Star Trek novels by authors of color

[DS9Continuing]

And it's a difficult question for writers because you want to show that kind of unity in humanity, but still be relatable to minorities at the same time. It's a bit of a dichotomy. How do you relate to various minority groups and yet show humanity as a unified whole at the same time? That's why the writers get paid the big bucks I guess.

I don't think it does really do that right, because it basically just effaces cultural diversity in favor of having everyone act like mainstream (i.e. mostly white) America. Equality doesn't mean that our differences are erased or ignored, it means they're welcomed and celebrated.

Dave Galanter touched on this very dilemma in his interview on Trek.fm regarding his Discovery novel Dead Endless, which focuses on the Stamets-Culber relationship. He said that he would have worried writing about a gay couple in a contemporary non-Trek story because, as a straight guy, he couldn't do justice to the gay experience in 2020. But because he was writing a story about a gay couple in Trek, and because anti-gay bigotry in Trek is not supposed to exist, he did feel comfortable with it because he could write them as just a romantic couple without having to worry about the nuances of the contemporary gay experience.

But does that then mean that the story is inauthentic? If it does, how can any Trek story focusing on a minority-by-today's-standards character ever be considered authentic, when the issues the author might need to be aware of in order to make it authentic don't exist in that fictional universe? Plus, isn't the fact that a gay couple is at the centre of a romantic storyline without it being any kind of issue a good thing? Meaning therefore that the author doesn't need to be a member of that minority in order to write that story. But then what if that's used as an excuse not to hire a more diverse writing line-up, because you don't "need" to? How do you square that circle?

Look at Benjamin Sisko. It was a massive deal representation-wise to have a black man as the lead actor on a major sci-fi show in the 1990s. Even if the setting of that show precluded addressing the racial issues directly, just his mere presence and visibility was a big step forward. But the only way to actually address the issue raised by the character's sheer existence head-on was to invoke time travel back to the 20th/21st century – "Past Tense", "Far Beyond the Stars", "Badda-Bing Badda-Bang" – and they wisely got Avery Brooks to take the helm on the biggest of those so that it would be authentic.

.

 

[Christopher]

Well, you guys would no more about that than I. I was just speculating as to what if there was a lack of interest among good minority writers in writing for Star Trek? That would tell me that maybe Star Trek has a bigger problem with reaching minorities. But I do admit, I don't have information one way or the other about that.

I see no reason to suspect that, and it sounds like making excuses. As I've said, we do see greater diversity in the current writers and directors of Star Trek on TV, so I'm sure they'd be there in prose too if they were given the opportunity. You see the same thing in comics and gaming and other fields -- once you dismantle the institutional biases based on the assumption that women or minorities aren't interested in the thing, you find that they've always been interested and have a lot to contribute.

We can celebrate what makes us unique and what brings us together at the same time---and Star Trek can be lacking in that area. I think, in general their heart is in the right place, but that doesn't mean they can't do better. Perhaps they get so hung up on wanting to show that humanity has moved past our biases that they miss the boat on diversity in their writing. I don't think it's on purpose.

Which is exactly why it's important to have diversity behind the scenes, so that a diverse perspective is just a natural part of what the writers are working with, so that it comes through more authentically onscreen or on the page. Even those of us who try to be inclusive have unexamined biases and habits we don't even recognize until we see ourselves in contrast with a different point of view, or we portray other cultures in ways we don't realize are stereotypical because we don't have enough experience with their perspective to know better.

Plus, isn't the fact that a gay couple is at the centre of a romantic storyline without it being any kind of issue a good thing? Meaning therefore that the author doesn't need to be a member of that minority in order to write that story. But then what if that's used as an excuse not to hire a more diverse writing line-up, because you don't "need" to? How do you square that circle?

It's as I said before -- the only way I could learn to write about people not like myself was to listen to them, to learn from their own voices and their authentic experience. If they weren't around for me to learn from, I couldn't do it as well. So no, an author doesn't need to be a member of a given group to write about them, provided that there are other writers from that group getting to tell their own stories so that author can learn from them.

Creators don't operate in a vacuum. Fiction is an ongoing dialogue among storytellers. What we write is influenced by what we read or watch. So we're better able to write about groups different from ourselves if there are also members of those groups writing about their own experience, so we can learn from their example, their participation in the ongoing conversation. It's not either-or; having those voices in the mix helps the rest of us do better too. So either way, they still need to be there, even if they don't write every single story about their own groups.

 

[RandyS]

We don't want to get rid of the middle-aged white guys, you're all good guys

I sincerely hope that's true. But the more that people harp on "diversity", the more I doubt it. The sheer violent anger with which some people react whenever somebody asks why diversity is important makes me think that getting rid of white men IS in fact, the end goal.

