Anomalies in fandom

[Pauln6]

The disease encountered by the crew on Miri's planet was also able to affect their mentality! With both McCoy and Kirk losing their tempers on numerous occasions so why shouldn't Janice be complaining about her wanting Kirk to look at her legs only not with the repulsive purple blotches!!!
JB

As school children, one of the reasons why we loved Rand so much was because she was written so hilariously badly. The line about her legs was one of our favourites. She could have been great comic relief going forward if they had kept her as a day player.

Her role in Miri is largely decorative, similar in ways to the yeoman role in Galileo 7, Taste of Armageddon, or Operation Annihilate, but the fact that it's Rand elevates the role to something better. I suspect this is why people have affection for the supporting cast. We get used to the idiosyncrasies of the regulars and we enjoy that extra sass or extra humour that they bring.

Some guest characters also break through: Helen Noel and Riley are good examples (Riley's second appearance would have been a different character if Bruce Hyde hadn't been cast).

 

[JonnyQuest037]

We can never know for sure.

True. And I'm not saying that I'm 100% certain on this. All I'm saying is that GR fits all of the available facts, and is the answer that makes the most sense to me.

In one script, she was manning a station in the bridge and Roddenberry expressed the view that she should not be there, as she should remain Kirk's valet.

Despite Roddenberry liking to pretend he was progressive on the issue of gender equality and paying lip service to it, in reality his sexism was pretty ingrained in him. Like most men of his generation, he viewed women being subordinate to men as the default.

There is also the odd moment in Naked Time where Spock calls a random man at the Helm by Rand's name...

Well, Rand's not that uncommon of a name. But it is weird to have two unrelated characters with the same surname in a single episode.

 

[Pauln6]

True. And I'm not saying that I'm 100% certain on this. All I'm saying is that GR fits all of the available facts, and is the answer that makes the most sense to me.

Despite Roddenberry liking to pretend he was progressive on the issue of gender equality and paying lip service to it, in reality his sexism was pretty ingrained in him, like most men of his generation. He viewed women being subordinate to men as the default.

Well, Rand's not that uncommon of a name. But it is weird to have two unrelated characters with the same surname in a single episode.

They kept in the scene of Rand being sexually harassed but didn't leave her at the helm in the following scene. Her treatment in many episodes is creepy. Her sole purpose in the episode is to be lusted after by drunken crewman and then lusted after longingly by Kirk. In fact, her line cut from Conscience of the King is one where Lenore comments how lovely is Rand. She was even being lusted after by women.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Well, I really didn't want to open this gigantic can of worms, but since it's being discussed anyway, I will say that I personally believe that Roddenberry was Grace's assailant. It's totally circumstantial evidence and with GR, GLW, and her confidant Leonard Nimoy all being dead now, we'll never know for sure, but yeah, I think it was him.

Look at the facts from Whitney's account & other sources.

{Paragraphs of very well written and logical reasoning]

When you think about it, there just isn't anyone else who ticks off all of those boxes.

Seriously, this is one of the best analyses I've seen on this. I wish I could refute it, but your conclusions are pretty damned well reasoned. You're right, we'll never know for sure, but it's really hard to think otherwise. Ugh...

If this had come out within the last year or so (and if Gene were still alive or only recent;y departed), there would be no sweeping it under the rug. The landscape is totally different.

 

[Marsden]

Well, I really didn't want to open this gigantic can of worms, but...

I gave your post a like but "like" is not a good word. Agree, yes, I feel the same way, but I don't think anyone likes it.

What a sad thing to know about your favorite show. I have another point I want to bring up but this doesn't seem the place for it.

 

[Falconer]

You know the line in the Writer’s Guide about how the captain would never hug his beautiful yeoman during a tense combat situation? I wonder if that was written in reaction to Balance of Terror, or if it had already been written (and was just ignored)?

 

[mb22]

Roddenberry was positively lionized by 1998 when she wrote her book. It was incredibly brave of her to say as much as she did.

