• 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!

TrekLit politics

W

WorseThanHitler

Ensign
we all know that trek is a Socialist Utopia, but lately, we seem to be really getting the political hammer to the head. From Tezwa-Iraq and the lying president where David Mack got to play out a leftist fantasy of murdering a president that he hated, to the Michael Martin naming Spacedocks after Obama and shwoing some real hatred for the military in "the needs of the many." That man said Victor Charlie was a racist slur!

I for one am tired of the charged political commentary and wish it wouldn't intrude on my Trek Lit
 
I'm not sure if I want to stick around for the pure entertainment value this thread is sure to have, or just run and hide.
 
Authors: keep your politics out of my Star Trek.
Politicians: keep my Star Trek out of your politics.

Thanks.
 
I have to admit I have found myself put off by the thinly-veiled political commentary as well, with the assassination of Min Zife being a particularly sickening thing for me to read, too. While not the sole reason--which also includes disagreements with/dislike of certain plot and style decisions (to include the whole stupid Mirror Universe debacle with DS9 and then just leaving it to hang, among other decisions), the blatant 21st-century political commentary is one of the reasons I ultimately have stopped buying most Treklit books. I don't feel like paying for that.

Mysterion puts it much more succinctly, though.
 
I'm just happy that United Earth was made into a Parliamentary Democracy. It's a very common form of government and many of us live in that system, but it's not the American Way. I appreciate it when Trek gives non-American fans a nod.
 
I'll say that, though the early TNG novels struck me as more often than not dealing with environmental conservation, environmental conservation, environmental conservation--

Still, I never saw the Federation as a "Socialist Utopia", and I didn't see (and here's where friends of mine like Nerys disagree) the Min Zife thing as a referendum on Bush, or a "leftist fantasy" (I personally saw Zife as more of a Nixon).

I actually liked Carey's books (there were some literary choices I didn't care for--such as how abruptly Red Sector ended)--and I actually didn't notice any political references. But then, I haven't read the New Earth series, yet. Still, I think that's kinda pathetic, that people take that and slam Carey as being never able to resist "putting her politics into her books"!

On Mike Martin, I haven't read The Needs Of the Many--but if it's as bad as folks say...I'm personally not suprised at him.

You all may recall my words concerning his dedication of Last Full Measure and another work--I think it was the first Romulan War book (no sequal yet?).

In the former, he dedicates it to Cindy Sheehan and goes on a rant about Iraq being "an unjust, immoral, and wholly unjustifiable war"--after first giving a nod to Casey for giving "his own last full measure in Iraq".

Which one is it, Mike? If Iraq's unjust immoral, and wholly unjustifiable, than Casey died for nothing--so how was that his "last full measure"?

But I digress.

In the latter, he puts in his dedication a reference to the "now thankfully defunct" Bush Administration.


Let me repeat the point I'd made before:

What would have happened if I, being in the scenario a published author shortly after Obama leaves office, put out a Trek novel with a dedication slamming the "unjust, immoral, and wholly unjustifiable policies of the (now thankfully defunct) Obama administration"?

I would have been slammed and condemned across this forum for "forcing my views"--and rightfully so.

In fact, I could easily have been accused of putting said "dedication" out there with the express intention of causing controversy and generally pissing off the more left-leaning fans. Again, understandable.


What if I had worked into my books praise for Bush and condemnation of Obama? What if, for example, I'd have given Jake Sisko a line praising Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck as great political humorists, commentators, and voices of honesty along the lines of Will Rogers and Edward R. Murrow?

I would be condemned and smeared as forcing my political views on my readers--again, rightfully so.

The question is: should those like Michael A. Martin be held to the same standard?
 
WorseThanHitler said:
we all know that trek is a Socialist Utopia, but lately, we seem to be really getting the political hammer to the head. From Tezwa-Iraq and the lying president where David Mack got to play out a leftist fantasy of murdering a president that he hated, to the Michael Martin naming Spacedocks after Obama and shwoing some real hatred for the military in "the needs of the many." That man said Victor Charlie was a racist slur!

I for one am tired of the charged political commentary and wish it wouldn't intrude on my Trek Lit
Click to expand...

WorseThanHitler said:
oh and for the record, I also hate the Diane-Jim Kirk is a rightwing god like Washington-Carey's antics too!
Click to expand...
Oh, Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ on a cracker. A Time to Kill/Heal were released over six years ago. Meanwhile, Diane Carey hasn't published a Trek story in a decade. Complaining about this here and now is like complaining about all the magazine covers Matt LeBlanc has been on lately.
 
Not Matt LeBlanc!! Seriously, my only beef is with Michael Anti-War Martin who writes war novels. I hated The Needs of the Many and did not like The Romulan War book.
 
Yeah, it's a pretty annoying trend to thinly veil political beliefs in the more recent Trek lit. Seems to be the popular thing to do ever since Galactica was so heavily praised for it. Sci-fi has always had its messages, but at least it used to try to be a bit more subtle about it and not beat you about the face and neck with those messages.

