Spoilers TNG: Pliable Truths by Dayton Ward - Review thread
- Thread starter Enterpriserules
- Start date
I think it would be more interesting if an alien culture had its own sexual taboos and prejudices that were different from ours. Even on Earth, not every culture defines gender the same way or has the same standards of acceptability.
Personally, I don't think sexuality is a worthy subject for any Scifi-project, at least not as its main issue. Whenever an author decides to add some bright colors to a story and throw in all sorts of relationships no-matter-what-the-gender - fine! Like Christopher stated above, alien culture's handling of rules, taboos and prejudices might juice up a story. However I don't see that expecting (or even require) any LGBT...-and-so-on elements in each and every story would do them any good.
My impression is that "Pliable Truths" is very balanced in every aspect and I liked it. Great storytelling! And I think it is quite amazing that the authors still manage to squeeze out new and compelling aspects and perspectives from 30 years old storylines. I love that!
My impression is that "Pliable Truths" is very balanced in every aspect and I liked it. Great storytelling! And I think it is quite amazing that the authors still manage to squeeze out new and compelling aspects and perspectives from 30 years old storylines. I love that!
There should be no limits on what subjects writers can tackle. If you personally don't care for it, fine, you don't have to read or watch it -- but please don't suggest that your personal preferences should be restrictions on other people's freedom to create it. There have been quite a few smart, innovative, and worthwhile explorations of sexual themes in science fiction over the decades, including works that have challenged cultural prejudices and taboos about gender roles and alternative sexualities and helped promote social change. Sexuality is a fundamental, complex, and important part of human psychology and culture, and it's as valid a subject for art and literature as anything else.
People have diverse sexualities. That's not an artificial invention, it's a fact of life. I include gender and sexual diversity in my fiction because it's realistic. It's just the way people are. What's artificial, and deeply wrong, is the assumption that heterosexuality is the default and anything else is an unnecessary imposition that can hurt a story.
Please don't get me wrong: I would never advocate drawing any forced, possibly ideologically motivated limits (boundaries) anywhere. Freedom (of literature) is a valuable asset that is always worth protecting!
It's just that every now and then in recent times I've had the impression that artists (novelists, screenwriters, etc.) felt compelled to show how tolerant they are by mixing all facets of relationships into a story, even where they are unnecessary (and therefore inappropriate) for the context. Or are such moments due to the zeitgeist? Is this an attempt to achieve greater recognition or higher sales?
Just to be clear: where appropriate, these themes can add lots of value and a great message to any work of art in many ways. This has worked wonderfully in scifi sometimes, but not all the time. At least for my personal taste.
It's just that every now and then in recent times I've had the impression that artists (novelists, screenwriters, etc.) felt compelled to show how tolerant they are by mixing all facets of relationships into a story, even where they are unnecessary (and therefore inappropriate) for the context. Or are such moments due to the zeitgeist? Is this an attempt to achieve greater recognition or higher sales?
Just to be clear: where appropriate, these themes can add lots of value and a great message to any work of art in many ways. This has worked wonderfully in scifi sometimes, but not all the time. At least for my personal taste.
CLB and I are once again in complete agreement. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Indeed, I covered something similar in one of my "First Contact Corps" short stories, back when I was taking a Short Story Workshop class at a local junior college. I started to go into more detail, but then realized that it would be a "story idea" for TrekBBS purposes.
I would have thought, since family is very important in cardassian society, homosexuality would be highly discouraged.
Can you please clarify your reasoning? It sounds to me as though you're treating homosexuality and regard for one's family as being mutually exclusive.
Or did you mean reproduction instead of family?
Did anyone actually suggest that those elements should be in each and every story.
As I said, that's getting it backward. It is the very definition of bias to assume that cisgender heterosexuality is the automatic default while every other category needs justification to be included. The only justification is honesty. People of all types exist. They are part of the world, they are part of everyday life, and they are part of the audience reading these books. Including them should be the natural default. It's excluding them that's an artificially imposed choice, a choice made for no other reason than institutional bias. I include diverse types of humanity in my fiction for the same reason I try to depict physics and astronomy and history correctly -- because I want my work to be honest and accurate.
It is one of the go-to lies of bigots that inclusion is only "political correctness" or "virtue signaling," just an outward pretense to look good. They can't understand actually respecting and caring for people outside their own group, so they assume it must have some self-serving motive. I don't care whether I look "tolerant." I want to actually be respectful and fair to other people, for the sake of their feelings, not my own. I was raised to be polite and considerate of others. More: I was bullied for my differences as a child, so I never wanted to be part of the system that makes people feel excluded and devalued the way I was made to feel. I want the diverse people who read my books to feel welcomed and heard, rather than ignored unless acknowledging them is deemed "necessary" by standards set by people other than themselves.
Also, "tolerant" sucks as a standard. Tolerating something means disliking it but putting up with it anyway. That's not true acceptance. As Gene Roddenberry said, "humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins not just to tolerate, but to take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in life forms."
Of course not. I was simply trying to making my POV clear by using the technique of exaggeration.