 

[DS9Continuing]

That's paranoia born of the fear of seeing done to you what you (the generic 'you') have historically done to others.

The anger you reference is most likely sheer frustration at having to keep explaining something that seems obvious to us but apparently isn't. The fact that anyone who isn't a straight white male has to keep battling every single day just to be acknowledged – can you not see how that would be wearing on a person?

.

 

[Christopher]

I sincerely hope that's true. But the more that people harp on "diversity", the more I doubt it. The sheer violent anger with which some people react whenever somebody asks why diversity is important makes me think that getting rid of white men IS in fact, the end goal.

"Sheer violent anger?" What in my previous posts did you interpret as violent? The most negative thing I've seen in this thread so far is your own comment that I just quoted.

 

[Nyotarules]

I sincerely hope that's true. But the more that people harp on "diversity", the more I doubt it. The sheer violent anger with which some people react whenever somebody asks why diversity is important makes me think that getting rid of white men IS in fact, the end goal.

You must feel threatened realising most of humanity are not carbon copies of yourself

 

[thribs]

What colour?

 

[EnriqueH]

Maybe one of you will guys will vouch for me, a Cuban American, to write a novel.

 

[Daddy Todd]

Dave Galanter touched on this very dilemma in his interview on Trek.fm regarding his Discovery novel Dead Endless, which focuses on the Stamets-Culber relationship...

But does that then mean that the story is inauthentic?

Well, for this gay man, it kinda is inauthentic. It very much struck me as the kind of gay romance a straight man would write. A bit too much Danielle Steele, and not nearly enough Samuel R. Delany, if that makes any sense.

 

[EnriqueH]

Well, for this gay man, it kinda is inauthentic. It very much struck me as the kind of gay romance a straight man would write. A bit too much Danielle Steele, and not nearly enough Samuel R. Delany, if that makes any sense.

Let’s collaborate.

 

[trampledamage]

MOD NOTE: please, no more general discussion of the rights and wrongs of promoting diversity.

I'm happy with discussions of diversity in publishing in general since that's a way of helping understand the situation with Star Trek novels, since Trek is not alone in having a diversity problem (I follow some romance writers on twitter, and ho boy!)

Also, I'm all here for a Daddy Todd / EnriqueH collaboration - sign me up for preorders

 

[Damian]

As I've said, we do see greater diversity in the current writers and directors of Star Trek on TV, so I'm sure they'd be there in prose too if they were given the opportunity.

Ok, fair enough. I honestly don't know what half the people behind the scenes even looks like. I should watch more of the background stuff on my DVD's/Blu-Rays but I don't ever seem to get around to it. I don't even know what you look like. Whenever I think of you I think of Captain Kirk, Greg Cox is Mr. Spock and David Mack is Dr Bashir (at least you were all kind enough to pick different pictures...I'd be in trouble if Dave Galanter decided he wanted to be Captain Kirk too ).

Even those of us who try to be inclusive have unexamined biases and habits we don't even recognize until we see ourselves in contrast with a different point of view, or we portray other cultures in ways we don't realize are stereotypical because we don't have enough experience with their perspective to know better.

I do agree and I think that's why it's important to keep an open mind. And if S&S can be doing more to be more diverse with its writers I'm all for it. I'm just throwing out some possible alternative explanations, playing a bit of devil's advocate.

Sometimes though I should just stay out of these debates and stick to Star Trek stuff. I avoid debating people on Facebook like the plague because whenever I try to debate online I never seem to get it right and I either type something in a way I don't intend or it gets taken in a way I don't intend--and that's not anyone's fault, just many things can have more than one meaning.

But I agree diversity in novel writers for Star Trek would be a good thing.

 

[The Wormhole]

Well, for this gay man, it kinda is inauthentic. It very much struck me as the kind of gay romance a straight man would write. A bit too much Danielle Steele, and not nearly enough Samuel R. Delany, if that makes any sense.

Although it should be noted Wilson Cruz, who is himself an advocate for homosexual representation on television, gave the book and its depiction of the Stamets-Culber relationship his endorsement.

 

[cooleddie74]

I sincerely hope that's true. But the more that people harp on "diversity", the more I doubt it. The sheer violent anger with which some people react whenever somebody asks why diversity is important makes me think that getting rid of white men IS in fact, the end goal.

Dude.

Just...no.

 

[Daddy Todd]

Although it should be noted Wilson Cruz, who is himself an advocate for homosexual representation on television, gave the book and its depiction of the Stamets-Culber relationship his endorsement.

