Diane Carey?

[Thrawn]

Who writes the novel is irrelevant, or should be. In a shared, pre-established universe, the author(s)' predilections should be subsumed beneath the ideology that already permeates the setting. For many writers, this is easy enough because there's a good deal of overlap between their value system and the one espouse by Star Trek, and one just glosses over the areas where there's disagreement. Authors who belong to opposite schools of thought, however, have to be more careful because it's all the more obvious, and all the more jarring, when something slips through the buffer of the shared universe.

But, as Therin mentions, there can be a preconditioned bias as well. I eventually picked up on the fact that Carey was trying to shoehorn in some rather conflicting philosophy into a universe that just didn't accomodate it, but I never knew about ab Hugh. I never liked his Rebels trilogy, but it's only in retrospect that I can identify the puzzling characterization of Kai Winn as stemming from his ideological affiliations. But, knowing what I know now, if ab Hugh were to write another Trek book, I'd think I'd always have that awareness floating in the back of my mind, and I would be, despite myself, on guard for evidence of extreme-right influences in the narrative.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

Right. Like I said, I think it's pretty easy to see both sides on this one. It's a complicated problem. Ideological affiliation of the writer shouldn't matter, but often it does, because the writer can't help it. And when that happens, it's completely legitimate to take issue with it.

I actually never read the Rebels trilogy, but I have to say his ideology didn't seem to make much difference in the books by him that I did read, of which I liked all three. So, the line is pretty hard to draw.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I never knew about ab Hugh. I never liked his Rebels trilogy, but it's only in retrospect that I can identify the puzzling characterization of Kai Winn as stemming from his ideological affiliations.

But... how is it different to an author who fully researches a certain political background for a key character's motivations that happens to be totally opposite to an author's own leanings?

Seems to me that using intimate knowledge of the ins and outs of a particular political standpoint - however one has come by that knowledge - to make a character who leans that way more believable, is totally valid. He's not really even pushing an agenda because ultimately, as we know, Winn doesn't um, win.

I hated the "Rebels" trilogy, but mainly because it... moved... so... slow...ly...

I loved ab Hugh's "Fallen Heroes", which was a relentless page-turner.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

But, knowing what I know now, if ab Hugh were to write another Trek book, I'd think I'd always have that awareness floating in the back of my mind, and I would be, despite myself, on guard for evidence of extreme-right influences in the narrative.

That's my reaction to Orson Scott Card, and with books like Empire I see his homophobic, xenophobic, fascist worldview creeping into his fiction. Which is unfortunate. I don't think I can read Card anymore.

ab Hugh, I'm still on the fence. Sometimes, I wonder if his blog is performance art, to rile people up. But then I wade into the politics forum at sff.net, and no, it's not performance art. He really is a bit bonkers.

(That said, I realize it's all a matter of perspective. To someone like a religious fundy, I'm a bit bonkers.)

To come back to Diane Carey, while I have hated some of her work in the past (Red Sector, I'm looking at you), I've loved other works of hers (Fire Ship, you're awesome!). But I didn't like -- or dislike -- those works on the basis of politics. Red Sector I had serious moral qualms with, serious characterization issues with, but I didn't despise the book because of its politics.

Now, the whole New Earth series, on the other hand. I enjoyed the books, but I hated how "Libertarianism is superior to every other political philosophy" was bashed over my head. When Kirk himself espoused libertarianism, I thought Carey had gone too far.

Yet, I generally enjoyed New Earth. Even if Carey needs to be hit with a Clue-by-4 on how to write Spock.

 

[Steve Roby]

Anyhow, Carey *is* a good writer, but the thing that puts people off about her are her more Libertarian politics and worldview. [...] But, in her element, she captures the feel of the 23rd century perfectly, and writes Kirk better than anyone.

On a nuts'n'bolts grammatical level, I don't think she's a good writer at all. Either that, or she deliberately makes a lot of bad decisions. Some of her writing is to prose what Plan 9 From Outer Space is to movie making. Her politics really became an issue well into her career; it was her writing style that put me off. And I don't think she gets Kirk or the rest of TOS half as well as her fans do. She worships Kirk, sure, and often has other characters having "Ace Rimmer -- what a guy!" moments about Kirk, but I don't know if that means she understands him.

