^See, I never really got that kind of theory. If Azernal--and Cheney, while we're at it--was the power behind the throne, why the "pretty face"? Who needs it? Was Azernal somehow disqualified from holding the office himself?
I don't agree with that assessment of the real-life dynamic either, but it seemed quite clear that the parody was based on such an image. Either Azernal was indeed disqualified in some way, or it was thought that the people would never elect a person like Azernal if they really knew what he was--similar to how they would never support Section 31 if they really knew what IT was.
I'm not sure, but that sounds like something out of The Needs of the Many. They may not have been a Bush/Cheney analogue before that novel, but Martin paints them as such without question.
Maybe not now, but back in 1969, at the height of the Civil Rights Movement, race relations was very much a controversial political issue. And very much a source of contention between liberals and conservatives. The point is, TREK has always indulged, with varying degrees of subtlety on the politics of the time. Hell, the fourth movie was all about saving the whales! So I admit I always scratch my head when people complain about mixing politics and STAR TREK. That's been part of the formula since Day One . . .. STAR TREK is a liberal, secular humanist vision of the future--and always has been. IMHO.
^I would agree--based on a subjective definition of "liberal". In my case, I would define it in the classical sense--"liberal" meaning "liberty", in the spirit of John Locke "Classical Liberalism", as opposed to what we would call "Modern Liberalism". As for the latter (Secular Humanism)--well, "humanism", definitely. "Secular"...well, I'd say the jury's out on that one. There are often debates on religious principles, which end up with no easy answers. Both Sisko and Janeway have had to make leaps of faith.
Hey, have you heard they're making a movie about the X-Men?! And it's gonna have Patrick Stewart as Professor X! Too bad about the guy who's playing Wolverine though, he's a bit pretty for the role... In the 1960s (and earlier), that was patently untrue. It may have been "the only chance" but there's no way to come away from the Dominion War as portrayed on DS9 with a pro-war message. That's simple - the "power behind the throne" doesn't want to have his identity or status known. It's a classic trope where the actual mastermind puts a likable and easily-controllable figurehead in power while he hides in the shadows/remains in the background controlling things. Agreed - though in fairness, DS9 muddied the waters a bit about the "secular humanist" part at the least.
Eh...no. Conservative icon Barry Goldwater--for all the crap he gets over opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act (he felt the Federal Government overstepped its authority on that)--was in fact a founder of the Arizona NAACP, a staunch advocate of desegregation of the Arizona National Guard, and a stong supporter of the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960. It certainly wasn't "anti-war". And...again, what disqualifies him? Azernoll was clearly around. If he wasn't so likeable, why was he in such a public position? Surely his unlikeability would harm Zife.
I'm sorry, but this complaint is absolute bullshit. At no point in A Time to Heal was the assassination of Min Zife portrayed as a good thing. None. Section 31's agents are very clearly villains, and the assassination of Min Zife and his advisers is explicitly depicted as a bad thing. It's not David Mack having a "leftist fantasy of murdering a president he hated." It's David Mack taking a justifiable anger and then showing the horror of taking that anger too far, of letting yourself become so self-righteous that you become no better than the one you hated. You're imposing a simple binary political message on his novel where none exists. His point wasn't, "Min Zife/George W. Bush bad, anyone hurting him good." His point was, "Political corruption exists at varying levels, and some people are more corrupt than others. Institutional corruption compromises everybody who participates in society's institutions, and some people are irredeemable criminals, but some are even worse than them, and none of it is okay." Learn to see nuance when it's presented to you. Not everything is black and white. Sometimes, things are black, and then they're pitch black. I'm sorry, but that's also bullshit. No one complains about a space station named after William McKinley, even though he was a horrible imperialist who oppressed millions of Cubans and Filipinos as a result of America taking them during the Spanish-American War. Barack Obama, whatever you may think of his politics -- and in the past year, I've ceased being a fan of his politics -- is the first person of African descent to become the head of state of a majority white country. That is huge. That is historic. That is a first in human history! A black man could never become the President of China. A black man could never become the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom or Prime Minister of Canada or Australia. A black man could never lead Israel or Russia or Italy or Spain or Germany. You'll never see an Algerian President of France or a Turkish Chancellor of Germany. You'll never see a Chechan President of Russia. You'll never see an Irish Catholic Prime Minister of the U.K. You'll never see an Aboriginal PM of Australia. Obama's election is a huge milestone, not only in American history, but in human history. And that would have been true no matter who the first black President of the United States had been. If it had been Colin Powell, it would have been just as true. If it had been Michael Steele, it would have been just as true. If it had been Alan Keyes, it would have been just as true. That a majority-white country elected a black man, and this only a few generations after segregation and only a century and a half after slavery? It's amazing, no matter who that black man was. It says something about how far society itself has changed. So it's completely appropriate to name a space station after Obama. Just like it would have