Star Trek novels by authors of color

[Awesome Possum]

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.

I read her original tweet thread and saw the hatred she got. Your tweet isn’t changing my opinion nor is your list of examples based on irrational beliefs. It seems that you’re really the one trying to play the victim, by that definition you are a SJW but the social “justice” you seem want to a twisted one. You should re-evaluate why you’ve come to think this because it’s very incorrect and leads to dark places. For your own sake try to imagine how you look to someone else. You’re trying to claim that white men are being attack by trying to attack others. It’s a bit of a persecution complex since all you can find in tweet attacking a woman who writes She-Hulk and pointing out that she works for Disney and trying to ruin her career. Isn’t that cancel culture? The very thing you’re saying SJWs do? Show some self awareness, nearly all of your list could be used against you with very little change. It’s just that your upset about other white men instead of “fill in the blank” minority. It’s really funny how so many with similar ideas fail to see this. The thing you seem to hate most is a reflection of what you’re doing.

 

[Extrocomp]

I read her original tweet thread and saw the hatred she got. Your tweet isn’t changing my opinion nor is your list of examples based on irrational beliefs. It seems that you’re really the one trying to play the victim, by that definition you are a SJW but the social “justice” you seem want to a twisted one. You should re-evaluate why you’ve come to think this because it’s very incorrect and leads to dark places. For your own sake try to imagine how you look to someone else. You’re trying to claim that white men are being attack by trying to attack others. It’s a bit of a persecution complex since all you can find in tweet attacking a woman who writes She-Hulk and pointing out that she works for Disney and trying to ruin her career. Isn’t that cancel culture? The very thing you’re saying SJWs do? Show some self awareness, nearly all of your list could be used against you with very little change. It’s just that your upset about other white men instead of “fill in the blank” minority. It’s really funny how so many with similar ideas fail to see this. The thing you seem to hate most is a reflection of what you’re doing.

I haven't attacked anyone. All I did was post a link to someone else's twitter post to show that there are people who hate white men. And I don't think Dana Schwartz should be fired. If her She-Hulk comics are making a profit, Marvel should keep her around, but that doesn't mean I condone her behaviour. Also, I don't have any problem with having a black actor playing Superman. I believe characters should be faithful to their source material and Superman was shown to be black in at least 2 alternate universes in the comics.

 

[Damian]

So, um, how bout some more books by authors of color? Good idea guys/gals? ….awkward pause

 

[Awesome Possum]

I haven't attacked anyone. All I did was post a link to someone else's twitter post to show that there are people who hate white men. And I don't think Dana Schwartz should be fired. If her She-Hulk comics are making a profit, Marvel should keep her around, but that doesn't mean I condone her behaviour. Also, I don't have any problem with having a black actor playing Superman. I believe characters should be faithful to their source material and Superman was shown to be black in at least 2 alternate universes in the comics.

She never said she hates white men, she made a criticism of a portion of the South Park fanbase. A criticism that is accurate given the reaction she got from people like the one who made that tweet. The South Park fanbase does not represent the entirety of white men, it isn't even all white men. Claiming that makes you look irrational and isn't based on any degree of proof. It's a misreading, either through pure ignorance or deliberate malice. If you're following people who try to push this then you're being misguided by some very bad people. Actually read what she said, not what someone told you she said and only gave you out of context examples. If they don't want you to have the full context then they're trying to hide something from you.

You can actually go read an opinion piece she wrote on what she posted and the response she got. She even uses examples of South Park making the exact same criticism of their fans, especially in the more recent seasons when the writers have realized that some of their fans took their jokes way too seriously and took it for gospel. So if she hates white men, then so does South Park. But they don't and neither does she. Anyone saying that either has some ulterior motive or has no clue of what they're talking about. You don't have to be that way though.

 

[Extrocomp]

She never said she hates white men, she made a criticism of a portion of the South Park fanbase.

I wasn't talking about her South Park criticism. I was talking about the post where she says "You know what, screw it: no novels by white men in high schools for the next 20 years" and the post where she says "I am more scared of angry white men in trench coats that I am of ISIS."

