Gender and Sexuality in Star Trek

[david g]

Hi all,

I announced my new book at the Trek BBS a few months ago, but I never posted anything about it here, in the most obvious forum for news about a book. I hope that the Mods will kindly allow this one thread in this forum.

My book "Gender and Sexuality in Star Trek" challenges the commonplace that the Trek mythos never represents gay and lesbian sexuality. Through an analysis of several of the series and films, TOS and VOY in particular, I make the case that a queer Trek does indeed exist if the Trek canon is read allegorically. I also critique the conservatism of "Enterprise" in one chapter.

I would be eager for feedback (of all kinds) if you get the chance to read my book. Thanks for listening.

http://www.amazon.com/Gender-Sexuality-Star-Trek-Allegories/dp/0786444134

 

[DimesDan]

Not sure if this is allowed to be honest.

 

[Andy Mangels]

Hmmm, as one of only two openly GLBT creators in Trek fiction (Susan Wright being the other) I have to wonder why the author of a tome like this would not even bother to contact me (us?)...

I wonder if the openly gay Trek TV writer David Gerrold was similarly snubbed by this "scholarly" work or not?

And the only other *really* openly gay person who contributed regularly to Trek is George Takei, an actor...

 

[Marie1]

I'd like to know where all these accusations are coming from about Trek "refuses to represent" the different types of sexuality... cuz they can't really be from people who watched the show. And it isn't a show about relationships for me anyway at it's core, they just happen between exploring space and fighting battles.

 

[Steve Roby]

I would be eager for feedback (of all kinds) if you get the chance to read my book. Thanks for listening.

I have it, but haven't read it yet.

Not sure if this is allowed to be honest.

Why not? There's nothing illegal about the book; copyright law allows works of criticism and analysis. Unauthorized Trek books can still be perfectly legal. And other writers of Trek books post about their work here.

Hmmm, as one of only two openly GLBT creators in Trek fiction (Susan Wright being the other) I have to wonder why the author of a tome like this would not even bother to contact me (us?)...

Sounds like he was only looking at what happened onscreen. Which is unfortunate, because the books have moved way beyond the TV series and movies, but reasonably understandable. Few of the nonfiction critical/analytical works on Trek talk about the books.

I'd like to know where all these accusations are coming from about Trek "refuses to represent" the different types of sexuality... cuz they can't really be from people who watched the show.

Sure they can.

The only Trek series that occasionally treated same sex relationships as no big deal was DS9. TNG's one take on the subject was timid, poorly thought through, and generally lame, because Berman thought being gay was an ISSUE and not just a character trait. There's certainly stuff that can be read in interesting ways, if not always plausible ones (which is why we have slash), but TV Trek very very rarely went anywhere near same sex relationships. Understandable for TOS, but TNG started a decade after Billy Crystal became a TV star playing a sympathetic gay character on a popular sitcom, Soap.

It's entirely possible to be a Star Trek fan and a big dumb homophobe at the same time. Several of them have posted in this forum. They obviously don't see any significant representation of sexual diversity in filmed Trek, because they bitch like hell when it shows up in the books.

 

[Stevil2001]

Hmmm, as one of only two openly GLBT creators in Trek fiction (Susan Wright being the other) I have to wonder why the author of a tome like this would not even bother to contact me (us?)...

Sounds like he was only looking at what happened onscreen. Which is unfortunate, because the books have moved way beyond the TV series and movies, but reasonably understandable. Few of the nonfiction critical/analytical works on Trek talk about the books.

Few academic works (and this is published by McFarland, a scholarly press, though I don't know if they're peer-reviewed or not) interview people; they're concerned with the text as it exists. I see no reason why interviewing authors would be necessary or even recommended.

As to focusing on the TV show-- well, even Enterprise was probably seen by way more people than read Imzadi.

 

[Harvey]

I'm glad to see more academic texts that tackle Star Trek. I hope to write one myself one day, but it will have to wait a little while, seeing as I just started my graduate program.