been if it had been President Colin Powell, or a black Republican. Just like it would have been completely appropriate to name a space station after Sirimavo Bandaranaike, the first elected female head of government (who was elected Prime Minister of Sri Lanka in 1960). If we can have a space station named after a man who got millions of innocent people killed in Cuba and the Philippines without controversy, surely we can have a space station named after a guy whose biggest contribution to history will inevitably be opening the door for future people of all colors of any political stripe. Too bad. Star Trek has always been political and left-leaning. If you don't like that, you should go watch Star Wars, which safely couches its politics in fantasy and mysticism rather than substantive political concepts. The notion that one cannot honor a soldier's service and sacrifice yet also think that the war in which he fought was unjust is fallacious. Absolutely nothing, because the author has an absolute and inviolate right to dedicate his/her novel to whomever he/she chooses, for any reason whatsoever, and no one else has the right to stop them. You might get some people bitching at you on the Internet for it, but who cares? If it's what you believe, and you're dedicating your book to someone for that reason, put it in there. Oh, hogwash. If Diane Carey had a Star Trek book out tomorrow and she dedicated it to George W. Bush for sending us to Iraq, guess what? That wouldn't be forcing her views on anyone. It would be her absolute right to dedicate that book to whomever she wanted for whatever reason she wanted, and no one else would have any say in that decision whatsoever. Then you would be violating the inherent ethos of Star Trek, which has, whether or not you like it, always been left-leaning. But that wouldn't be an infringement upon anyone's rights, and if Star Trek's owner, CBS, allowed you to do so, then, hey, I might be pissed but it's not a big deal at the end of the day. Given how Obama's turned out anymore, I don't think that many of the left-leaning posters would automatically object to that these days. Uh, no. You would not be forcing anything on your readers. Now, I'd condemn your choice to do that for being bloody stupid, sure, but at no point would I for one ever accuse you of forcing anything on me. Reading something in a book doesn't force it on me. Star Trek has always been left-leaning, and to say otherwise is just inaccurate. Similarly, Ayn Rand's novels are libertarian-leaning; to say otherwise is just inaccurate. Works of art often have implicit political messages, sometimes overt and sometimes covert. The issue is not whether or not Star Trek novels should have political content, the issue is whether or not Star Trek novels' political content are consistent with the canon's political content (just as it would be if the Estate of Ayn Rand were to authorize someone to write a sequel to Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead). You know, I think the concept of a Department of Peace is bloody stupid, for the simple reason that I already think it's the job of the foreign ministry to conduct diplomacy and preserve the peace. But to call it "obnoxious" or "offensive" is just absurd. There's nothing offensive about wanting to avoid war and preserve peace, and there's nothing offensive about praising a politician who wants to do that. If Ron Paul were to call for a Department of Peace, I wouldn't object to anyone dedicating an ST novel to him for that, even though I think Ron Paul is about as detestable a politician as is out there. I've already demolished the idea that the murder of Zife was wish fulfillment. I'm curious, now: Who does Bacco stand for, in your eyes, if she's just wish fulfillment, too? And what policies does Bacco have which mark her as a "stealth liberal," if that's how you view her? What traits of Bacco's make you think she'd be a liberal if she existed in the real world today? David Mack has been very candid in noting that Zife and Azernal were inspired by Bush and Cheney. But if you're looking, you could probably see shades of Kissinger in Azernal, too. I don't know if that was intentional, but it would probably be a very defensible argument to interpret Zife/Azernal through a Nixon/Kissinger lens. It may not be today, but at the time, it was. Racism is simply an issue where liberals -- in both parties -- convinced conservatives -- in both parties -- that they were wrong and it was time to change. Sure. Plenty of liberals supported the Vietnam War at the time. Remember: Liberalism and Conservatism are not unchanging doctrines, but are ideologies that evolve over time according to new evaluations of historical events. But DS9 was still anti-war. It never depicted war as a good thing, or tried to claim that war could be quick and easy. It always depicted war as a horrible thing that should only be resorted to when there is truly no other option to defend yourself. And DS9 is not the be-all-end-all of ST. You have to look at EVERY episode that featured potential wars to judge what ST's general attitude towards war is. You're both over-simplifying the Zife/Azernal relationship. Zife was depicted as a person who had trouble firmly coming to decisions and who relied upon Azernal a great deal, but who also rather firmly held certain opinions of his own and did not simply govern as Azernal's figurehead. I'm not sure what you're referring to with Janeway, but as for Sisko, his overt religiosity is a clear break from ST's normal patterns. Which is fine -- I think ST had allowed itself to not merely become secular, but actively anti-religious by that point -- but it also does not define ST as not being in general a secular program. Outliers do not define the general paradigm. And Barry Goldwater was an outlier amongst conservatives in that regard. Yes, it was. Being anti-war doesn't mean you don't acknowledge that sometimes wars are necessary, it means you don't think it should be reverted to unless absolutely necessary. Most anti-war activists of the past ten years are opposed to the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars precisely because they felt them unnecessary.
