En-Gay-ify a character.

[KimMH]

Ye've never heard of K/S eh?

other than that; Harry Kim of Voyager - it would add depth to an otherwise underutilized character who I liked and wanted to see more of.

This is revealing of two things. If homosexuality and heterosexuality are equal in all but the obvious ways, now and in the 24th Century, why would being gay add any more depth to a character than being straight?

Also, it shows to the extent that Kim was a pathetic character. I don't mean that in a hostile way, more a lamenting one. If the only way to make this guy interesting is to have him dig dudes...

An excellent question. I assumed it would add an extra layer of complexity to a very thinly written character. People here and seemingly everywhere else are interested in sex. As above that as some wish to seem most everyone's interest is piqued by sex. Kim was almost asexual - almost a blank slate - giving him any sexuality would have made him more intriguing.

 

[Green Shirt]

"En-Gay-ify a character."? Why...?

Nothing better to do with their time, perhaps?

 

[DevilEyes]

Ye've never heard of K/S eh?

other than that; Harry Kim of Voyager - it would add depth to an otherwise underutilized character who I liked and wanted to see more of.

This is revealing of two things. If homosexuality and heterosexuality are equal in all but the obvious ways, now and in the 24th Century, why would being gay add any more depth to a character than being straight?

Also, it shows to the extent that Kim was a pathetic character. I don't mean that in a hostile way, more a lamenting one. If the only way to make this guy interesting is to have him dig dudes...

Kim was almost asexual - almost a blank slate - giving him any sexuality would have made him more intriguing.

Kim's unlucky romances (the alien woman from "The Disease") and crushes (Seven) were pretty much the only storylines he ever got.

I think that a dull token gay character whose only defining characteristic was his/hers sexuality would be the worst way to go. A much better would be to have an interesting character with a lot of other storylines that have nothing to do with their sexuality, who happens to be gay or bisexual. (For instance - it's what Garak might have been if TPTB hadn't been so adverse to Andrew Robinson's ideas about the character. )

 

[KimMH]

I give up trying to defend my choice and my innocent remark. Quarrel amongst yourselves.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Well there was the Reed/Hayes thing. That was like really badly written slash.

Some of them are pretty hard to engayify, like Sisko IMHO.

 

[Sector 7]

I give up trying to defend my choice and my innocent remark. Quarrel amongst yourselves.

I thought it was a good idea. Evidently, the 'experts' disagree. Much like television Trek itself, original ideas are quickly quelled in favor of the producers' ideas (or lack thereof).

 

[DevilEyes]

I give up trying to defend my choice and my innocent remark. Quarrel amongst yourselves.

I thought it was a good idea. Evidently, the 'experts' disagree. Much like television Trek itself, original ideas are quickly quelled in favor of the producers' ideas (or lack thereof).

You're saying that it's a particularly original idea to make a dull and bland character gay, so that they'd get something to do, while making an interesting character gay would be unoriginal?

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I give up trying to defend my choice and my innocent remark. Quarrel amongst yourselves.

I thought it was a good idea. Evidently, the 'experts' disagree. Much like television Trek itself, original ideas are quickly quelled in favor of the producers' ideas (or lack thereof).

You're saying that it's a particularly original idea to make a dull and bland character gay, so that they'd get something to do, while making an interesting character gay would be unoriginal?

They should ALL be gay.

 

[Arpy]

"En-Gay-ify a character."? Why...?

Nothing better to do with their time, perhaps?

Move along, please.

 

[Keith1701]

Perhaps I'm a bit slow, but... what are you talking about, my good sir?

I was thinking the samething......

 

[Matt4511]

I give up trying to defend my choice and my innocent remark. Quarrel amongst yourselves.

I thought it was a good idea. Evidently, the 'experts' disagree. Much like television Trek itself, original ideas are quickly quelled in favor of the producers' ideas (or lack thereof).