As you can imagine, my budget is tight, but if the University library can get a copy, or I can find one for less than the suggested price, I'll definitely take a look at it when I have the time. For now, congratulations on being published.

 

[JoeZhang]

Hmmm, as one of only two openly GLBT creators in Trek fiction (Susan Wright being the other) I have to wonder why the author of a tome like this would not even bother to contact me (us?)...

Sounds like he was only looking at what happened onscreen. Which is unfortunate, because the books have moved way beyond the TV series and movies, but reasonably understandable. Few of the nonfiction critical/analytical works on Trek talk about the books.

Few academic works (and this is published by McFarland, a scholarly press, though I don't know if they're peer-reviewed or not) interview people; they're concerned with the text as it exists. I see no reason why interviewing authors would be necessary or even recommended.

As to focusing on the TV show-- well, even Enterprise was probably seen by way more people than read Imzadi.

Books are generally not peer-reviewed, you make a proposal and then it gets commissioned. As for interviewing authors, my other half is a film studies academic and she says that it simply not done. It's certainly not done in my bit of academia.

 

[david g]

In response to Andy Mangels, this is book of criticism . I interpret the films and the television series in the Star Trek franchise, providing close readings. It is not a book about production, behind-the-scenes events, or about the quite distinct world of Star Trek publishing. I have nothing but respect for the myriad creative artists behind Trek in all of its indescribably vast and varied guises.

 

[david g]

By the way, Andy--I do reference your novel "Section 31: Rogue" in chapter seven of my book (in a discussion of the Lt. Hawk character)!

 

[Andy Mangels]

I appreciate the mention, but it seems odd to me that any book that uses an academic non-fictional look at a specific topic within an entertainment property would not avail themselves of people who have particular knowledge of what went into producing that property and/or thoughts and materials that went into the process.

Between the four people mentioned (including myself) there is a vast amount of knowledge about the topic, and knowledge of people who worked within the production system who may be willing now to speak about the topic and the process. I know multiple people who were on staff and afraid to speak out at the time about homophobia, and David Gerrold experienced it firsthand on multiple occasions.

Are we to believe then that the book treats its topic as "real" (i.e. an Essential Guide to Characters style book) with no information relative to its foundation in the production process?

Or does the book examine the shows only as aired, with no information at all about the production process, the writing or direction, the studio concerns, network concerns, boycotts, or etc? If so, it would seem an oddly "in a vacuum" look at the topic.

You note that the book is a "book of criticism. I interpret the films and the television series in the Star Trek franchise, providing close readings." but to do so without any outside context puts it in a vacuum. To imply that Berman's widely-reported homophobia did not affect how scripts were written and the "films and the television series in the Star Trek franchise" were developed is a casually dismissive and wholly ill-informed argument. It's like talking about the taste of a full meal without mentioning the ingredients that make up that meal or the skill of the chef in preparing the meal. (Ditto, BTW, the "conservative Enterprise" comment for certain Enterprise personnel who would go on to work on the ultra-conservative 24.)

Also, I'm quite familiar with scholarly texts, and have been interviewed for others, so don't say that doesn't happen. And McFarland, while it has a focus on scholarly texts, has a secondary focus on scholarly reference books about entertainment properties and personalities (like Scarecrow Publishing) that regularly utilize interviews with creative types. In fact, I can only think of a few McFarland tomes I've seen, read or obtained (I "only" have about 15 of them as they are usually $45-60) that did not feature interviews with production personnel and other experts on the topics at hand. And those which didn't were "list/catalogue" type of books that solely listed TV films or etc.

I'm not dogging David's book as I haven't read it, and may not get the chance to for some time unless one magically appears. But the information as provided about it -- and the lack of information it seems to contain -- may make it an extraordinarily frustrating book for those who really want a balanced and informative look at the topic.

 

[Sci]

^^ I, on the other hand, have read quite a few books of theatrical and film criticism and rarely if ever saw one interview the creators.

Most such works are about interpreting the work that exists, not about being an informational guide.