I remember an older blog here, in which every other blogger resorted to calling her a "right-wing nutcase", or words to that effect. *Sigh*

Ceci n'est pas une blog.

 

[Christopher]

^^Odd... I've always quite enjoyed Diane Carey's use of language. I find it rather poetic. Although she did go overboard with describing DS9 as "a clenched jaw in space" about half a dozen times in Station Rage.

 

[TJ Sinclair]

^^Odd... I've always quite enjoyed Diane Carey's use of language. I find it rather poetic. Although she did go overboard with describing DS9 as "a clenched jaw in space" about half a dozen times in Station Rage.

I generally like her turn of phrase, too. Haven't read Station Rage, though, so...wow. If she used that phrase more than once, just...wow.

Anyhoo, Carey's politics really did only come into view in New Earth (where I found it appropriate - too a degree), and in most of her later TNG and Voyager work. I find it, mostly, in keeping with TOS. But, as much as I like her writing in general, she's never been able to find the right voice for the TNG characters.

I did like her Flashback novelization, though, enough so that I started reading Fire Ship. I just couldn't get very far. Maybe I'll pick it up and try again at some point.

 

[Steve Roby]

^^Odd... I've always quite enjoyed Diane Carey's use of language. I find it rather poetic.

It's always struck me as trying way too hard. "The horror of the moment thudded to the floor," for example -- she's trying to make everything about action. That's probably why no verb, intransitive or transitive, is safe from being used as a replacement for "said" in her books.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Rush, I think in general the morality espoused by Star Trek - letting other cultures develop without interference, conflict as a last resort, inclusion rather than isolationism, tolerance of other cultural beliefs, interracial and interspecies and even (heh) intragender couples, equality / lack of desire for economic gain, among others - tends to be more closely associated with the Liberal end of the spectrum than the Conservative, at least these days. Obviously you yourself are an exception to this rule, it's not cut and dry, but I'm not making this up - I read somewhere that one of the writers of Star Trek thought of it as a kind of atheist bible.*

So, I realize this is an exaggeration, I don't think the situations are quite comparable, but if an atheist were to write the next entry in the Left Behind series, regardless of whether it was a great story, you'd expect people to be bothered wouldn't you?

About Left Behind... The entire focus of the series is the Bible in general, and prophecy in particular. So... of course people would be offended.

Star Trek, as a whole, has always struck me as more agnostic than atheistic.

That is, whenever the question of God/The Supernatural is brought up ("Do you believe in God, Captain?'), the characters usually respond with a "Ahhhh...wellllllllll...It's not my place to answer that. I...respect what you believe, and...let's leave it at that...."

Less frequently, the characters answer with something vague.

Example: Kirk's notorious lines, "We don't need 'gods'. We find the one quite adequate...." and "Maybe God's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here... in a human heart."


And, about tolerance... Conservatives believe in "tolerance", but for us, the meaning is somewhat different than the Left's translation.


The Right: Tolerance means that we should be respectful of other ideas without necessarily agreeing with them. Even if someone's views are utterly stupid (like the average tabloid's!), they should still be at least humored. As in, "Oh, okay. I hear you. Let's agree to disagree. I don't slam you, you don't slam me. Fair enough?"


The Left: Tolerance means that all ideas should be held as equally valid. You cannot say that your view is right and their's is wrong, because there is no objective right and wrong. There may be objective facts, but moral standards are relative to each society. That being said, all who dare suggest otherwise ("fundamentalists") are an exception to the general rule. They cannot be tolerated, because they themselves are intolerant. Separation of Church & State, and all that.


Star Trek is something of a mixture of these definitions. While the characters often talk as if they use the "Left" translation, they act more in synch with the "Right". How many time have we seen Kirk, Picard, Sisko, and (to an extent) Janeway, violate the Prime Directive because they believe that a society's actions and/or beliefs are dead wrong? It always seems as if a specific moral standard is held on the shows, thus suggesting the "Right" translation is the accepted one.