Gee, how astute. I am indeed a manifestation of the producers' collective will, flitting about putting down groundbreaking ideas in the name of Berman-Braga orthodoxy.

What horseshit.

Back on topic, I don't have a homophobic bone in my body, but I've never supported a gay character in Trek. It has nothing to do with my faith or my politics, and everything to do with the fact that Trek has always, always always handled romance badly. Sex and love episodes in Trek make me cringe, and since adding a gay character would become politicized (no matter the intentions of the show runners), I'd just as soon not have a lot of eyes drawn to the inevitable train wreck.

The same producers who think the key is improved ratings is showing off tits in tighter suits rather than improving the dramatic quality of a show are not the same people we should trust to explore this particular human issue with anything even approaching maturity.

oldstredshrtevr, if you'd thicken your skin momentarily, you'll find that I don't, per se, disagree with you. Harry certainly could have used something, anything, to set him apart, to hopefully serve as a magnet for some drama and story ideas. But the idea that you can take a blank slate (a slate appallingly left blank, there was so much potential there) and make it interesting by turning him gay touches on both parts of my objection.

1. The only reason to do it would be to draw some attention to the character, and that would bring out the inevitable politicization I referenced above. I can't think of anything worse for Voyager than Harry Kim becoming the talked-about character. Were I gay, I'd be insulted by that rather feeble frickin'-bone throwing.

2. Harry Kim didn't suck as a character due to some accident or fluke. He sucked because the producers created him, had no idea what to do with him, and turned him into DudeUhura, pushing buttons and giving status reports. And I just don't trust the same writers who couldn't handle him while he was of no particular sexuality to suddenly get a grip on how to develop a character the instant he became a homosexual.

The idea above of turning an already complex, multi-layered character gay is far, far more appealing, Garak indeed being the best example.

 

[KimMH]

What you're saying is that Harry Kim was badly written and couldn't be rescued anyway - I do believe I get that.

If you are also saying that it is insulting to assume that making him gay would make him interesting - then I apologize if that is what was inferred.

My point was that harry Kim was not well written and could have used any help he could have gotten.

 

[Matt4511]

What you're saying is that

My point was that harry Kim was not well written and could have used any help he could have gotten.

Not trying to pick on you, sir, because I get where you're coming from. But the problem with using gayness as a cure-all for bad characters is that I don't see any reason why Gay Harry would have been written any better than 2-D Harry. It'd be the same writers and producers trotting out the same horrible dialogue and inane characterization attempts. And if you wasted the almighty Gay Trek Character on someone who was going to suck as a character no matter what, there'd be hollowing from the chattering activist class.

No offence was taken by anything you said, though your champion Sector 7 went a bit wonky decrying myself and others as Minions of the Establishment.

 

[DevilEyes]

What you're saying is that

My point was that harry Kim was not well written and could have used any help he could have gotten.

Not trying to pick on you, sir, because I get where you're coming from. But the problem with using gayness as a cure-all for bad characters is that I don't see any reason why Gay Harry would have been written any better than 2-D Harry. It'd be the same writers and producers trotting out the same horrible dialogue and inane characterization attempts. And if you wasted the almighty Gay Trek Character on someone who was going to suck as a character no matter what, there'd be hollowing from the chattering activist class.

Exactly. Kim wouldn't have become more interesting or have had better storylines just by virtue of being gay. Unless homosexuality is still no less controversial in the 24th century than it was in the 20th, and to suggest that would, IMO, be a wrong move on the part of the franchise, on par with suggesting that women can't be Starfleet captains in the 23rd century. Things have already changed a lot in the last 100 years, and it far more likely, IMO, that homosexuality would be widely accepted among humans in 400 years, than it is likely that Earth would be a paradise with no crime, poverty or economic problems. A character being gay may be his main storyline and characteristic that makes him interesting in a show like Six Feet Under that takes place in our society, where this is still a big issue and may be a source of conflict. But what do you do with it in Trek?