 

[DGCatAniSiri]

I understand the editorial decision of keeping things “in house,” but I definitely add my voice to the chorus of “let’s see more diversity among the authorship.” I mean, I have to say it feels kinda... wrong for Star Trek to be authorially represented by just a group of white people (and predominantly white men).

Like, not that I don’t love the authors we have and all, but if Star Trek is a celebration of diversity, and especially given the issues and struggles that make up experiences of non-cis straight white people, it seems wrong for the voices we’re hearing from not reflecting that.

As much as we might want to offer the idea of “the human experience is universal,” (to generalize), the truth is, being anything not seen as the societal default offers its own unique experiences that will change how any narrative is shaped. While I’m sure that the authors now aim to be respectful of those other views, there will always be the things not noticed because they aren’t part of your experience, the things and events that have shaped you by living as “not the default.”

 

[Awesome Possum]

I wasn't talking about her South Park criticism. I was talking about the post where she says "You know what, screw it: no novels by white men in high schools for the next 20 years" and the post where she says "I am more scared of angry white men in trench coats that I am of ISIS."

What's the context? The first could be a joke and not to be taken seriously, exactly what she was told about South Park. The second could be regarding a mass shooter, who is more of a direct threat to the lives of most Americans than anyone in ISIS and they are commonly white men. If you include trench coats, it brings up the media image of the Columbine shooters. Given that she seems to be around my age and I was in school at that time, that is an image burned into my brain as a fear and likely is for her. Given the level of mass shootings and how 99% of them are by angry white men, it makes more sense to be more afraid of them than someone in another country who isn't directly attacking people on American soil. Is she saying that all white men are mass shooters, no. But most mass shooters are white men and mass shooters are a very real fear for a lot of people, especially a woman who clearly gets a lot of hatred directed at her by angry white men. There are very real examples of people getting the same level hate getting hurt in for real. Try to look at it from her point of view, not the point of view of someone trying to push a narrative. That's how people get brainwashed, you aren't seeing reality you're seeing what someone else wants you to see and how they want you to think. You're being used.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Ultimately, there isn't a whole lot of difference between "angry white men in trench coats" and ISIS. Just as there isn't a whole lot of difference between certain religious groups (that very vehemently self-identify as Christian, while managing to violate everything Jesus of Nazareth ever stood for) in America today, and the Taliban. Both share a lust for power under color of religion, and both share a contempt for logic, science, and intellectualism. Not to mention sharing an outright hatred for the "different." (q.v., Markos Moulitsas, American Taliban: How War, Sex, Sin and Power Bind Jihadists and the Radical Right [Sausalito: PoliPointPress, 2010]).

Somebody refresh my memory: which late-20th-century ST novelist had Vulcans arguing, in so many words, that "the different" should not merely be tolerated, but cherished?

 

[YLu]

Bottom line: Unless you think there's some reason writing talent and skill would naturally concentrate among white males, then surely genuinely "hiring the best writers for the job" would result in a diverse group of individuals. A situation where it it only white men, if anything, indicates that it's not just about talent and something else is going on as well. That's just statistics.

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”.

So SJW just means someone who uses the word "diversity" correctly?

I mean, there's a fairly obvious reason why people don't consider making a predominantly white institution _more_ white to be increasing its diversity. Check the definition of the word "diverse" for starters.

 

[cooleddie74]

I don't think there's enough in the board minibar for this one.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Extrocomp]

What's the context? The first could be a joke and not to be taken seriously, exactly what she was told about South Park. The second could be regarding a mass shooter, who is more of a direct threat to the lives of most Americans than anyone in ISIS and they are commonly white men.

Here's the context. It doesn't seem like a joke to me, but maybe she's just rage-baiting to draw attention to her new book The White Man's Guide to White Male Writers of the Western Canon. You may have a point with your mass shooter theory about the second post.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Here's the context. It doesn't seem like a joke to me, but maybe she's just rage-baiting to draw attention to her new book. You may have a point with your mass shooter theory about the second post.

I think her point was that white men are overrepresented in literate classes. I don't see how you could honestly see her as being serious. It's clearly exaggeration and her point about having more women and people represented in literature classes. Different people have different experiences and their art and literature would born from this and something that a white man could never produce because they lack that experience. Having more art and literature is more enriching and brings new and unique ideas that were previously ignored. All you're doing is ignoring her actual point to claim victimhood over a joke, the same thing that you claim that SJWs do and are wrong for. By your own logic, you're wrong.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

If a character's ethnicity (or gender, or sexual orientation) is an inherent part of that character's definition, then it should be followed, of course; to do otherwise would create a rather jarring dissonance.

On the other hand, some characters have no inherent ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation whatsoever. Consider "The Leading Player," in Schwartz & Hirson's Pippin: Although Ben Vereen created the character on Broadway (I have it on either VHS or DVD), I've attended productions where the character was played by a white high school senior, and by a woman. All that's really required is that the Leading Player believably push Pippin on his quest for a "totally satisfying experience," towards the ultimate end where he

Spoiler

must choose between a spectacular suicide by self-immolation, or just living out his life with Catherine and Theo.

 

[DS9Continuing]

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.

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.

Well, I haven't actually read the novel in question, I'm just talking about what was said in the interview. And I agree that a straight man in today's society wouldn't necessarily know how best to write a gay romance set in today's society. But that was his point – the story he was writing wasn't set in today's society, it was set in a world where the issues of today's society have been resolved long since and where gay people haven't faced the same issues today's gay people have.

Now of course, that doesn't necessarily mean gay people in the 23rd century live exactly the same lives as straight people in the 23rd century, but trying to write a 23rd same-sex romance and still make it feel authentic even when it explicitly cannot have any reference to those 21st century issues which would help a reader to recognise it as authentic is a hell of a tricky tightrope to walk. Maybe it would have been better to assign the novel to a LGBT author in order to get closer to that impossible infinity, but to my knowledge there aren't any in the current roster (not that it would be any of my business if there were), and at least Dave Galanter went into it aware of his own limitations.

(Sorry to harp on the gay thing rather than the POC thing, but since I have experience of one and not of the other, it's best I talk about what I know and not what I don't.)

I think of my own writing. I have written a contemporary novel (unpublished) that I know is authentic to at least one type of gay experience – socially, sexually, emotionally, legally – because it's basically a fictionalised autobiography. But when it comes to my Trek fan-fic, in which I have one male same-sex pairing and one female same-sex pairing, I have had to specifically strip all that personal experience out in order to write those couples consistently with the fictional universe in which they appear.

.

 

[Extrocomp]

Maybe it would have been better to assign the novel to a LGBT author in order to get closer to that impossible infinity, but to my knowledge there aren't any in the current roster

Whatever happened to Andy Mangels? Your post made me realize that he hasn't written a Trek novel since 2008.

 

[Alexander Corrino]

Now of course, that doesn't necessarily mean gay people in the 23rd century live exactly the same lives as straight people in the 23rd century, but trying to write a 23rd same-sex romance and still make it feel authentic even when it explicitly cannot have any reference to those 21st century issues which would help a reader to recognise it as authentic is a hell of a tricky tightrope to walk.

I agree so much with this.

I'm a gay m/m Trek fan fic writer and while it's true that (thankfully) homophobia seems to be a thing of the past in the 24th century (that one is my playground) and is no longer of any concern I do always try to maintain that a m/m relationship still has slightly different dynamics than a m/f one. It can be a difficult walk, avoiding the "who's the man and who's the woman" stereotype by not making the relationship too "straight" and the "oooh, leather gay or purse-swinging gay" stereotypes by not making the relationship "hyper gay", but what I've found most helpful in the long run is my own experience as a gay man and the way I love men. That little piece of experience, to me, makes the stories and the love in them authentic, and since a straight man would lack this particular experience... I'd say they're not the most qualified people to write gay relationships, no matter which century these stories are set in. I'm not saying they absolutely can't do it, but I for one would prefer for gay writers to tackle gay relationships, because, as I said, they're the ones with the personal experience.

 

[Maurice]

Well, I haven't actually read the novel in question, I'm just talking about what was said in the interview. And I agree that a straight man in today's society wouldn't necessarily know how best to write a gay romance set in today's society. But that was his point – the story he was writing wasn't set in today's society, it was set in a world where the issues of today's society have been resolved long since and where gay people haven't faced the same issues today's gay people have.

Now of course, that doesn't necessarily mean gay people in the 23rd century live exactly the same lives as straight people in the 23rd century, but trying to write a 23rd same-sex romance and still make it feel authentic even when it explicitly cannot have any reference to those 21st century issues which would help a reader to recognise it as authentic is a hell of a tricky tightrope to walk. Maybe it would have been better to assign the novel to a LGBT author in order to get closer to that impossible infinity, but to my knowledge there aren't any in the current roster (not that it would be any of my business if there were), and at least Dave Galanter went into it aware of his own limitations.

(Sorry to harp on the gay thing rather than the POC thing, but since I have experience of one and not of the other, it's best I talk about what I know and not what I don't.)

I think of my own writing. I have written a contemporary novel (unpublished) that I know is authentic to at least one type of gay experience – socially, sexually, emotionally, legally – because it's basically a fictionalised autobiography. But when it comes to my Trek fan-fic, in which I have one male same-sex pairing and one female same-sex pairing, I have had to specifically strip all that personal experience out in order to write those couples consistently with the fictional universe in which they appear.

You quoted me but you seemed to miss that I said, "if Dave wanted to write a gay male relationship that feels real in the modern sense" which acknowledges that relationship norms 400+ years from now may differ. I don't think the the author has be gay to write a few gay characters in a sci-fi story, but seeking out feedback from gay men on the portrayal of such a relationship might have helped.

 

[RandyS]

"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.

That wasn't directed at you personally. That was in reference to my own experiences when discussing this subject (or trying to) with other people. Also observations of other people's reactions. Some have asked "Is there room for a white man in all this diversity?" and the answer sometimes is, "racist!!!" and things of that nature.

 

[RandyS]

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.

Yes. That was what I was attempting (and as usual) failing, to say.

 

[Christopher]

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.

Given that the current percentage in Trek prose fiction is pretty much zero, I'd say it's below average.

I wasn't talking about her South Park criticism. I was talking about the post where she says "You know what, screw it: no novels by white men in high schools for the next 20 years" and the post where she says "I am more scared of angry white men in trench coats that I am of ISIS."

Neither of these expresses hate of white men in general, merely acknowledgment of systemic problems that unfairly center white men and excuse their abuses. Speaking as a white man, I fully understand and agree with both her comments. The former is merely a statement that it's time for someone else to get a turn on the playground, which is just everyday fairness. If you're a decent human being and someone points out that you've hogged more than your fair share, you don't say "Waaah, you hate me and want to destroy me!" You say "I'm sorry, I didn't realize how rude I was being, of course you're welcome to have a turn." That's something people are supposed to learn in kindergarten, for pete's sake, so it's pathetic that so many allegedly adult men in our society have no inkling of the concept.

And the second is absolutely, provably true. The vast majority of terrorist acts in the United States over the past two decades have been committed, not by Islamist radicals (whose primary targets are their own fellow Muslims in the Mideast, because their goal is to overthrow their own countries, not ours), but by militant white nationalists in the Christian extreme right. That's not saying that all white men are bad, just that the greatest current terrorist threat comes from groups that are white and male. It should be easy to tell those two things apart. If the news says "Avoid Romaine lettuce from California," that's obviously not even remotely equivalent to saying "All green vegetables are evil." It's informing us of the identifying characteristics of a single specific threat, not globally condemning every occurrence of similar characteristics.


As for the whole "SJW" nonsense, I think it's pretty self-evident: Anyone who uses "social justice warrior" as an insult is giving away that they're opposed to justice. What are Starfleet officers or superheroes if not fighters for social justice? Hell, if anyone called me that I'd take it as a compliment.