By the way, our captains were extremely firm believers in "individual responsibility". Sound familiar? This belief, quite simply, is at the very core of the conservative philosophy. The Left tends toward a "collective responsibility". (Hence, at the radical Left, we get Communism, whereas at the radical Right, we get anarchy. But I digress....)

So then, Star Trek can easily be enjoyed by both the Right and the Left.

Hey... It's intersting to note the times when Rush Limbaugh mentions Star Trek.

(He was talking on the subject of astronomy, specifically, black holes, and how the Enterprise is supposed to be the first thing known to escape one. Please, now, no black hole jokes.... He also once talked about warp drive, when the subject was on how far we're progressing technologically.)

One of his commercials has a TNG transporter sound effect, followed with "RESISTANCE... IS FUTILE"! Sounds like Rush is at least a casual fan!

 

[William Leisner]

^ You realize, of course, that claiming superiority in the arena of tolerance, while at the same time defaming 90% of the people who frequent this board gives lie to every word you say.

On the other hand, Mr. Limbaugh would be terribly proud of you right now.

 

[Thrawn]

Star Trek, as a whole, has always struck me as more agnostic than atheistic.

From http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Human_religion comes the following quote:
Brannon Braga said that "In Gene Roddenberry’s imagining of the future [...] religion is completely gone. Not a single human being on Earth believes in any of the nonsense that has plagued our civilization for thousands of years. This was an important part of Roddenberry’s mythology. He, himself, was a secular humanist and made it well-known to writers of Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation that religion and superstition and mystical thinking were not to be part of his universe. On Roddenberry’s future Earth, everyone is an atheist. And that world is the better for it."

Others may have taken the story in different directions to examine the issue further, since obviously religion is a pretty important question these days, but the word from the Great Bird himself is that it's gone. Period.

And, about tolerance... Conservatives believe in "tolerance", but for us, the meaning is somewhat different than the Left's translation.


The Right: Tolerance means that we should be respectful of other ideas without necessarily agreeing with them. Even if someone's views are utterly stupid (like the average tabloid's!), they should still be at least humored. As in, "Oh, okay. I hear you. Let's agree to disagree. I don't slam you, you don't slam me. Fair enough?"


The Left: Tolerance means that all ideas should be held as equally valid. You cannot say that your view is right and their's is wrong, because there is no objective right and wrong. There may be objective facts, but moral standards are relative to each society. That being said, all who dare suggest otherwise ("fundamentalists") are an exception to the general rule. They cannot be tolerated, because they themselves are intolerant. Separation of Church & State, and all that.

Speaking as a member of The Left, you've got this all wrong. Offensively wrong.

Tolerance, as defined by me, means accepting all views that do not necessitate forcing those views on someone else. That is, if your version of morality is "kill every third person at random", then I can't tolerate that because it makes life impossible for a large number of people. In general, any victimless pursuit should be acceptable. (This is an oversimplification, but yours were too.)

As far as I can tell, the far Right's version of "tolerance" involves forcing people to adhere to their moral standards even when there is enormous disagreement on that point (prayer in schools, no gay marriage, no abortions, etc). If half the country disagrees, I have a hard time believing you could define it as an objective right or wrong, and it seems to me that the policies put forth by the far Right in this area "humor" exactly nobody, and do a lot of forcing their views on other people that disagree.

And when was the last time Rush Limbaugh said "Let's agree to disagree"? Link me to an interview, article, or transcript, please.

Star Trek is something of a mixture of these definitions. While the characters often talk as if they use the "Left" translation, they act more in synch with the "Right". How many time have we seen Kirk, Picard, Sisko, and (to an extent) Janeway, violate the Prime Directive because they believe that a society's actions and/or beliefs are dead wrong? It always seems as if a specific moral standard is held on the shows, thus suggesting the "Right" translation is the accepted one.

