Trek Lit: Adult only?

[David R. George III]

It's not something I'm prepared to defend or justify, because it's not a position I arrived at through careful analysis, thought and exploration. It was a gut reaction that the relationship in the book just felt completely wrong to me, and that was the only explanation that came to mind. The problem with such reactions is that no amount of considered counter-arguing can dislodge it.

Honestly, I'm not attempting to change your mind, nor do I believe that I would even be able to do so if I did try.

Admittedly, my views on sex and relationships are completely screwed up thanks to spending the last few years dealing solely with sexual offences in the legal system. Not sure how that would impact my reaction, but I guess all reactions are the product of experience in some way.

I can see where such life experiences as yours could easily color (or for you Australians, colour) your views. And obviously, just because two people can have a positive, mature sexual relationship does not mean that all sexual relationships can be characterized in that way. Here, though, I'm speaking about two very specific people committing an act of love, not a legal offense.

Then again, perhaps I was just bitter about Australia being invaded by Japan in the books.

Hey, I'm bitter about it too. I love Australia.

Not sure what's so funny here, other than that the metaphor strays toward the cliche.

In hindsight, it was probably because I'd just re-read a PAD book where they talk about sending an away team up Jellico's butt. So when I read about exploring bodies, I had a momentary vision of Kirk and Keeler sending miniaturised crew members inside each other. My fault rather than yours.

Yikes. Clearly not the vision I sought to engender in my readers.

 

[Vance]

And David Marcus was born years before Kirk met Edith. Do you really think that if Kirk slipped up on his safe-sex practices once, he'd be foolish enough to let it happen again?

Yes. Because it happens to the best of men. It wouldn't be a risk worth taking in the circumstance Kirk was in, and therefore extremely out of character.

It is extremely offensive and misogynistic to refer to a sexually active woman as a "whore." By using such hate speech, you've just proven that you're incapable of discussing sexuality in an adult manner, so you have no business accusing anyone else of immaturity.

Hate speech? Oh please. I didn't realize I was dealing with the thought gestapo in here, and I'm ashamed of any writer that would subscribe to such tyranny.

Anyway, In the 1930s, anyone who was caught having sex out of marriage wore that label, or 'slut'... or 'hussie', if you prefer. By 1929, the 'flappers' were not only completely out of fashion, but were public symbols of embarassment.

Besides, you're the one saying that someone who is portrayed as a walking embodiment of female virtue must have sex with someone she finds attractive to be believable, even if her character is established otherwise. Who's the mysogynist here? Who's the one reducing Edith Keeler, a clearly very conservative, God-Fearing, spirit of morality and visionary, to her naughty bits because it's impossible she wouldn't want a good screwing?

And, again, the episode itself indicated that Keeler was a 'wait until married' type anyway regardless of the other mores of the time. That's why it was out of character for them both.

 

[David R. George III]

That does not mean that every woman in 1930 was a whore, however, which seems to be the thrust of your counter-point. What we see of Keeler is that she's definately the type to wait until she's married. Hell, there's dialog in the episode that hints strongly at that.

A woman having sex with someone she loves makes her a whore? That's not an opinion I share. "The type to wait until she's married?" I'd be interested to learn just what dialogue in the episode you think hints strongly at this.

Oh, I think it's totally immature to defend a 'fuck' scene between two characters who would both have to be dramatically out of character to have the consummation occur in the way described. and that is, frankly, what we're talking about here. It's yet another bit of badly written slash-fan-fic which has given Star Trek novels the reputation for utter crap that they have.

Your characterization of the love scenes between Kirk and Keeler as "fuck" scenes seems intended to demean the action of the scenes. Those scenes were not written in that way. Also, as stated, I disagree strongly that the consummation of Kirk and Keeler's relationship would require either one of them to act out of character. If I had thought it required them to act out of character, I would not have written it.

As for your judgement of my writing as "badly written slash-fan-fic" and as "utter crap," well, I can't argue with that. To each their own. It's unfortunate that the novel didn't work for you.

 

[Vance]

I have to disagree with your assessment here. When you say that not every woman in love "spreads her legs two months into a relationship," you appear to be demeaning the sexual act by reducing it to a vulgarism.

The problem is, from my impression, you wrote the situation in such a way where the sex was a forgone conclusion, and then led up to it. And, like I said, the 'moment' had the precedence, and the interaction was written up to it despite it being out of character for them both.

