is incorrect. It's quite plain that both Uhura and McCoy are Christians, if you pay attention to their dialogue in "Bread and Circuses" (for Uhura) and there are numerous instances in other episodes and even in the TOS movies that McCoy is Christian.

For better or for worse, this is true.

 

[eschaton]

I know it did, but my point was, I think, pretty clear that allegory isn't enough and TOS acknowledged that. "Race" as a word isn't just a cultural concept, it also incorporates the associated biology. When we saw (as you put it) "non whites" onscreen that was an enormous step. You are confusing the concepts of (on the one hand) using allegory to address an issue and providing positive relatable examples of real world groups onscreen on the other. People are not issues.

Race may map imperfectly onto real biological diversity, but as it is understood in the U.S., it is indeed a social construct. Look at all of the people who are clearly 50% or less African ancestry who are socially coded as "black" for example, regardless of skin color.

Still, looking at it from a 20th/21st century lens, representing someone of a different race is pretty simple - just cast someone. In a few cases there were some minor "tells" put into a character's history (like Uhura speaking Swahili) but in others not at all. The one case where they made it not just about actorly representation, but the story itself was Chakotay, where it was pretty grating at times, both because it was written by people who new nothing about Native Americans, and because much of his character came down to being a stereotype, even if presented in a largely positive way.

Regardless if I were rebooting Trek over again with a clean sheet of paper I'd try to cast nearly all of the human characters as multiracial. It stands to reason, after all, that in the world of the Federation, where racism among humans is a thing of the past, and interracial marriage is no big deal, people would be far, far more mixed than today. Yet there are more human/alien hybrids than biracial/multiracial humans. I know this is due in part to casting concerns. But I'd love a Trek with few white people, black people, Asian people, etc - just different mixes. Indeed, I think future sci-fi in general should follow the "no white people" rule - there's been far too many of us depicted in the future as it is.

I'm drawing from this that you are white, straight and male? People of other groups are posting here stating that it most certainly does matter to them, that your perspective on their lives is missing the point that they are part of humanity too and when a show purports to represent humanity they don't want to feel excluded and nor should they.

I dunno. Certainly it will be good for the roughly (googling) 2% of the population who is paralyzed to see a Trek character who cannot walk. But in my mind if the other 98% of us are not taught some sort of moral lesson in the process - if the whole concept of ability isn't deconstructed - then the show will not accomplish all that it could.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I concur that Trek is a story about people. At the same time, if you are telling any SFnal story, you should take advantage of the SFnal setting. This is one of the reasons although I liked a lot of aspects of NuBSG, I thought the show didn't quite live up to its potential due to the shallow worldbuilding - the writers being so focused upon writing compelling characters they didn't give much thought to constructing a plausible setting. Frankly, if I wanted to just watch compelling characters, I wouldn't be reading or watching science-fiction - I'd watch normal people drama or read literary fiction. But I don't, because I find character development in mundane settings boring.

I'm not sure how a character in a wheelchair ruins that.

Still not sure how it will work in the jeffries tubes, unless it can unfold to make the legs vertical. More broadly, honestly if it were that advanced, and I was really paralyzed with no hope of recovery of function in my legs, I think I'd just want them amputated so I wouldn't have to carry around the extra weight.

Now you're creating excuses to not have them. Maybe the battery dies too.

Oh, and as a total aside, we don't really know how gravity plating works in Trek, but given how technobabble seems to work in Trek (e.g., as the plot requires), it seems like it would be easy enough to cancel out gravity over a small area, allowing someone who is paralyzed to float around as needed.

Once again, the technology doesn't matter. It's set dressing and nothing else. It could be magic and it wouldn't change an thing.

 

[eschaton]

Now you're creating excuses to not have them. Maybe the battery dies too.

I'll bet dollars to donuts that if Tig's character is featured long enough the battery will die as a minor plot point. Nothing like having the characters faced with adversity to amp up the drama after all.

Once again, the technology doesn't matter. It's set dressing and nothing else. It could be magic and it wouldn't change an thing.

Again though, I'm not a person who really cares about characters much compared to worldbuilding and ideas. I can read Memory Alpha for hours, but I would never read fanfic. Ideas are much, much more interesting to me than human beings, in the real world and in fiction.

 

[Spot261]

Race may map imperfectly onto real biological diversity, but as it is understood in the U.S., it is indeed a social construct. Look at all of the people who are clearly 50% or less African ancestry who are socially coded as "black" for example, regardless of skin color.

We aren't discussing the US, trek is a program representing the human race to a global audience, but you are right, many scientists define race as a social construct. Nonetheless it is generally deemed pretty offensive to whitewash roles precisely because for many colour is synonymous with race, especially for people who are part of those racial groups and have spent years seeing themselves erased out of our cultural consciousness . That matters when people look at the tv screen and see a disproportionate number of white people for instance. Even worse would be (for instance) casting a white woman in the role of Uhura and claiming it's ok because her race is just about culture. That alienates people and with good reason.

I dunno. Certainly it will be good for the roughly (googling) 2% of the population who is paralyzed to see a Trek character who cannot walk. But in my mind if the other 98% of us are not taught some sort of moral lesson in the process - if the whole concept of ability isn't deconstructed - then the show will not accomplish all that it could.

Disability is about more than paralysis, there are many forms of disability and 2% doesn't come remotely close to the actual figure for disability in general. Whilst the degree and type of stigma varies between those forms, there is common ground in terms of the experience of being viewed as nothing more than a label. That is why Geordie is seen as such an important character, because he isn't portrayed as being about blindness, it isn't his reason for being onscreen. He is a character who is portrayed as a fully realised individual, a valued and competent member of the crew and popular character who just happened to be blind.

Geordie isn't a moral lesson, he isn't a dilemna for Picard to solve in an allegorical episode. That has it's value but isn't what people want when they see themselves portrayed. They also want to be seen as people, not just problems.

Again though, I'm not a person who really cares about characters much compared to worldbuilding and ideas. I can read Memory Alpha for hours, but I would never read fanfic. Ideas are much, much more interesting to me than human beings, in the real world and in fiction.

Trek is about characters.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Trek is about characters.

This.

 

[eschaton]

We aren't discussing the US, trek is a program representing the human race to a global audience, but you are right, many scientists define race as a social construct. Nonetheless it is generally deemed pretty offensive to whitewash roles precisely because for many colour is synonymous with race, especially for people who are part of those racial groups and have spent years seeing themselves erased out of our cultural consciousness . That matters when people look at the tv screen and see a disproportionate number of white people for instance. Even worse would be (for instance) casting a white woman in the role of Uhura and claiming it's ok because her race is just about culture. That alienates people and with good reason.

I never argued that it wasn't a good thing to cast Uhura as a black woman. I can say personally I'd be just as interested in a Trek where there were no white characters however. I feel just about equally alienated from everyone regardless of identity. Probably the closest I came to actually identifying with someone in Trek when I was younger was Reginald Barclay in TNG.

Trek is about characters.

I'm not going to dispute that. Hell, DS9 remains my favorite Trek, and it is the most character driven of the series. That said, I woudn't watch DS9 with the sci-fi elements taken out. I'm really not a fan of non-genre television or written fiction. I'd much rather spend my time reading a book about science or history or something. Character alone simply isn't enough to have me hold interest in a fictional work.

Regardless, can you tell me what fictional shows are not about characters?

 

[Awesome Possum]

Again though, I'm not a person who really cares about characters much compared to worldbuilding and ideas. I can read Memory Alpha for hours, but I would never read fanfic. Ideas are much, much more interesting to me than human beings, in the real world and in fiction.

Then you’re missing the entire point of the show.