In any case I can think of where the Prime Directive is violated, it is because that culture's beliefs are creating victims, as I explained above. If adhering to the justice system of this planet involves letting Wesley Crusher die, then that's not ok. That has nothing to do with "humoring" people, and is completely consistent with the Left's version of tolerance. Now, this is often a very difficult question. By rescuing Wesley, does Picard destroy an important aspect of the society, thus turning them into victims of his own views? And in situations like this, as the show makes clear, the answer is never easy.

The fact that slogans don't equate to morals is a thing Star Trek also spends a lot of time on, which is one thing that I hope if nothing else you can agree with me on.

By the way, our captains were extremely firm believers in "individual responsibility". Sound familiar? This belief, quite simply, is at the very core of the conservative philosophy. The Left tends toward a "collective responsibility". (Hence, at the radical Left, we get Communism, whereas at the radical Right, we get anarchy. But I digress....)

"You should be responsible for your own actions" is a maxim that should be observed by everyone, and I bet you'd have a hard time finding a single liberal that disagreed with you. We just don't think you should be responsible for where the random luck of the draw happened to make you be born. Again, you seem to have gotten your entire definition of liberal morality from right-wing hacks like Limbaugh. Try opening your mind and reading some dissenting viewpoints for a change.

So then, Star Trek can easily be enjoyed by both the Right and the Left.

Of course it can. I said as much myself, I was never arguing that.

Hey... It's intersting to note the times when Rush Limbaugh mentions Star Trek.

(He was talking on the subject of astronomy, specifically, black holes, and how the Enterprise is supposed to be the first thing known to escape one. Please, now, no black hole jokes.... He also once talked about warp drive, when the subject was on how far we're progressing technologically.)

One of his commercials has a TNG transporter sound effect, followed with "RESISTANCE... IS FUTILE"! Sounds like Rush is at least a casual fan!

What does this have to do with anything we were talking about? Star Trek is an enormous part of the modern culture of this country, and several catchphrases are used everywhere. He'd be perfectly capable of referencing such phrases without ever having seen it, but if he is a huge fan, he obviously wasn't paying much attention.

 

[bennyrex]

^^ Wow. I want to write a long response to that... but at the same time... I just... Part of me wants to just sit back and see what all the writers will have to say.

Alright, I'll dive in. I consider myself very left-leaning, and your definition of left-handed tolerance is not anywhere near mine. I do believe in an objective right and wrong, good and evil. I just expect that what that means to me is very different from what it means to you. I'm also pretty darn sure that when you describe conservatives as 'us' that a HUGE number of conservatives would not be willing to be anywhere near respectful of others views. "I don't slam you, you don't slam me?" Yeah right. Do you watch the pundits? Do you read newspaper columns? Obviously you do, "Rush Limborg" And what does 'separation of church and state' have to do with this at all?

Dude, I just reread what you said, and it makes even less sense. You've got a wit, and a way with words. I hope one day a sense of reality will enter the equation. That's not to say I hope you become liberal, or pacifistic or anything like that. I just hope you'll be able to defend your views, whatever they are, without resorting to idealistic pillars that aren't grounded in anything.

edit- Once again, Thrawn beat me to the punch. This is the second time you beat me to responding to this guy. This time I'm still going to let my two cents be known though.

 

[Trent Roman]

About Left Behind... The entire focus of the series is the Bible in general, and prophecy in particular. So... of course people would be offended.

You're contradicting yourself. Upthread, you said it shouldn't make a difference who writes the book - which I agreed with, as long as the author cleaves to the preset rules of the universe (which, in this case, would mean god, demons, apocalyptic battles, etc.). To get upset because the author is from a background different from the one espoused by the piece of fiction... well, that seems awfully prejudicial for such easy-goin' folk.

Star Trek, as a whole, has always struck me as more agnostic than atheistic.

Star Trek has, from it's original thrust, presented a secular and naturalistic account of the universe. That worldview hasn't changed; rather, it has been made to co-exist with a number of different interpretations of the same phenomenon, some of them spiritual/theological (wormhole aliens vs. Bajoran deities being the obvious example). But that just makes the universe more relativistic, since the characters do not, for the most part, seek to impose their way of seeing things on others.