 

[Sxottlan]

I, on the other hand, have read quite a few books of theatrical and film criticism and rarely if ever saw one interview the creators.

Most such works are about interpreting the work that exists, not about being an informational guide.

This.

A behind-the-scenes production guide and an analysis and criticism of what's purely on screen are to me two very different things.

 

[david g]

Andy, to be frank, I'm a bit dismayed by your stances. I hope that you give my book a chance if you ever do come across it.

One of the major themes of my book is that queer aspects of Trek have come through often despite the very homophobic atmospheres both of their on-set making and of the larger culture. Again, what I try to do in this book is to interpret the series and films as allegories for queer experience. I'm not talking about the presence of queer sexuality as something literally "there," in the text. With some very few exceptions, Trek has almost never explicitly represented queer sexuality, and even when it has, it has been heavily mediated.

As an example of my approach, I read the evolution of the character of the Doctor on Star Trek: VOY as an allegory of a gay male coming out story. I also discuss Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan as an allegorical tale of homoerotic romantic pursuit. I consider the relationships between Kirk and Spock and Janeway and Seven of Nine as allegorical romances.

While production atmosphere and the views of creative artists are certainly not irrelevant to what Im discussing throughout this book, my focus is what's on the screen and how we experience it. Thanks for listening.

 

[Christopher]

One of the major themes of my book is that queer aspects of Trek have come through often despite the very homophobic atmospheres both of their on-set making and of the larger culture.

Sorry, but it seems you're contradicting yourself here. First you claim that you're only engaging with the final text as seen by the audience and thus don't need to talk with anyone from behind the scenes. Yet now you're asserting the existence of a homophobic environment within the production. How can you support that assertion without interviewing anyone involved with the production? Do you have anything more than an anecdotal basis for the existence of such on-set homophobia? If not, then you shouldn't treat it as an assumed fact within a scholarly work. And if your thesis depends on it as an axiom, then you need to offer evidence to justify it.

I also discuss Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan as an allegorical tale of homoerotic romantic pursuit.

Okay, I can buy the others as allegories, either ones read into the story by the viewer or implicitly intended by the authors. But this? This is just reaching. The problem with "interpretation" is that it's easy to twist any facts to fit one's preferred view. If you're selective enough, you can justify any cockamamie interpretation of anything. (Besides, Khan's obsession with Kirk is basically Ahab and Moby Dick -- and I shudder to think about the implied corollary that a homoerotic subtext could be read into that.)

 

[david g]

Hi Christopher,
Well, sorry to disturb you, but Herman Melville's works are rife with homoerotic subtexts! Moby-Dick opens with Ishmael and Queequeg sharing a "heart's honeymoon" in bed at the Spouter-Inn...

I was specifically responding to Andy Mangel's comments about homophobia within the production context of Rick Berman's Trek series, and Berman's injunction against any explicit representation of homosexuality. Many Trek actors, such as Patrick Stewart and Kate Mulgrew, though, have eloquently spoken out in favor of gay representation in the Trek world, so it's hardly a clear-cut issue, at all, within this production context.

Of course, my interpretation will strike one as convincing or unpersuasive depending on one's point of view. As I said, I'm appreciative of all feedback!

 

[Stevil2001]

Besides, Khan's obsession with Kirk is basically Ahab and Moby Dick -- and I shudder to think about the implied corollary that a homoerotic subtext could be read into that.

It's a novel about a man chasing a giant Dick! That's not even a subtext, it's a supertext.

(Note for pedants: I do indeed know when the word "dick" is first recorded to have the meaning of "penis" in English.)

 

[Sci]

One of the major themes of my book is that queer aspects of Trek have come through often despite the very homophobic atmospheres both of their on-set making and of the larger culture.

Sorry, but it seems you're contradicting yourself here. First you claim that you're only engaging with the final text as seen by the audience and thus don't need to talk with anyone from behind the scenes. Yet now you're asserting the existence of a homophobic environment within the production.

