LGBT Characters in Trek (Help and no flames Please)

[Steve Roby]

Enterprise adopted neocon politics?

Greven has an article here, though I haven't read it yet. I wouldn't be surprised if there's some talk about Archer's tactics during the Xindi situation, the adolescent sexism of the show, and the returning of nonwhite characters to minor supporting roles. Greven's hardly the first person to make a case that Enterprise was a rejection of Star Trek's usual liberalism. And after all Manny Coto's well to the right politically.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Enterprise adopted neocon politics?

Greven has an article here, though I haven't read it yet. I wouldn't be surprised if there's some talk about Archer's tactics during the Xindi situation, the adolescent sexism of the show, and the returning of nonwhite characters to minor supporting roles. Greven's hardly the first person to make a case that Enterprise was a rejection of Star Trek's usual liberalism. And after all Manny Coto's well to the right politically.

Something else: Much as I loved Enterprise, I couldn't help but wince whenever Andorians referred to Humans as "pink skins". Silly Andorians, don't they know that only a small percentage of Humans are pink? It was justified as a private nickname for Archer used by Shran, but it was pretty thoughtless to imply that all humans are "pink-skins"

 

[Trent Roman]

Greven has an article here, though I haven't read it yet. I wouldn't be surprised if there's some talk about Archer's tactics during the Xindi situation, the adolescent sexism of the show, and the returning of nonwhite characters to minor supporting roles. Greven's hardly the first person to make a case that Enterprise was a rejection of Star Trek's usual liberalism. And after all Manny Coto's well to the right politically.

Just read it. She makes a few good points about the characterization, or lack thereof, of Sato, Mayweather, and the browbeating T'Pol took as a character. Overall, though, it suffers from the problems typical to this ideological perspective, assuming the most negative interpretation without accounting for alternatives, ungenerous where the show actually succeeds, and treating culture as conspiracy where individual callousness and venality could function just as well. And while "Twilight" is a well-received episode and her analysis of it interesting (assuming her overall interpretive matrix), there's just something unfair about taking an episode like "Bound" as characteristic of the series; I think most fans would consider it an outlier in terms of its crappy quality and gender politics. And I continue to insist that ENT engaged with 'War on Terror' metaphors only to eventually debunk the neocon ideology and policies that drove it. Wish she had spent more time on how many of the shows that have been critical darlings over the last decade for their 'realism' also enable the depictions of reactionary viewpoints (and, I'm sure many would argue, counter it); it's an interesting suggestion, although perhaps I'm biased in that it reminds me of my own complaint regarding the way destruction rather than creation has become a marker of relevance. Certainly the "I'm better than you because I can blow more shit up" attitude has a clear political resonance under a militaristic regime.

I'm surprised that the book will include content on the new movie, particularly given the extended production timeframe academic books are usually subject to; maybe, knowing that it would be released shortly, they set aside a chapter for it while finalizing the rest of the book. I know I'd love to see what that chapter would look like; if she thought Enterprise was neocon, I can imagine what she'll think of a film even I, with my limited feminist sensibilities, found retrograde and chauvinistic. Minorities bundled into Uhura and set aside, humanism replaced with magical destinies, Vulcans portrayed negatively and massively punished, to say nothing of how much more Bush-like the nuTrek Kirk is than Jonathan Archer ever was; it should make for a great rant.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Sci]

Enterprise adopted neocon politics?

Greven has an article here, though I haven't read it yet. I wouldn't be surprised if there's some talk about Archer's tactics during the Xindi situation, the adolescent sexism of the show, and the returning of nonwhite characters to minor supporting roles. Greven's hardly the first person to make a case that Enterprise was a rejection of Star Trek's usual liberalism. And after all Manny Coto's well to the right politically.

I don't know if that's a fair critique at all. For one thing, Archer resolved the Xindi conflict by forging an alliance with the Xindi -- winning their trust and then convincing all but the Xindi Reptilians and Insectoids that Humans were not their enemy but were potential partners who wanted only to avoid being destroyed -- a complete repudiation of the conflict-before-diplomacy ideology of neoconservatism.