The Right:

Tolerance means that we should be respectful of other ideas without necessarily agreeing with them. Even if someone's views are utterly stupid (like the average tabloid's!), they should still be at least humored. As in, "Oh, okay. I hear you. Let's agree to disagree. I don't slam you, you don't slam me. Fair enough?"

Sure. The right is famous for it's 'live-and-let-live' attitude, it's ability to cogenially disagree (well, unless you're a woman or black or hispanic or gay or transgendered or unitarian/universalist or muslim or jewish or wiccan or mormon or an athiest or a foreigner or humanist or liberal or socialist or suffer from a mental or physical disability or...). In fact, tomorrow I'm planning on hopping over to Iraq to tell those hundreds of thousands of dead civilians to stop acting like such drama queens; no one is fooled by their attempt to besmirch the right's known peaceable conflict resolution methods.

The Left:

Tolerance means that all ideas should be held as equally valid. You cannot say that your view is right and their's is wrong, because there is no objective right and wrong. There may be objective facts, but moral standards are relative to each society. That being said, all who dare suggest otherwise ("fundamentalists") are an exception to the general rule. They cannot be tolerated, because they themselves are intolerant.

Absurd. The left, by it's very heterogenous nature, has no established definition of what tolerance means, what is included or excluded, and how (if at all) it should be upheld or enforced. Benny mentioned in the post above mine, for instance, that he believes in good and evil, whereas I find 'evil' to be a concept without worth outside of fantasy. If you really think there's some kind of conspiratorial consensus, I suggest you read through some of the (often quite heated!) arguments academics, pundits and others generally associated with 'the left' get into over questions of society, culture, free speech and the various boundaries to them. The only thing that is agreed on is, as you pointed out, opposition to the absolutist and fundamentalist viewpoints that seek to suffocate all divergeance to its norms; the left presents a largely unified front to these ideologies because they are being collectively threatened by them.

By the way, our captains were extremely firm believers in "individual responsibility". Sound familiar? This belief, quite simply, is at the very core of the conservative philosophy. The Left tends toward a "collective responsibility".

Bull. Both the left and the right embrace notions of the individual responsibility; the difference lies in the nature of the individuals who either side believe are being allowed to abscond from said responsibilities. And the right has it's fair share of 'collective responsibility' myths; like the need to 'rally around the flag/president' in troubled times, suppressing dissent to 'support the troops', or the perception that a society has a collective moral character which then becomes threatened by things like alternate sexualities.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Rush Limborg]

As far as I can tell, the far Right's version of "tolerance" involves forcing people to adhere to their moral standards even when there is enormous disagreement on that point (prayer in schools, no gay marriage, no abortions, etc). If half the country disagrees, I have a hard time believing you could define it as an objective right or wrong, and it seems to me that the policies put forth by the far Right in this area "humor" exactly nobody, and do a lot of forcing their views on other people that disagree.

Sure. The right is famous for it's 'live-and-let-live' attitude, it's ability to cogenially disagree (well, unless you're a woman or black or hispanic or gay or transgendered or unitarian/universalist or muslim or jewish or wiccan or mormon or an athiest or a foreigner or humanist or liberal or socialist or suffer from a mental or physical disability or...).

Speaking as a member of the Right, you've got this all wrong. Offensively wrong.

We don't force people, per se. Never once have I, or Limbaugh, or Hannity have ever pulled a gun and said, "Believe or Die." We express our opinions, we debate with the Left, we engage in heated arguments with the Left, we give evidence for our views, and we propose policies, but never do we force people to believe or else.

By the way, it was Hannity who said "agree to disagree".

Furthermore, you may notice how the Republican party has people from various nationalities (Powell and J.C. Watts, anyone?), has women in positions of power (Rice), has Mormans (Mitt Romney), you get the picture. Color, race, gender and religion are not discriminated against. We simply look at the individual in matters like these.

Libertarians include athiests and humanists. Republicans are big supporters on our alliance with Israel.