For another, Edith Keeler struck me as a mature woman, capable of making up her own mind about how to live her life.

Yes. But what we saw of her character, she had made up her mind to be the 'wait until marriage' type, and quite explicitly so. And, we know enough about Kirk that timeline-issues aside, he would had tremendously respected that - in fact, not only do we see him doing that, he was more than a little harsh to someone who implied otherwise.

Nor am I an immature person who does not understand sexuality.

No, I think your understanding of sexuality (only going from what's posted here) is biased to the 'laissez faire' sexuality found in more socially liberal aspects of society. You have to understand that, even today, most people worldwide simply do not share that view of sexuality, and never have, and never will. The character of Edith Keeler, despite the actress who played her, was one of those people.

That's where, I feel, you screwed up. You put your own expectations of a relationship onto that character, deliberately wrote to that direction and completely and utterly lost sight of who that character actually was.

 

[David R. George III]

Besides, you're the one saying that someone who is portrayed as a walking embodiment of female virtue must have sex with someone she finds attractive to be believable, even if her character is established otherwise. Who's the mysogynist here? Who's the one reducing Edith Keeler, a clearly very conservative, God-Fearing, spirit of morality and visionary, to her naughty bits because it's impossible she wouldn't want a good screwing?

My decision to have Kirk and Keeler consummate their relationship occurred not because I believe that the "walking embodiment of female virtue must have sex with someone she finds attractive." That is a wild misrepresentation not only of the novel, but of the things I have stated in this thread. As I posted earlier, I chose to have Kirk and Keeler take their relationship further because it seemed natural and in character for them to do so. You obviously disagree, and that's fine, but I'd prefer if you didn't mischaracterize the novel or my motivations.

Also, nothing in the episode points to Edith being "very conservative" or "God-Fearing." I can see her "spirit of morality," in that she chose to help the downtrodden, and I can certainly see her as a "visionary," as her thoughts about humanity and the possibilities of the future seemed well ahead of her time, given her circumstances.

And, again, the episode itself indicated that Keeler was a 'wait until married' type anyway regardless of the other mores of the time. That's why it was out of character for them both.

That's your opinion. I get that. It just doesn't happen to be my opinion.

 

[Trent Roman]

No, I think your understanding of sexuality (only going from what's posted here) is biased to the 'laissez faire' sexuality found in more socially liberal aspects of society. You have to understand that, even today, most people worldwide simply do not share that view of sexuality, and never have, and never will. The character of Edith Keeler, despite the actress who played her, was one of those people.

You seem to be confusing public and private personas, prevailing social mores with actual practice. Yes, most societies are nominally sexually conservative. That doesn't mean they fuck any less; it just means that they are then compelled to hypocritically conceal and/or lie about it afterwards.

Fititiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Steve Roby]

That does not mean that every woman in 1930 was a whore, however, which seems to be the thrust of your counter-point. What we see of Keeler is that she's definately the type to wait until she's married.

Madonna/Whore complex, huh?

I'd say more -- well, actually, I did, a lot, but deleted it before posting. Instead, I will rejoice that this site has an ignore list feature.

 

[Vance]

Also, nothing in the episode points to Edith being "very conservative" or "God-Fearing." I can see her "spirit of morality," in that she chose to help the downtrodden, and I can certainly see her as a "visionary," as her thoughts about humanity and the possibilities of the future seemed well ahead of her time, given her circumstances.

The entire first act when we meet her? The hymn at the beginning? The prayer to the mission? The comments of the dregs at the table? Her very formal behavior when she's being escorted by Kirk? Basically every single last second of her screen time?

Honestly, the reason I don't respect your choice here is that if I was being only a smidge less generous, I wouldn't think that you actually watched the episode at all. With your novelization and your comments here, I do not recognize 'Edith Keeler' as remotely the same character as the one that appeared in the episode.

 

[Vance]

You seem to be confusing public and private personas, prevailing social mores with actual practice. Yes, most societies are nominally sexually conservative. That doesn't mean they fuck any less; it just means that they are then compelled to hypocritically conceal and/or lie about it afterwards.

The problem, really, is Kirk's choice to consumate, which is borderline nonsensical, and the choice of Edith Keeler, who is portrayed in such a manner. If it had been a different character, then it might have worked, but then what made Edith Keeler so unique both on TOS and to Kirk, would have been lost.