Your comment feels like a naked attempt to invalidate my opinion. I don’t speak for Cruz, he don’t speak for me.

 

[Daddy Todd]

Let’s collaborate.

When do we start?

 

[Extrocomp]

"Sheer violent anger?" What in my previous posts did you interpret as violent? The most negative thing I've seen in this thread so far is your own comment that I just quoted.

You must feel threatened realising most of humanity are not carbon copies of yourself

I don't think RandyS was talking about anyone in this thread. I believe he was complaining about so-called "social justice warriors". SJWs are known to be extremely hostile to any opposing opinion and often have an intense hatred for straight white men.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I don't think RandyS was talking about anyone in this thread. I believe he was complaining about so-called "social justice warriors". SJWs are known to be extremely hostile to any opposing opinion and often have an intense hatred for straight white men.

SJWs is only used by those who wish to belittle any attempt to have anyone but a white guy as a major character. They try to frame pointing actual bigotry as anger as other attempt to dismiss the point they were making. The examples they to use are largely straw man arguments because the actual posts are reasonable against someone claiming that having a black Superman is somehow an attack on white people, when really it’s a racist person exposing themselves and assuming that all other white people think like them. They quickly find out they’re in the minority and then try to play the victims or claim everyone is SJWs. It’s a dog whistle and I would suggest not using it in the future if you don’t want people to assume that about you. Just some friendly advice.

Seriously it’s a made up term invented by actual Nazis, don’t get caught up in it.

And no one hates white men, that’s absurd. Just because one white guy is an asshole and gets called out on it doesn’t mean the others are being attacked. You only become the asshole by defending him and no one should defend an asshole.

For what it’s worth the tweet you shared which is attempting to attack a writer for making a valid criticism of the South Park fanbase, largely a group of young men who fail to understand the message of the show and just attack whatever they go after mindlessly is correct. This was proven when they attacked her for pointing this out. They’re incapable of handling any level of criticism which isn’t a good sign, it’s a major weakness.

 

[Extrocomp]

Seriously it’s a made up term invented by actual Nazis, don’t get caught up in it.

And no one hates white men, that’s absurd. Just because one white guy is an asshole and gets called out on it doesn’t mean the others are being attacked. You only become the asshole by defending him and no one should defend an asshole.

Did you not follow the link that I posted? That woman clearly hates white men. And no, the term "SJW" was not made up by Nazis, and neither is it used exclusively by racist people. There are plenty of people on YouTube of all genders and races complaining about the toxic behaviour of SJWs. The problem is that mainstream media and even Wikipedia claim that "SJW" is just a slur used against progressive people. It's not. Based on how the term is used online, I've determined that an SJW is someone with at least one of the following attributes:

1. Loves censorship and political correctness.

2. Hates free speech, calls it “hate speech”.

3. Has no sense of humor and often gets offended.

4. Sees racism and sexism everywhere they look, calls themselves “woke”.

5. Hates the idea of embracing other people’s cultures, calls it “cultural appropriation”.

6. Believes that minorities can only enjoy a story if it has a member of their own group in it.

7. Hates anything that a man might find sexy, calls it “objectification”.

8. Has an intense hatred for straight white men, yet claims to be against racism and sexism.

9. Hates it when a white actor plays a non-white character, calls it “whitewashing”, loves it when a non-white actor plays a white character, calls it “diversity”.

10. Believes that anyone who disagrees with them is either a nazi, a white supremacist, a misogynist, a homophobe or a troll.

11. Tries to ruin the career and life of anyone who disagrees with them, calls it “cancel culture”.

12. Believes that any criticism they receive is “harassment”, yet has no problem criticizing others.

13. Believes that any YouTube video about them is made to incite harassment.

14. Loves playing the victim.

15. Uses the terms “problematic”, “toxic masculinity” and “the patriarchy”.

I haven't seen any evidence that RandyS is racist and if defending him makes me an asshole, then so be it.

 

[Maurice]

I think a lot of straight people don’t realize how different gay relationships and romances can be from their own experience and conception of romance. A lot of it is cultural of course, but if Dave wanted to write a gay male relationship that feels real in the modern sense he ought to have read some gay male romance stories. Or perhaps he did.

But research can only take you so far. Writing authentically outside your personal experience is tricky. I just today turned down a possible scriptwriting opportunity because it centers around a particular ethnic group and a minister and church in it. I said I honestly don’t think I could authentically capture the way people in that culture talk nor authentically be able to portray their community and struggles. You have to know your limits.

Getting back to the subject of POC authors, are there are statistics on what percentage of published novelists in the U.S. are non-white? It would be interesting to know if the subgenre of Trek fiction is consistent with that, or above or below.