And frankly, "no praying in school" seems pretty...intolerant.

Absurd. The left, by it's very heterogenous nature, has no established definition of what tolerance means, what is included or excluded, and how (if at all) it should be upheld or enforced. Benny mentioned in the post above mine, for instance, that he believes in good and evil, whereas I find 'evil' to be a concept without worth outside of fantasy. If you really think there's some kind of conspiratorial consensus, I suggest you read through some of the (often quite heated!) arguments academics, pundits and others generally associated with 'the left' get into over questions of society, culture, free speech and the various boundaries to them. The only thing that is agreed on is, as you pointed out, opposition to the absolutist and fundamentalist viewpoints that seek to suffocate all divergeance to its norms; the left presents a largely unified front to these ideologies because they are being collectively threatened by them.

Frankly, Mr. Roman, you've just proved my point for me. The disagreements within the Left indicates the proposes "relativity" of standards. My proposed definition was an attempt to come up with a definition suitable to remarks made by the Left. And... if you have no actual definition of tolerance, why do you use the term so much?

Alright, I'll dive in. I consider myself very left-leaning, and your definition of left-handed tolerance is not anywhere near mine. I do believe in an objective right and wrong, good and evil. I just expect that what that means to me is very different from what it means to you. I'm also pretty darn sure that when you describe conservatives as 'us' that a HUGE number of conservatives would not be willing to be anywhere near respectful of others views. "I don't slam you, you don't slam me?" Yeah right. Do you watch the pundits? Do you read newspaper columns? Obviously you do, "Rush Limborg" And what does 'separation of church and state' have to do with this at all?

Dude, I just reread what you said, and it makes even less sense. You've got a wit, and a way with words. I hope one day a sense of reality will enter the equation. That's not to say I hope you become liberal, or pacifistic or anything like that. I just hope you'll be able to defend your views, whatever they are, without resorting to idealistic pillars that aren't grounded in anything.

Temper, temper....

And yes, I am able to defend my views, thus. Of course, to do so here would be going too far off topic. I will respond to comments, I will answer specific questions, but other than that, I will do my best to stay with the Star Trek theme.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Okay guys, let's get back to discussing Diane Carey directly. If you want to talk politics, take it to Miscellaneous or TNZ.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Okay guys, let's get back to discussing Diane Carey directly. If you want to talk politics, take it to Miscellaneous or TNZ.

Thanks, Emh! NOW...back on topic....

So long as a writer follows the rules of Star Trek, the "message" of the book is his/her choice. "Left Behind" requires a specific message. Star Trek does not. (Well, not really. It still requires an optimistic look at the future. No problem for me!)

Thus, Diane is entitled to her literary opinion. This may put off some fans, but other fans will actually be encouraged to read her --like me!

And, of course, Diane's a darn good writer, politics or not!

 

[Thrawn]

Okay guys, let's get back to discussing Diane Carey directly. If you want to talk politics, take it to Miscellaneous or TNZ.

Thanks, Emh! NOW...back on topic....

So long as a writer follows the rules of Star Trek, the "message" of the book is his/her choice. "Left Behind" requires a specific message. Star Trek does not. (Well, not really. It still requires an optimistic look at the future. No problem for me!)

Thus, Diane is entitled to her literary opinion. This may put off some fans, but other fans will actually be encouraged to read her --like me!

And, of course, Diane's a darn good writer, politics or not!

You say this like you're not the one that took us off topic in the first place. I tried to explain why people might not like Diane Carey; you responded with a post basically calling liberals morally ambiguous liars. If you'd just responded with this post in the first place, there'd have been no problem.

All I was trying to say is this:

1) It is completely legitimate for people to be annoyed by authors that disagree with them ideologically, specifically if they seem to disagree with the series itself ideologically as well.

2) Star Trek, like it or not, comes from a primarily secular humanist / atheist / liberal background. There are many exceptions, this is hardly a universal rule, but it is a historical fact. Thus, it is more likely for people like Carey and Hugh to write stories with contradictory morality to the rest of Star Trek canon. (It's not inevitable - First Strike and Fallen Heroes are basically unobjectionable - but it is more likely.)