I can get in the head of that kind of character. It's obvious that most people on this board cannot. The concept of a chaste woman, by her own choice, is something completely alien to you.

Madonna/Whore complex, huh?

I'd say more -- well, actually, I did, a lot, but deleted it before posting. Instead, I will rejoice that this site has an ignore list feature.

I said that only to illustrate the extreme already cited in the other direction. To say that 'well, they were all sexually liberated, so of COURSE every single woman were all having sex with incredible loose societal mores!' was a hell of a leap of logic to make. This is why I said the character of Edith was a unique entity, regardless of whatever societal mores were for the time. (And, again, you missed the societal mores by a few years there, anyway.)

 

[David R. George III]

The problem is, from my impression, you wrote the situation in such a way where the sex was a forgone conclusion, and then led up to it. And, like I said, the 'moment' had the precedence, and the interaction was written up to it despite it being out of character for them both.

I believe that this was your impression, but it's not an accurate description of what happened. I actually went into this story not knowing whether Kirk and Keeler would sleep together. As I worked through the many weeks of their relationship, the decision to do this occurred naturally. I understand that you disagree with this choice, and I understand that you believe that it's out of character for the two of them. I simply don't agree.

Yes. But what we saw of her character, she had made up her mind to be the 'wait until marriage' type, and quite explicitly so. And, we know enough about Kirk that timeline-issues aside, he would had tremendously respected that - in fact, not only do we see him doing that, he was more than a little harsh to someone who implied otherwise.

You say that Edith "quite explicitly" "made up her mind to be the 'wait until marriage type.'" Would you please point out where this occurs in the episode? If you're correct, then I never saw it.

No, I think your understanding of sexuality (only going from what's posted here) is biased to the 'laissez faire' sexuality found in more socially liberal aspects of society. You have to understand that, even today, most people worldwide simply do not share that view of sexuality, and never have, and never will. The character of Edith Keeler, despite the actress who played her, was one of those people.

Well, you're not correct about my views on sexuality, nor would I presume to speak for most of the people worldwide. And as I have stated, I disagree with your assessment of Edith Keeler, in that you believe she necessarily saw sex out of marriage as something wrong. I do agree that Jim Kirk would not have forced himself upon her.

That's where, I feel, you screwed up. You put your own expectations of a relationship onto that character, deliberately wrote to that direction and completely and utterly lost sight of who that character actually was.

I wonder if you're putting your own expectations onto the character of Edith Keeler. You are not correct in that I tried to make the character into something I wanted and something she was not. You clearly don't like what I did, but believe me when I tell you that my only agenda was crafting a good story and keeping the characters true to themselves.

 

[Sci]

I'd just like to chime and and say that, as someone who was born to parents who never chose to marry, I find Vance's description of women who choose to engage in non-martial sexual relationships as "whores" to be deeply offensive and insulting. I'm not one for Internet tough guy nonsense, but if someone said something like that to my face, I'd be hard-pressed not to punch him out for it.

I can get in the head of that kind of character. It's obvious that most people on this board cannot. The concept of a chaste woman, by her own choice, is something completely alien to you.

I can get into the head of a chaste woman just fine, I just don't agree that Edith was necessarily chaste.

 

[Vance]

I wonder if you're putting your own expectations onto the character of Edith Keeler. You are not correct in that I tried to make the character into something I wanted and something she was not. You clearly don't like what I did, but believe me when I tell you that my only agenda was crafting a good story and keeping the characters true to themselves.

You dismiss the 'sister' from the credits, but you seem to forget that the original treatment of the story had Kirk's interest purely platonic and reverent, and Keeler was indeed a Catholic nun. The rewrite of the story, in this respect, is actually a little awkward as some elements of her very religious background remain (most notably in her introduction), while others allow for her to show romantic interest in Kirk. These changes even happened while the episode was being filmed, which results in the slight awkwardness.

Her purpose in the episode was to effect Kirk in a profound way that most other women simply do not. Kirk's love, in this case, was meant to be much more 'pure' (remember, 1960s television), even platonic, because her loss to him was supposed to cut that much deeper. In fact part of the very drama was that we (the audience) knew that the relationship could not be consumated, because the whole purpose was the tragedy. Kirk and Keeler were embodying tragic courtly love.

The consumation belies both characters, as well as the very purpose of the original episode. That's why it looks so bad, feels so forced, and reduces the relationship. It's just the wrong episode, the wrong situation, and a horrible choice of character.