Some of the authors aren't overly offensive about it, but Martin is a huge offender. If I had opened a book and seen it dedicated to Sheehan or the defunct Bush administration, I probably would have returned it. That's just obnoxious. His Kucinich dedication was bad enough...

I do tend to view the Zife thing as a wish fulfillment and the Bacco replacement as more of the same. Frankly, at this point, I'd rather go back to the environmental conservation stories that were so obnoxious (and repetitious, as pointed out) back in the 90s. At least I didn't feel insulted fairly regularly for daring to think differently.
 
I think that perhaps there may also be an underlying assumptions that all fans think the same and will applaud such views--and those who don't agree only call themselves fans but don't "get it."

Oh...and Rush, the way to clearly ID Min Zife is to look not just at Zife, but at Azernal. The dynamic there is most definitely a reference to how some viewed the Bush-Cheney dynamic. There was not an "Azernal" figure in the Nixon administration that I am aware of.
 
What angered me the most about Martin was the vet he portrayed in The Needs of Many because as a vet I was very offended. That vet was so cliched, I don't even think Martin even talk to one.
 
Bishop76 said:
Yeah, it's a pretty annoying trend to thinly veil political beliefs in the more recent Trek lit. Seems to be the popular thing to do ever since Galactica was so heavily praised for it. Sci-fi has always had its messages, but at least it used to try to be a bit more subtle about it and not beat you about the face and neck with those messages.
Click to expand...

Ahem...

"Lokai is white on the right side. All of his people are white on the right side."

"Bones, do you remember the twentieth century brush wars on the Asian continent? Two giant powers involved, much like the Klingons and ourselves. Neither side felt it could pull out."
"Yes, I remember. It went on bloody year after bloody year."

Star Trek has always been political, has rarely been subtle about it, and has usually been staunchly liberal and anti-war (even while being pro-military). First interracial kiss? Kirk and Uhura in "Plato's Stepchildren"? Remember that? Today we see that as a historic moment of progress, but at the time, it was seen by many as a highly inflammatory political statement being shoved in people's faces.
 
Nerys Ghemor said:
I think that perhaps there may also be an underlying assumptions that all fans think the same and will applaud such views--and those who don't agree only call themselves fans but don't "get it."

Oh...and Rush, the way to clearly ID Min Zife is to look not just at Zife, but at Azernal. The dynamic there is most definitely a reference to how some viewed the Bush-Cheney dynamic. There was not an "Azernal" figure in the Nixon administration that I am aware of.
Click to expand...

Hmm.

Still, since that was not, in fact, what the dynamic was truly like, one could easily claim the same about Nixon.

However, again, I didn't see Zife as a Bush type--even when one does consider the "idiot" stereotype. Zife didn't stike me as much of an idiot. In fact, the books did make note of the fact that his leadership during the Dominion war was excellent--and that the Tezwa affair was one tragic mistake which brought his administration down.
 
Christopher said:
Bishop76 said:
Yeah, it's a pretty annoying trend to thinly veil political beliefs in the more recent Trek lit. Seems to be the popular thing to do ever since Galactica was so heavily praised for it. Sci-fi has always had its messages, but at least it used to try to be a bit more subtle about it and not beat you about the face and neck with those messages.
Click to expand...

Ahem...

"Lokai is white on the right side. All of his people are white on the right side."
Click to expand...

Racism is not a conservative/liberal issue--despite hard-line-pundit claims to the contrary.

"Bones, do you remember the twentieth century brush wars on the Asian continent? Two giant powers involved, much like the Klingons and ourselves. Neither side felt it could pull out."
"Yes, I remember. It went on bloody year after bloody year."
Click to expand...

That was not a value judgement on whether the liberal or the conservative stance on Vietnam was correct. Still, as I recall, Kirk's solution was to supply his friend's side with weaponry--one could call this fascinatingly similar to the Reagan Doctrine of the 1980's.

Star Trek has always been political, has rarely been subtle about it, and has usually been staunchly liberal and anti-war (even while being pro-military). First interracial kiss? Kirk and Uhura in "Plato's Stepchildren"? Remember that? Today we see that as a historic moment of progress, but at the time, it was seen by many as a highly inflammatory political statement being shoved in people's faces.
Click to expand...

The interracial kiss wasn't staunchly "liberal", in the modern political sense of the word. Again, racism is a non-partisan issue.

Also, it depends on what you mean by "anti-war". DS9 strongly emphasized that "a war may be the only chance we have".
 
Rush Limborg said:
However, again, I didn't see Zife as a Bush type--even when one does consider the "idiot" stereotype. Zife didn't stike me as much of an idiot. In fact, the books did make note of the fact that his leadership during the Dominion war was excellent--and that the Tezwa affair was one tragic mistake which brought his administration down.
Click to expand...

I can't remember what book it was, but I thought he was described as explicitly being there to look pretty so that the war leader, Azernal, could rule through him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top