Further, while Manny Coto may be a conservative, it's important to recall that he was behind the depiction of Vulcan Administrator V'Las as a warmongering dictator, using unverified allegations that the Andorians were building a weapon of mass destruction (using that exact phrase) based on Xindi technology as an excuse to invade Andoria, and using national security as a reason to clamp down on people's civil liberties and rights. A very obvious -- and publicly-acknowledged -- Bush/Iraq metaphor.

 

[Christopher]

^Yep. Sounds like yet another media critic making up pretentious and flimsy theories about ST to justify publishing a book.

 

[Trent Roman]

^ No, I'm quite sure he believes in the arguments he's putting forward. It's just a very biased approach, sometimes almost arguing from a conclusion.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[seigezunt]

Makes me want to watch Enterprise, though.

 

[Christopher]

I hope this isn't thread necromancy, but I just found another example that seems to have been overlooked. In The Lost Era: Deny Thy Father by Jeff Mariotte, there's an Academy classmate of Will Riker's named Estresor Fil, a female of the Zimonian species, who has romantic feelings for a female classmate, Felicia Mendoza, in whom Riker is also interested. Felicia appears to respond positively to Estresor Fil's interest, leading Riker to think he's missed his chance, but eventually it's revealed that Felicia and Estresor Fil are just really close friends and Felicia is actually interested in Riker. Nobody in the story reacts to the idea of a lesbian attraction as anything unusual or calls attention to the gender issue, and while Felicia doesn't respond romantically to Estresor Fil, there is a moment on p. 196 where she considers the possibility with an open mind.

 

[david g]

^Yep. Sounds like yet another media critic making up pretentious and flimsy theories about ST to justify publishing a book.

David Greven here...Say what you will about my interpretations, Christopher, I really dont think that you can say that I am simply "making up theories in order to publish a book" about Star Trek. For one thing, this isnt my first or only book. But, more importantly, I write as a passionate fan of the franchise--or, as I call it, a "monomyth"--as well as a scholar.

Anyway, this lively thread reminds me of how exciting this field of Trekkian inquiry really is!

 

[Captain Robert April]

I think you might want to keep in mind that while Archer appeared to be morphing into G. Gordon Liddy, it wasn't exactly shown as a good thing.

 

[David R. George III]

Regarding Krissten Richter and Etana Kol:

When the DS9 relaunch and Mission Gamma were underway, we talked to Marco early on about bringing the characters into the books. It was to be clear that they were a couple, and put into the "bible" and plots; it just happened that they were written by David before they were written by Mike and I.

So on a technicality, due to artistic interference, the specifics of their relationship WERE first revealed by David. And we are grateful for that, and he (and others) have written them well. But we did create and introduce the characters, and originally wrote their relationship into the comics (issues #10, 11 and 15). Hope that helps to clear things up.

As I recall, Andy, you and Mike actually asked me to introduce the relationship in Twilight, as you were going to reference it in Cathedral, and felt that the arc would carry more dramatic weight if it had some earlier appearances behind it. I, of course, was delighted to help.

Also, Jason, I don't know if this is of interest, but in Twilight, I believe, either Quark or Treir (and possibly both) think about people's relationships and attractiveness to others without regard to them being of opposite genders. I'd have to search for the references, but I know they're in there.

...I really dont think that you can say that I am simply "making up theories in order to publish a book" about Star Trek. For one thing, this isnt my first or only book. But, more importantly, I write as a passionate fan of the franchise--or, as I call it, a "monomyth"--as well as a scholar.

Anyway, this lively thread reminds me of how exciting this field of Trekkian inquiry really is!

Mr. Greven, I haven't read your book--I just learned of its existence here today--but reading about your book in this thread, I have to say that I can easily see your perspective (and did during the run of the series). National chauvinism and in some sense, revenge fantasy, seemed to rear up in Enterprise with the whole introduction of the Xindi arc. I'll be interested to read more.