 

[David R. George III]

Also, nothing in the episode points to Edith being "very conservative" or "God-Fearing." I can see her "spirit of morality," in that she chose to help the downtrodden, and I can certainly see her as a "visionary," as her thoughts about humanity and the possibilities of the future seemed well ahead of her time, given her circumstances.

The entire first act when we meet her? The hymn at the beginning? The prayer to the mission? The comments of the dregs at the table? Her very formal behavior when she's being escorted by Kirk? Basically every single last second of her screen time?

Honestly, the reason I don't respect your choice here is that if I was being only a smidge less generous, I wouldn't think that you actually watched the episode at all. With your novelization and your comments here, I do not recognize 'Edith Keeler' as remotely the same character as the one that appeared in the episode.

Saying "the entire first act when we meet her" is as specific as saying the whole episode--which is to say, not at all. I'm asking for specifics, which you give as "the hymn at the beginning" and "the prayer to the mission" and "the comments of the dregs at the table." Except that there is no hymn in the episode, and no prayer. And the notion that because a "dreg" found Edith attractive and wanted to sleep with her, but that she clearly wouldn't sleep with him, means that she was the "wait until marriage type" seems to me quite a reach.

Rest assured that, before I wrote Crucible, I'd seen the episode a dozen or more times, and while writing the trilogy, I watched it at least that many times again. And as I've said, I wrote to the events of the episode, and to the characters as they appeared. I did not write to your personal interpretation of the episode and characters, which appears to be based in part upon facts not in evidence.

I'm not trying to change your mind about my novel. I'm not offended by you disliking my novel. I'm not particularly fond of you drawing conclusions about my motivations, and drawing them incorrectly at that, but such is life. But I have no problem with you simply not liking my work. Again, to each their own.

 

[Vance]

I'd just like to chime and and say that, as someone who was born to parents who never chose to marry, I find Vance's description of women who choose to engage in non-martial sexual relationships as "whores" to be deeply offensive and insulting.

You're not reading what I wrote, but instead reading what you think I wrote, or (more likely) what you like to think I had wrote.

I do not feel that any woman who has sex outside of marriage is a whore. I just do not think that there's a logical connect to say 'sexual morality was looser in the 1920s' automatically equates to every single woman 'giving it up' all the time, either. And, indeed, even in the 1920s, woman who were known to do that had a stigma attached to them.

The basic argument is a simple logical fallacy. "All terriers are dogs" automatically meaning "All dogs are terriers."

And even if it were true, Edith herself was established as a different type of character anyway, which is why the novelization of that character fails.

 

[David R. George III]

You dismiss the 'sister' from the credits, but you seem to forget that the original treatment of the story had Kirk's interest purely platonic and reverent, and Keeler was indeed a Catholic nun. The rewrite of the story, in this respect, is actually a little awkward as some elements of her very religious background remain (most notably in her introduction), while others allow for her to show romantic interest in Kirk. These changes even happened while the episode was being filmed, which results in the slight awkwardness.

Actually, I did not dismiss the credits. I addressed them in the course of the trilogy. The credits can hardly be considered as a better source than the events of the actual episode, though. In "Requiem for Methuselah," the android is listed in the credits as "Reena," while her name actually appears in the episode as "Rayna."

Also, what does the original treatment of the story have anything to do with the episode as produced and aired? Edith Keeler was not a Catholic nun, and precisely no elements of her religious background remain in the actual episode.

Her purpose in the episode was to effect Kirk in a profound way that most other women simply do not. Kirk's love, in this case, was meant to be much more 'pure' (remember, 1960s television), even platonic, because her loss to him was supposed to cut that much deeper. In fact part of the very drama was that we (the audience) knew that the relationship could not be consumated, because the whole purpose was the tragedy. Kirk and Keeler were embodying tragic courtly love.

The consumation belies both characters, as well as the very purpose of the original episode. That's why it looks so bad, feels so forced, and reduces the relationship. It's just the wrong episode, the wrong situation, and a horrible choice of character.

I believe that Kirk's relationship with Keeler was profound. I believe that she was the one true love of his life. I quibble with your use of the word "pure." Why do two people consummating their relationship make that relationship less pure? Why is it more tragic for Kirk to lose Keeler because he never got to sleep with her? Isn't the loss more profound if that relationship is as deep and intimate as it can be?