1994 was the year of Joel Engel's unfavorable biography Gene Roddenberry: The Myth and the Man Behind Star Trek. There was more public criticism of him after that.

 

[Pauln6]

You know the line in the Writer’s Guide about how the captain would never hug his beautiful yeoman during a tense combat situation? I wonder if that was written in reaction to Balance of Terror, or if it had already been written (and was just ignored)?

Of all the scenes involving Rand, this one bothered me the least to be honest. They were bracing for impact, it was clearly instinctive, and neither one really noticed. I would have much preferred if their attraction had bubbled along at this level than what we actually got.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

I gave your post a like but "like" is not a good word. Agree, yes, I feel the same way, but I don't think anyone likes it.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. It's tough for a "like" to contain any nuance.

What a sad thing to know about your favorite show. I have another point I want to bring up but this doesn't seem the place for it.

Feel free to PM me if you'd rather. I'm officially curious now.

1994 was the year of Joel Engel's unfavorable biography Gene Roddenberry: The Myth and the Man Behind Star Trek. There was more public criticism of him after that.

I was speaking generally. The public perception Gene Roddenberry was still overwhelmingly favorable in 1998.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

that did some harm to them

It did? How?

So, is there any explanation for how GLW did some harm to the people she never accused?

 

[Falconer]

Of all the scenes involving Rand, this one bothered me the least to be honest. They were bracing for impact, it was clearly instinctive, and neither one really noticed. I would have much preferred if their attraction had bubbled along at this level than what we actually got.

It doesn’t bother me in the slightest, it’s just amusing to me that the series bible specifically called it out.

 

[Grant]

Here's how one of these three or four men raped me but because the story is about me and not the rapist I won't name him

 

[BillJ]

Here's how one of these three or four men raped me but because the story is about me and not the rapist I won't name him

Not cool.

 

[Green]

Especially if the rapist was dead and the others still alive.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Let’s be fair. If she had named him when she wrote the book, then she would have been hit with all sorts of negative backlash from fans and probably Majel and Rod. She had no proof to offer, just her word smearing the reputation of the idol of millions. Even today, the knee jerk is not to side with the victims but the accused.

You know how it would go
“She’s just trying to sell books.”
“Why did she wait until he died to say anything?”

Unless Nimoy backed her up, and even there he wasn’t a witness. Her word against the reputation of a dead man. There was no winning in that situation and her tactic was her best option. Without proof, the family could file a lawsuit. Affairs are one thing, rape is quite another. You know Majel wouldn't have sat still for that.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Again, how were any of the people not ruled out by Whitney's account of what happened to her actually harmed? Were their careers set back? Did they lose friends? Did they lose money or spouses? Did people assume they were guilty? How were they harmed?

Take Roddenberry. Was his career set back? If so, how? I've never seen any evidence that it was. Was he actually harmed by what she said* in any way whatsoever? What about the others who were never accused? A poster said they suffered some harm, I'd really like to know what that harm was.

* - at any point in time about being assaulted

 

[Green]

They didn't suffer any harm unless they could prove harm. I'm sure in court they couldn't prove they were harmed. That story was the most mentioned thing about her memoir. Every review or mention of her book led with that story.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

That story was the most mentioned thing about her memoir. Every review or mention of her book led with that story.

Considering that she opened the book with it, that's not too surprising.

 

[Grant]

The other big headline I remember at the time was that she claim to be a sex addict. That was mentioned in a lot of the reviews as well. I wonder if her sex addiction was caused by this incident?

 

[Pauln6]

I think she laid the blame on her sense of alienation at being adopted. The upshot was that her addictions were trying to fill the void: when she quit drinking she would smoke weed, when she had a boob job to improve her self esteem, she had to prove to herself that she was somehow worth more, and her lowest point was where she was combining booze and sex because nothing was working to fill that void.

In the end she just became addicted to religion and helping others but that saved both her and a lot of other people. Channel your addictive personality wisely!

Many other actors, including Leonard Nimoy and Tom Hardy had troubles too.