So instead of crushing on Seven, Harry might have been crushing on Tuvok and he could have hooked up with some male alien of the week instead of a female one, and instead of dating the Delaney sisters he could have been dating Delaney brothers... How exactly would that have made him more interesting? The only positive thing they could have gotten out of it was just acknowledging that gay people exist in the Trek universe, and implying that homosexuality is not something that raises eyebrows in the UFP... But that would have been offset by the negative - I can see people complaining about VOY having nothing more than a "token gay" character, who is in the background, does very little and is only defined by his sexuality.

 

[Matt4511]

I can see people complaining about VOY having nothing more than a "token gay" character, who is in the background, does very little and is only defined by his sexuality.

Bingo. Nailed it right there. Since Harry had nothing else, making him gay would have made him ONLY gay.

Unfortunately, and again not to pick on redshirtwhatever, is that many, many Trek characters have been this 2-D. Every series, except DS9 I suppose, has been fairly bland characters with one or two exceptions.

That's why I didn't support a gay character in any of the past Treks. Until the characterizations are good enough to treat the topic with something more than cringe-inducing tokenisms, why bother?

Battlestar's revelation that some of the characters were gay was done well. Since the characters were already fleshed out, it was just one more part of their character, not the entirety of it.

 

[KimMH]

well I'm still on holiday so if you are all trying to open my eyes and/or mind or deepen my understanding of the world around me or at least telling me to think before I post you are all woefully misled. Try again tommorrow when my brain is engaged.

and I'm a ma'am. maybe I should let the hair grow back out again. . .

Sector 7 was being a loyal friend who I will never fault for that - thank you!

 

[Sector 7]

Perhaps a couple of posters should get a room so others can be allowed to participate. They have read waaaayyyy more into what was said, just so they can bash others opinions.

The OT asked a question:
-Since Trek should have a gay character, take an existing one and tell us which you think it should be?

What was actually said in response to the OT:
-Harry Kim's character was not well written; therefore, his character is one which would have gained benefit from a deeper treatment. Writing Kim as gay would be such a way to explore his character instead of leaving him as a two dimensional, cardboard cut-out.

-If other posters disagree, it is their right.
-If they are rude to people who disagree;

A) they can simply act as adults and let others participate in the conversation.
B) they can take their conversation to PM where others will not interrupt them.
C) they can kiss parts of people's anatomy where the sun does not shine.
The choice is theirs to make.

 

[DevilEyes]

^ Perhaps you should take your own advice. You're the only person here who has been rude and who can't seem to handle other people having a different opinion.

 

[Matt4511]

Perhaps a couple of posters should get a room so others can be allowed to participate. They have read waaaayyyy more into what was said, just so they can bash others opinions.

The OT asked a question:
-Since Trek should have a gay character, take an existing one and tell us which you think it should be?

What was actually said in response to the OT:
-Harry Kim's character was not well written; therefore, his character is one which would have gained benefit from a deeper treatment. Writing Kim as gay would be such a way to explore his character instead of leaving him as a two dimensional, cardboard cut-out.

-If other posters disagree, it is their right.
-If they are rude to people who disagree;

A) they can simply act as adults and let others participate in the conversation.
B) they can take their conversation to PM where others will not interrupt them.
C) they can kiss parts of people's anatomy where the sun does not shine.
The choice is theirs to make.

I've never been called rude before in a message that suggests I make love to someone who agrees with me whilst simultaneously kissing my ass. Or perhaps Devileyes' ass, it could be read either way.

Get off your high horse. This isn't the first time an online web conversation has veered off topic, and this is still awfully fucking close to the OP, so grow up. Seriously.

Do you actually want to respond to any of the points we've raised about the difficulty in inserting a gay character into an existing Trek series, or are you keen on keeping on the Gestapo uniform a bit longer and struttin' your stuff some more?

 

[NickInABox]

Like I said.

Tasha Yar.

Bull dyke.