3) That doesn't make them bad books. In no way am I saying that Star Trek is incapable of dealing with morality plays posed by extremely religious or conservative people or whatever. I'm just saying, to a lot of people, Star Trek has just as specific a "message" as Left Behind, though admittedly not as well-defined a story and universe. It's entirely reasonable to be annoyed when that message is apparently violated in-universe.

I'd like to also add that if you yourself want to become a Star Trek writer, as you've posted many many times, you might want to acquaint yourself with the prevailing moral opinions of the fans. You can feel free to disagree all you want, but assuming well over the majority of your fanbase is full of lying hypocrites is not a great start on writing stories for them. If you would like to do so, I would enjoy continuing this debate via PM, but as EMH rightly reminded us, this is not the place.

 

[Trent Roman]

So long as a writer follows the rules of Star Trek, the "message" of the book is his/her choice. "Left Behind" requires a specific message. Star Trek does not. (Well, not really. It still requires an optimistic look at the future. No problem for me!)

In addition to what Mitth'raw'nuruodo said about Star Trek's message, I think it should be pointed out that's it a pretty poor writer who cannot write except for what they themselves support. Any story with a variety of characters should likewise contain a variety of viewpoints, even if one eventually wins out. There's no reason why someone who doesn't believe in the theology set out by the "Left Behind" series couldn't write for it, anymore than Trek writers believe they're acurately depicting the future. If a writer feels they cannot cleave to the ideology of the pre-established universe, then they shouldn't submit themselves to write for that universe in the first place. There's nothing wrong with fiction that also carries a political message, but if the fiction does nothing but act as a vehicle for that message, the story will suffer for it (think Ayn Rand, for instance).

I'm anti-faith, but my first story sold has, as primary protagonist, a devout Santeria woman, and I tried my best to be honest to her worldview. Same goes if I'm writing for a splatterpunk antihero, or anybody else whose 'ideology' I would personally find objectionable or repugnant. It's fiction, after all; we can be more latitudinal with the worlds we play in than the one we live in.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Thrawn]

Mitth'raw'nuruodo

There's nothing wrong with fiction that also carries a political message, but if the fiction does nothing but act as a vehicle for that message, the story will suffer for it (think Ayn Rand, for instance).

For both these things, I send you a hearty

 

[David cgc]

So long as a writer follows the rules of Star Trek,

Can I get that in a handsomely bound first edition?

 

[Red Ranger]

People,

Well, sorry, I just never cared for Carey's novels. I read two and that was enough. I found Dreadnought interesting but irritating. I think Piper is kind of a Mary Sue character myself. And her supporting cast were just pale imitations of the Kirk, Spock, and McCoy trinity. A command track Vulcan and a Southern engineer. And this was way before ENT! I mean, please!

And that leads me to my second pet peeve with Carey: She lacks imagination when it comes to supporting characters. The least diverse starship crew was in that novel Ship of the Line, featuring the Bozeman, adjusting to life in the 24th century. The crew was predominantly male and American, as I recall. Boring! Give me Vonda McIntyre or Diane Duane's knack for creating diverse crews, alien and human, any day.

I think her libertarian leaning made her go overboard in not exploring diversity, a kind of backlash against her more liberal peers. Not my cup of tea! In a Federation of hundreds of worlds, surely diversity would be a strength and virtue. The view that "Only humans are good starship commanders," strongly proposed in Dreadnaugh, I found rather objectionable. Maybe I'm overreacting, but it seemed almost a thinly veiled attackk on other ethnicities, that is, challenging Carey's world view on what makes an American. Therefore, I found her lionizing of humanity prejudiced, in a quaint kind of way.

BTW, I originally posted this after reading only a few responses. I read some more and am heartened to see I wasn't imagining things, and that others have come to similar conclusions as I have about Carey's politics and how it's layered over her characterizations. Frankly, I found her take on Kirk boring. Give me McIntyre's or Duane's version of Kirk, anyday.

Red Ranger