There's only a contradiction if the book itself is concerned with behind-the-scenes issues. He's perfectly able to acknowledge behind-the-scenes influences here and talk about what his book argues about the meaning of the text in spite of those influence without that being a contradiction, because he hasn't claimed that the book itself deals with behind-the-scenes stuff.

I also discuss Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan as an allegorical tale of homoerotic romantic pursuit.

Okay, I can buy the others as allegories, either ones read into the story by the viewer or implicitly intended by the authors. But this? This is just reaching.

You should probably read the damn book before deciding that its arguments are implausible.

The problem with "interpretation" is that it's easy to twist any facts to fit one's preferred view. If you're selective enough, you can justify any cockamamie interpretation of anything.

And that's a very particular interpretation of the practice of textual criticism. Congratulations, you've done the very thing you're criticizing. Or, at least, in my interpretation, you have.

In other words: Welcome to post-modernism, where an interpretation is not invalid just because it's not what the creator intended.

 

[Christopher]

Sorry, but it seems you're contradicting yourself here. First you claim that you're only engaging with the final text as seen by the audience and thus don't need to talk with anyone from behind the scenes. Yet now you're asserting the existence of a homophobic environment within the production.

There's only a contradiction if the book itself is concerned with behind-the-scenes issues. He's perfectly able to acknowledge behind-the-scenes influences here and talk about what his book argues about the meaning of the text in spite of those influence without that being a contradiction, because he hasn't claimed that the book itself deals with behind-the-scenes stuff.

Yes, he claims exactly that in the sentence I quoted. "One of the major themes of my book is that queer aspects of Trek have come through often despite the very homophobic atmospheres both of their on-set making and of the larger culture." He's saying outright in that sentence that the atmosphere on the set is an integral factor in the thesis of the book. If that's not the case, then he phrased that sentence misleadingly.

In other words: Welcome to post-modernism, where an interpretation is not invalid just because it's not what the creator intended.

That's a straw man. I wasn't saying all reader interpretations are invalid; I was saying that one specific interpretation seemed like a huge reach to me. It's a fallacy to mistake a specific argument for a general one.

 

[Sci]

Sorry, but it seems you're contradicting yourself here. First you claim that you're only engaging with the final text as seen by the audience and thus don't need to talk with anyone from behind the scenes. Yet now you're asserting the existence of a homophobic environment within the production.

There's only a contradiction if the book itself is concerned with behind-the-scenes issues. He's perfectly able to acknowledge behind-the-scenes influences here and talk about what his book argues about the meaning of the text in spite of those influence without that being a contradiction, because he hasn't claimed that the book itself deals with behind-the-scenes stuff.

Yes, he claims exactly that in the sentence I quoted. "One of the major themes of my book is that queer aspects of Trek have come through often despite the very homophobic atmospheres both of their on-set making and of the larger culture." He's saying outright in that sentence that the atmosphere on the set is an integral factor in the thesis of the book. If that's not the case, then he phrased that sentence misleadingly.

That, or, y'know, he was speaking informally and didn't mean to word it in a way. Which happens sometimes.

And for the record, I have seen critical works that analyze texts and include comments creators have made in interviews and such, but which do not interview creators themselves. So the more I think about it, the less convinced I am that including pre-existing behind-the-scenes info, in a limited fashion, necessarily implies a contradiction with saying a book is going to analyze a text without interviewing the creators.

ETA: And I certainly don't think there's a contradiction between including behind-the-scenes info about the canonical productions and saying that you're not going to interview someone who creates tie-in novels. If the topic of the book is reserved to the canonical stories, refusing to interview book authors is a completely legitimate limitation to make. End ETA.

In other words: Welcome to post-modernism, where an interpretation is not invalid just because it's not what the creator intended.

That's a straw man. I wasn't saying all reader interpretations are invalid; I was saying that one specific interpretation seemed like a huge reach to me. It's a fallacy to mistake a specific argument for a general one.

Yes, that's why I included the smilie. I was poking fun, not making an earnest argument.

But this is: You should actually read his book before you dismiss his argument about Star Trek II and queer themes.