 

[Christopher]

^But the Xindi arc was quite clearly critiquing and rejecting that kind of chauvinism and revenge fantasy, because it culminated with Archer and the Xindi learning to trust each other and reject that kind of militancy. Basically, it's a season-long version of Kirk's arc in "Arena," where he starts out determined to hunt down the Gorn and make them pay for what they did on Cestus III, but ultimately comes to realize the conflict was due to a misunderstanding and chooses a peaceful solution instead.

 

[Andy Mangels]

Regarding Krissten Richter and Etana Kol:

When the DS9 relaunch and Mission Gamma were underway, we talked to Marco early on about bringing the characters into the books. It was to be clear that they were a couple, and put into the "bible" and plots; it just happened that they were written by David before they were written by Mike and I.

So on a technicality, due to artistic interference, the specifics of their relationship WERE first revealed by David. And we are grateful for that, and he (and others) have written them well. But we did create and introduce the characters, and originally wrote their relationship into the comics (issues #10, 11 and 15). Hope that helps to clear things up.

As I recall, Andy, you and Mike actually asked me to introduce the relationship in Twilight, as you were going to reference it in Cathedral, and felt that the arc would carry more dramatic weight if it had some earlier appearances behind it. I, of course, was delighted to help.

I'm not sure what I'm missing David?

As I noted, we introduced them in the Marvel comics, at least a year before we wrote for the books.

Their relationship was not revealed there due to artistic interference (once with a strategically-placed word balloon covering them holding hands on the Promenade, the other time when the artist didn't draw them as they were supposed to be drawn).

When they were to be reintroduced in the books at our request, they were written by you first.

I believe that we did ask you to introduce the couple-hood, but that doesn't contradict anything I said the first time does it?

Or am I missing something?

 

[David R. George III]

I think what you're missing, Andy, is that I'm not disagreeing with you, but agreeing with you. I was just pointing out that I believe you and Mike actually asked me to include the couple in my novel as a prelude to yours. I didn't just use your existing characters based on my own desire to do so, but because you wanted me to, and I was happy to help.

 

[Sci]

Since this thread has risen from the dead, I'm just going to very quickly note that I recently met a young lady at my new job. She's a non-heterosexual who is dating another young woman, and when I asked, she specifically said that she self-identifies as "queer" rather than as a lesbian. I asked her what her opinion is on the whole "queer vs. LGBT/gay/lesbian" issue, and she said that she prefers "queer" because, in her view, human sexuality is more complicated than the exclusivity labels one finds in "straight" or "gay" or "lesbian" or even "bisexual."

 

[Christopher]

Once in college, I was talking with a female friend about another female friend I had romantic feelings for, and the first friend said something suggesting that she was attracted to friend #2 as well. I asked whether she was joking or bisexual, then added, "umm, if you don't mind my asking." She didn't mind, and after a moment's thought, she said something that's stuck with me ever since: that she didn't think you should rule out the possibility of a relationship with someone just because of their gender.

In general, I think it's best to avoid labels altogether. Labels do more to obscure meaning than reveal it.

 

[kkozoriz1]

Quoting Doonesbury "Personally, I'm in favor of a series of lapel pins"

 

[captcalhoun]

you 21st century people and your labels...

[/captain jack]

 

[Captain Robert April]

Since this thread has risen from the dead, I'm just going to very quickly note that I recently met a young lady at my new job. She's a non-heterosexual who is dating another young woman, and when I asked, she specifically said that she self-identifies as "queer" rather than as a lesbian. I asked her what her opinion is on the whole "queer vs. LGBT/gay/lesbian" issue, and she said that she prefers "queer" because, in her view, human sexuality is more complicated than the exclusivity labels one finds in "straight" or "gay" or "lesbian" or even "bisexual."

I like that.

 

[david g]

Thanks so much, David R. George. I would be really pleased to hear what you think!