Amazing how often people complaining about LGBTQ+ themes do that.
I never said that.
I couldn't agree more.
Well, if you knew me you would know that I am everything but a bigot. Plus: I never said inclusion was "only" one of the things you stated. I just asked myself every now and then whether exactly these two motifs could at least play a role in the writing of certain texts. Not in the one to which this thread is dedicated, that should be made clear here.
See - that's why you are a writer and I am not. Respectful is of course far better a word than tolerant.
Again: Agreed!
And thanks for the Roddenberry-quote. I didn't know that one...
There are a lot of things that people say, or do, or are, that I don't understand, and that I seriously doubt I ever will. Not just sexual orientation: things like why anybody would spend a small fortune on concert tickets, then deliberately dull their senses with ethanol before the concert. Or why anybody would actually like watching a political convention. Or a bare-knuckles prize-fight.
But so long as what others say, or do, or are, respects the "Next Man's Nose" principle (and I'm pretty sure Oliver Wendell Holmes was quoting one of his predecessors when he said it), it is my duty to respect them, even cherish them, whether I understand them or not.
And I despise the term "politically correct." Because it is, by definition, insincere. Because in the pre-Civil-War Southern U.S., or in Nazi Germany, it meant professing racism whether you believed it or not.
BTW, the Roddenberry quote is on the "Inside Star Trek" recording.
But so long as what others say, or do, or are, respects the "Next Man's Nose" principle (and I'm pretty sure Oliver Wendell Holmes was quoting one of his predecessors when he said it), it is my duty to respect them, even cherish them, whether I understand them or not.
And I despise the term "politically correct." Because it is, by definition, insincere. Because in the pre-Civil-War Southern U.S., or in Nazi Germany, it meant professing racism whether you believed it or not.
BTW, the Roddenberry quote is on the "Inside Star Trek" recording.
My understanding has always been that the term came from Stalinist Russia, meaning paying lip service to the party line to avoid punishment. The American right wing started using it in the '80s to attack inclusive and progressive ideas, claiming that they were the victims of Stalin-like oppression because their own desire to oppress and demonize others wasn't being protected. I always found that despicable, and anyone trotting out the "PC" buzzword immediately loses my respect. (Though these days they tend to say "virtue signaling" instead.)
They certainly are not. My thoughts were toward reproduction.
Thanks for the clarification!
It is possible for homosexual couples on modern Earth to reproduce. I should think for a society as technologically advanced as 24th century Cardassia it would be super easy, barely an inconvenience.
In ancient times (and in some primitive (and even not-so-primitive) societies today, love, sex, and marriage don't necessarily go together: love is about companionship; sex is about reproduction and/or pleasuring, and marriage is about creating a stable family environment for raising children.
Homosexuality taboos typically originated in ancient times, either because underpopulation was an even greater existential threat to the society than overpopulation is today, or to differentiate a society from a neighboring one that practiced either ritual homosexuality or male-on-male war rape. Or both.
For the purposes of this discussion, though, the Strict Father Model (or any composite family model in which the Strict Father is the dominant primary) generates a mindset and worldview in which gender roles are inherent (and perhaps divinely ordained), and men have not only a right, but a duty to seek dominance, and to father children, and while male-on-male war rape is tolerable, loving homosexual relationships are not.
So if a family-oriented society is driven by an exclusively (or predominantly) Strict-Fatherist mindset and worldview, then it would consider homosexuality intolerable. Whereas, if it was exclusively (or predominantly) driven by a Nurturant mindset and worldview, it would not. (And if a society were exclusively or presominantly driven by a Negligent Parent mindset and worldview, it wouldn't be family-oriented in the first place, and might not even have a concept of family).
Homosexuality taboos typically originated in ancient times, either because underpopulation was an even greater existential threat to the society than overpopulation is today, or to differentiate a society from a neighboring one that practiced either ritual homosexuality or male-on-male war rape. Or both.
George Lakoff points out that when we say "family," we don't all mean the same thing, because we see the world through the lens of our own internal mental models. Lakoff postulates two family models, "Strict Father" and "Nurturant Parent." I see a few flaws in his reasoning (and in his understanding of how the inhibitory function in the vertebrate nervous system works), and postulate a third model, which I call "Negligent Parent," but his theories definitely (among other things) make various political attitudes mutually comprehensible, explaining them without demonizing them.
For the purposes of this discussion, though, the Strict Father Model (or any composite family model in which the Strict Father is the dominant primary) generates a mindset and worldview in which gender roles are inherent (and perhaps divinely ordained), and men have not only a right, but a duty to seek dominance, and to father children, and while male-on-male war rape is tolerable, loving homosexual relationships are not.
So if a family-oriented society is driven by an exclusively (or predominantly) Strict-Fatherist mindset and worldview, then it would consider homosexuality intolerable. Whereas, if it was exclusively (or predominantly) driven by a Nurturant mindset and worldview, it would not. (And if a society were exclusively or presominantly driven by a Negligent Parent mindset and worldview, it wouldn't be family-oriented in the first place, and might not even have a concept of family).
Similar threads