Personally, I never really saw the assassination of Zife & co. as any kind of wish fulfillment. I guess I just don't like to put those kind of negative motivations behind events in a story unless it's pretty damn obvious and I don't remember that being the case here. And if it was wish fulfillment, wouldn't it have made more sense for it the be the hero doing it in a dramatic heroic manner, and not the bad guys doing it in a secretive manner. I took it as being another horrible thing that 31 secretly did behind everyone's backs. Which, I really think is probably the way it was meant be taken. Just because some of a story is taken from real life doesn't neccissarily mean that the whole thing is meant to represent real life. I'm sorry it just drives me crazy, when people try to put unreasonable motivations on events in a fictional story.
Either way, there were of course exceptions. But for every Goldwater on race relations, you had two George Wallaces (thought he later changed his views). I'd say The Siege of AR-558 and It's Only a Paper Moon contained some strong anti-war elements. And seeing Ben Sisko compromise his principles or a "Federation" agency planning genocide certainly speaks to the evils of war. Think of the stereotypical Grand Vizier or court wizard. Who says anything about being disqualified? The classical "power behind the throne" is simply not interested in being front and center; still in public, but occupying a more background position.
Your memory is not bad. It is, in fact, awfully hard to argue that the narrative endorses the assassination of Min Zife, given that the chapter where it happens ends with, "Azernal said nothing as he walked beside his president, prepared to meet his fate at the merciless hands of Section 31." I don't know any narrative that portrays people with "merciless hands" as the good guys.
Typo. The second "1964" is supposed to be 1960. Except George Wallace was not a conservative icon ("Dixiecrat", maybe, but not conservative). Goldwater was--and is. And on the other side, there was Robert Byrd, M.H.R.I.P. Perhaps. But if that is how one defines "anti-war", than you might as well call me "anti-war". It's a question of efficiency. Frankly, I find the idea of an evil secretive "power behind the throne" a little silly--stereotype or not. What's the point of a middle man? If the "Grand Vizier" is so charming and subtle as to manipulate the entire court/administration, how could he not lead on his own?
Or, you know, they named the space station after the mountain. Biggest mountain in North America, massive imposing space station in orbit around Earth? Bit of a better connection don't you think than a fairly inconsequential turn of the century president? Excuse me? American exceptionalism much? Tell me just why, exactly, there could never be a black PM of Canada - for example.
To my mind, inserting politics (of whatever stripe) into your fiction is only a bad thing if its gets in the way of the storytelling. You don't want to get too preachy because that's just bad writing. Propaganda and art are awkward bedfellows. True example: I once edited a romance novel into which a well-meaning author had inserted several clunky lectures about the importance of protecting the environment. I applauded the sentiment, but made her cut them out anyway because they ruined the love scenes which were the point of the book. ("I love you, John, but we must do everything we can to save the imperiled Amazon rain forest, which, as you know, produces seventy-five percent of the world's oxygen . . . .") That being said, it's pretty much impossible to write a 300-page novel without offending someone. I don't think of my Trek books as particularly political, and I've never gone out of my way to sneak an agenda into any of them, but even I get the occasional letter accusing me of cramming my godless, liberal politics into STAR TREK or ALIAS or whatever . . . . It's an occupational hazard. Every book offends somebody . . . and it's never the bit you expect to be controversial!
You mean the one that isn't actually named McKinley? I mean, in the future, sure. But today? My grandfather is Canadian. They freak out over something as minor whether or not you're Francophone or Anglophone.
Personally, assuming history still judges President McKinley in that light, I'm suprised no one would complain. But as Kestrel says here...that's assuming they didn't name it after the mountain. Now if a station or ship was named the Woodrow Wilson or the Andrew Jackson--THAT would be cause for disgust on my part.
Speaking for myself, Greg...I've never read anything of yours I'd consider politically offensive. You're dang good on that--and those who are whining are just looking for a reason to whine. As for what Sci said about my example--yes, it would be stupid, albeit not in the way you'd mean. I'd never do it, because I don't like seeing it from the other side. I follow the example of Mr. Cox--if, and only if, it serves the story.
^I think recent TrekLit is full of places where the political commentary is incisive and does, indeed, serve the story. I actually put Kill/Heal in that category unquestionably, as well as (for instance) the recent Paths Of Disharmony. That book was absolutely about modern American politics, without ever not being about Andor.
Thanks. On the other hand, clearly my views must be creeping into my books to some degree since some readers are picking up on the fact that I'm a confirmed leftie. (Nobody ever accuses me of being a Tea Party member!) Like I said, people's POV are inevitably going to seep into their books. That's just how it works. Although it's always dangerous to ascribe a character's opinion to the author. Things are seldom that simple.