Obviously we're not going to agree on this. I don't view the choice of these two adults, who loved each other profoundly, to consummate their relationship as something that demeaned the relationship. Nor do I see it as out of character for either Kirk or Keeler. You disagree.

 

[David R. George III]

I do not feel that any woman who has sex outside of marriage is a whore. I just do not think that there's a logical connect to say 'sexual morality was looser in the 1920s' automatically equates to every single woman 'giving it up' all the time, either. And, indeed, even in the 1920s, woman who were known to do that had a stigma attached to them.

The basic argument is a simple logical fallacy. "All terriers are dogs" automatically meaning "All dogs are terriers."

And even if it were true, Edith herself was established as a different type of character anyway, which is why the novelization of that character fails.

The thing is, nobody is saying that the Roaring Twenties resulted in every woman having sex all the time. I brought up the mores of the 1920s in direct response to your statement that "Given her stature and status in the 1930s, it's extremely unlikely that she would have a night of passion." You raised the issue of the time period, and I simply pointed out that the social landscape in America in 1930 (when "City" takes place) was not perhaps as chaste as I thought you were implying. I didn't have Keeler sleep with Kirk because all women at the time were doing it. I did it because it seemed perfectly natural for that to happen in their relationship. I know it doesn't seem natural to you, that you find it out of character for Edith, but I don't.

 

[Christopher]

Actually, I did not dismiss the credits. I addressed them in the course of the trilogy. The credits can hardly be considered as a better source than the events of the actual episode, though. In "Requiem for Methuselah," the android is listed in the credits as "Reena," while her name actually appears in the episode as "Rayna."

And "Tomorrow is Yesterday" billed Captain Christopher as "Major Christopher."

 

[William Leisner]

I'd just like to chime and and say that, as someone who was born to parents who never chose to marry, I find Vance's description of women who choose to engage in non-martial sexual relationships as "whores" to be deeply offensive and insulting.

You're not reading what I wrote, but instead reading what you think I wrote, or (more likely) what you like to think I had wrote.

We all read what you wrote, Vance.

What you wrote, plain and clear, was that an unmarried woman who has sex is a whore.

You tried to backpedal, saying that's what the attitude in 1930 would be. Unfortunately for you, this is 2009.

I just do not think that there's a logical connect to say 'sexual morality was looser in the 1920s' automatically equates to every single woman 'giving it up' all the time, either.

And if TCOTEOF or Crucible made any kind of statement about "every single woman," or even a majority of women, rather than one particular woman, this might be a relevant point.

The fact is, some unmarried women have sex, and some don't. The fact that you don't want them to have sex is your own problem.

 

[Vance]

What you wrote, plain and clear, was that an unmarried woman who has sex is a whore.

No, that's not what I said. That's what you want me to have said, so it would be easier for you to dismiss a point of view on this work that you apparently disagree with.

And if TCOTEOF or Crucible made any kind of statement about "every single woman," or even a majority of women, rather than one particular woman, this might be a relevant point.

The point made was 'the sexual mores of the time were very liberal, so of course she was fucking Jim Kirk'. It was a clear logical fallacy, just as saying 'every woman in the 1930s was a whore' would be.

The fact is, some unmarried women have sex, and some don't. The fact that you don't want them to have sex is your own problem.

And here's absolute proof that you didn't read a damn thing that I actually wrote, and are resorting to personal ad hominem rather than discuss the mere point that I found that a sex scene for "City" was out of character and out of place, for a myriad of reasons.

 

[Trent Roman]

I can get in the head of that kind of character. It's obvious that most people on this board cannot. The concept of a chaste woman, by her own choice, is something completely alien to you.

Piffle. I was raised Catholic. I've known priests and nuns, who certainly portrayed themselves as chaste (whether or not they were actually absentious is beyond my ability to speak to). I'm well familiar with the Cult of Virginity and the psycho-social motives that drive it, since a good number people tried for many years to inculcate those "values" into me, succeeding to the extent I felt antipathy for my own sexual impulses until my mid-teens despite having previously rejected the faith overall. I'll admit that true asexuality is foreign to my constitution, but that's not what we're talking about here; mere prudishness and celibacy, however, or even extremes of antisexualism and erotophobia/gynophobia, are no mystery. Edith Keeler was obviously attracted to Kirk, which means the sexual impulse was present; everything else is social window dressing.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman