• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

The Outcast and the limits of metaphors

My friend wasn't really serious, it was more an example explaining the limits of metaphors :)

Your friend may not have been really serious but I've seen people cling on deadly seriously to stranger interpretations of materials. I wouldn't rule out such people actually could exist in today's climate. The level of fear and paranoia some have is astounding.
 
All of which speaks to Berman's homophobia. He projected his own prejudices onto the audience.

TNG did not show a single gay character in its entire run. There were no scenes in which background extras of the same gender could be seen holding hands. They did not mention gay or otherwise non-cishet people -- no, not even in this episode.

I think David Livingston specifically vetoed Whoopi Goldberg's idea to have men holding hands as among kinds of couples in "The Offspring".

I'm not sure I especially care whether a show's heart was in the right place if it ultimately delivers a weak and possibly even harmful message

Were episodes like "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" harmful in also ending on pretty bleak conclusion rather than some kind of hopeful victory?

Did TNG ever try to be controversial? Just High Ground comes to my mind and I'm not sure that saying "What some call 'Terrorists"' someone else might call 'Revolutionaries'" was a so ground-breaking concept in the 1990s...

Enough to be banned in the UK for I think at least 10 years. I would also say the themes and messages of "Too Short a Season", "The Enemy", "Suddenly Human" (edit: maybe "The Wounded") and yes "Up the Long Ladder" were also pretty controversial.
 
Last edited:
I think David Livingston specifically vetoed Whoopi Goldberg's idea to have men holding hands as among kinds of couples in "The Offspring".



Were episodes like "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" harmful in also ending on pretty bleak conclusion rather than some kind of hopeful victory?



Enough to be banned in the UK for I think at least 10 years. I would also say the themes and messages of "Too Short a Season", "The Enemy", "Suddenly Human" and yes "Up the Long Ladder" were also pretty controversial.
Only for the mention of Ireland reunification. For the rest it was an absolutely harmless episode. For the other episodes, meh. For example, "The Long Ladder" was just a bad episode where the supposed pro-choice message was lost in the mess. And that particular plotline wasn't even relevant to the main story.
 
Your friend may not have been really serious but I've seen people cling on deadly seriously to stranger interpretations of materials. I wouldn't rule out such people actually could exist in today's climate. The level of fear and paranoia some have is astounding.
This is another reason why sometime it's even harmful to use allegories. You want to convey a pro-gay message? SHOW a gay on screen, not something where you have to use your imagination.
 
Were episodes like "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" harmful in also ending on pretty bleak conclusion rather than some kind of hopeful victory?

No, because that's a cautionary tale about the self-destructive nature of racism. If one were to try to interpret "The Outcast" as a cautionary tale, then it would be sending an especially chilling message to the LGBTQ+ community.
 
Limited as it was, this episode probably paved the way for DS9 to show woman-woman intimacy – Dax kissing her former spouse, and mirror Kira kissing Ezri – as well as Garak’s attraction to Bashir. To me those examples make it even stranger that 7 years of VOY didn’t include a single gay moment; nor did ENT, if I recall. At least in DISC they clearly took a stance.

DS9 didn't do such a great job either (and even ISB himself has acknowledged this in What We Left Behind...personally, I should also know as he said so directly to me and I've got it in writing on a poster he signed for me when I met him).

You have Dax kissing her former spouse, but they're both "under the influence" of their symbionts as well, which is a bit of a hedge.

And then you have the evil sexual ambiguity of the Mirror Universe. It's okay for people from a 'dark timeline' to be non-heteronormative, because they're innately more likely to be evil anyway.
 
This is another reason why sometime it's even harmful to use allegories. You want to convey a pro-gay message? SHOW a gay on screen, not something where you have to use your imagination.

So it means the 'messenger' has to travel a narrow path. He can't be too indirect, because a group of people people won't pick it up, or assign interpretations that simply match their worldview. He can't be too direct either, because a group of people will not always accept such a direct message and go into defensive or offended posture and block the message immediately. And I wouldn't be surprised if there was significant overlap between these two groups.

It seems some people simply don't want to leave any room to have their preconceptions challenged.
 
Last edited:
And then you have the evil sexual ambiguity of the Mirror Universe. It's okay for people from a 'dark timeline' to be non-heteronormative, because they're innately more likely to be evil anyway.

Tv Tropes - Depraved Bisexual

Whereas the Psycho Lesbian is usually violent or deranged out of unrequited love and/or jealousy, the typical Depraved Bisexual is bi because, well, why not? Their willingness to sleep with everyone they can is just one facet of their Ax-Craziness — i.e. they don't consider certain relationships taboo, because they don't consider anything taboo
[...]
The Mirror Universe Intendant Kira in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. The character originally hit on her regular counterpart only because she was so highly narcissistic. Only later was the character made a Depraved Bisexual, with the actress herself being well aware of the stupidity. But work's work... In point of fact, this is a trait inherent in nearly all the women of the Mirror Universe (Dax, Ezri, and Leeta), with the sole exception being Jennifer Sisko.
 
hot women kissing hot women is not revolutionary, it is indulging the male gaze.
Yup. There's a reason why woman-on-woman is a staple of porn movies (at least, those not aimed at gay males), and it's not gay-rights advocacy.
I think David Livingston specifically vetoed Whoopi Goldberg's idea to have men holding hands as among kinds of couples in "The Offspring".
It didn't happen in any of the other episodes, either.
You're right, but TNG aired as first run syndication.

There wasn't one almighty network to approve or disapprove or to consult as the episode is made, about what is permissible. They had to present a finished product to hundreds(?) of rinky dink mom and pop local tv networks and then there was a fair chance that half of them would refuse to air the episode, if it was pushing the envelope.
That's a better argument for lack of courage than I wish it was. Though, as I've said before, I don't think Berman & Co. can claim credit for stepping up, when they didn't.
 
Last edited:
The episode was an allegory for the 'Christian Conversion Camps', which were very popular at the time. It was supposed to demonstrate to average people the reality of turning someone into something they are not, and how harmful that is (you are basically 'erasing' the person who used to exist). So what I am saying is, it wasn't meant for you. It was meant to upset the people who disagree with you, and on that level, I feel it was somewhat successful.
I'm not sure I especially care whether a show's heart was in the right place if it ultimately delivers a weak and possibly even harmful message, and ultimately tilts further into the idea that there's no place for people like me in that world. Good intentions only go so far.
You are only disgruntled by it because of the outcome. And by the way, as an old person who has lived through actual bigotry, oppression, and the equal rights movement (in a family of die-hard liberals), I think they handled it brilliantly. You don't change people's opinions by 'winning', because that actually makes people side against you ("everyone loves an underdog"). To create true change, you demonstrate how disgusting and harmful such behaviors can be, and you do that by showing someone getting (traumatically) hurt by it. This, BTW, is why the government no longer creates 'martyrs'.

You have to make people uncomfortable with their own established (institutionalized?) opinions. Norman Leer (the creator of All in the Family) was a genius at this. He changed an entire generation just by holding a mirror up to them.
 
So what I am saying is, it wasn't meant for you.
So what you are saying is, @DonIago (I guess @Skipper & me, too) is "interrogating the text from the wrong perspective," as purple-prose queen Anne Rice once famously accused a negative reviewer.

That was bogus then, and it's bogus now. Donlago was part of the audience. Other non-heteronormative people were part of the audience, as were those who cared about and supported them. When creators present their work to the public, they do not get to pick and choose who watches it, and -- except with the material in the work itself -- they do not get to decide how the audience "should" respond to it. And if the audience responds in a different way, that's not the fault of the audience. And I find it hard to believe that this episode, which supposedly supported the rights of the non-straight and non-cis, was intended for everybody except the people who shared that position.
You have to make people uncomfortable with their own established (institutionalized?) opinions. Norman Leer (the creator of All in the Family) was a genius at this. He changed an entire generation just by holding a mirror up to them.
Jeri Taylor is no Norman Lear. Though -- as I can play the "old person" card myself -- I'd just like to point out that, while All in the Family was on the air, many people who shared Archie Bunker's attitudes were unironically fans of the character. Carroll O'Connor, himself liberal, used to get fan mail he found simply appalling. Seems that some people liked how they looked in the mirror.
 
That's a better argument for lack of courage than I wish it was. Though, as I've said before, I don't think Berman & Co. can claim credit for stepping up, when they didn't.

There was a gay episode of early TNG that was shelved, and then 30 years later the script was repurposed into one of those HQ TOS Fanfilms, starring Denise Crosby.

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

Oh, as far as those rinky dink operators... They did not pay for TNG. It was free. TNG was garbage they had to air, so that they were allowed to rerun the profitable Star Trek the Original Series. Although Paramount did get ten minutes of air time from the affiliates, half the total adbuy to convert into money from advertisers, per episode... Or at least that was the season one deal.

This is how the pilot got 20 million viewers.

It. was. free.
 
Last edited:
Well, the messages I got were:
1. People whose sexuality and gender expression are different from the norm have the same feelings and the same rights as anyone else.
2. Conversion therapy, when done against the subject's will, is an evil and despicable violation of their rights.

So... did I get the wrong message?
 
^Are you non-heteronormative?

I was in high school when the episode aired, and knew (or at least suspected that) I was non-heteronormative at the time, and if you feel the episode worked for you, then great, but for me and a lot of other people, it didn't make its point well at all.
I know 2 LGBT people who found it wonderful.
 
I know 2 LGBT people who found it wonderful.

That's nice. Though, while I'm sure it wasn't your intent, and I'm definitely not implying anything as to who you are, my brain just flashed to, "I can't be homophobic; I know two LGBT people!"

I mean, what do you want me to say to that? We probably all do, but if for every two people who found it wonderful, 50 people found it awful, then I think that's still something that should be concerning.

Heck, even if everyone in this thread thought the episode was wonderful, that would still be an extremely small sample size.
 
Well, the messages I got were:
1. People whose sexuality and gender expression are different from the norm have the same feelings and the same rights as anyone else.
2. Conversion therapy, when done against the subject's will, is an evil and despicable violation of their rights.

So... did I get the wrong message?
Of course not.

But I'm nonetheless a little bitter over the episode (admittedly, like Trek in general up to the launch of Discovery) not being more explicit in its support of actual human gay and noncis people, even to the point of acknowledging their existence. One incident that made me bitter happened on this very board, back when I first joined in 2003.

I got involved in an argument, in General Trek Discussion, of how our futuristic Federation would treat gay people, specifically gay humans. It will not surprise you to know that I started with the assumption that the Federation, and Earth, would treat them no differently than any other citizens. And I ran into a poster who said it was irrelevant, because by that time homosexuality would have been cured. Well, I and several other posters argued that of course that future society would see no need for a cure. No? said the pro-cure poster. Then where are the gay people?

Where indeed? In my time in fandom in the 90s-early 2000s, that wasn't the only time I ran into that argument. And you know, I would have loved to have a counter. But I didn't, because there were no gay people, aliens and evil Mirror counterparts aside.

The complete absence of gay people -- even in the background, even in references in dialogue -- made the Federation look like a place that didn't welcome gay people, at least not human beings. And "The Outcast," like "Rejoined," did not change that.
 
I got involved in an argument, in General Trek Discussion, of how our futuristic Federation would treat gay people, specifically gay humans. It will not surprise you to know that I started with the assumption that the Federation, and Earth, would treat them no differently than any other citizens. And I ran into a poster who said it was irrelevant, because by that time homosexuality would have been cured. Well, I and several other posters argued that of course that future society would see no need for a cure. No? said the pro-cure poster. Then where are the gay people?

I remember a rumor that Wil Wheaton himself had opined when the show was on the air that homosexuality had been "cured" by the 24th century. I'd like to believe there was nothing to that rumor, but of course the show never provided any evidence to the contrary.

My favorite 'early' LGBTQ+ positive moment in the franchise was when Pel tells Dax that she's in love with Quark, and Dax is shocked to learn that Pel is a woman while being completely unfazed by the idea that Pel is a man who could be in love with Quark. I don't even know whether TPTB meant it to be affirming in that way, but it was so understated and affirming at the same time.
 
I'm certainly not going to defend this as a well-executed metaphor for the series. I'll only say that it didn't get nearly as easily misconstrued as the OP suggests it could, back when they made it. We all kind of got the inversion gist, for good or ill. It's biggest issue in that regard is that much like a lot of Star Trek, it's aged poorly, & doesn't translate well to now. That said, I don't hold it in contempt, even though any criticisms in here about it are certainly valid. In my perspective, it's just unfortunately not well done, & the climate of the times is one of the main interferences.

However...
When they talked about racism, it was clearly racism.
Not always imho. Data's whole character arc is predominantly an analogy for racism, that they didn't often put in those exact words. They stumble around lots of varied metaphors, maybe not quite as awkwardly as in this case, but it's there.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top