Gender and Sexuality in Star Trek

[Andy Mangels]

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.

I'll certainly give it a chance, and I'm sorry that you find my stances dismaying. I want their to be MORE serious discussion of this topic, not less. However, I frankly believe that most criticism of allegory is generally hogwash if it ignores the context from which the supposed allegorical work sprang.

Indeed, art and performance art can be interpreted in multiple ways, and artists often allow audiences their interpretation. That does not mean (IMO) that such work can or should be divorced from its creative reality.

For instance, serial killer John Wayne Gacy paints pictures of clowns. Interpreting those pictures as appropriate for a children's storybook because they show smiling clowns would be disingenious at best because of the context from which they came.

The LOST creators are choosing to allow their finale multiple interpretations. However, IF the LOST creators were publicly known to despise the very concept of the afterlife and redemption, it would be a far stretch for someone to po-facedly interpret their work as supportive of those concepts.

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.

See, here is my problem, in that the very interpretation is flawed. During Berman's run, nothing was MEANT to be interpreted that way, and nothing was intended to be allegorical in that manner, with the exception of the few "heavily mediated" examples that are fairly dreadful IMO. By interpreting things that were in no way meant to be interpreted that way, it sets up the interpretation for ridicule.

This would be similar to a Jewish science fiction author utilizing a four-armed character as a hero, and for someone to interpret that four-armed character as positively representing the Nazi swastika and the work itself as denying the Holocause because a swastika has four arms and the character was heroic.

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.

I can certainly understand where those allegories might come from, and even see precedence in how the actors may have nuanced their characterization. But it's just as easy to allegorically declare that Scotty had a fetishistic and abusive sex impulse toward his precious engines and find context that supports it, should one want to venture down that path.

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.

Again, you're welcome to that focus, I just find it flawed. If OJ Simpson made a movie about wife-killing, it would be nearly impossible to divorce the "views of creative artists" from "what's on the screen and how we experience it," no matter how allegorical one decided to be.

I'm sure you didn't ignore changing social mores when discussing the allegories present in 60s Trek versus 80s Trek; they were not created in a vacuum. So, why would one ignore the actual stated (or rumored) allegorical intents of the creators of the art?

 

[Christopher]

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

Are you even listening to me?? I specifically, emphatically told you that I was addressing one particular point, not the entire book. And here you are immediately repeating the same false accusation you made before, the same facile and incompetent confusion of the particular with the universal. So either you're ignoring me or you're knowingly misrepresenting my position, and I don't see why I should heed your advice in either case.

 

[Amaris]

Congratulations on getting published, David! I will certainly check out your book at the first opportunity.

 

[Sci]

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

Are you even listening to me?? I specifically, emphatically told you that I was addressing one particular point, not the entire book.

I did not accuse you of addressing the entire book, I accused you of dismissing one particular argument in that book (Star Trek II as an allegorical tale of homoerotic romantic pursuit). You are accusing me of saying you are dismissing the entire book when I have said no such thing.

 

[Gepard]

I gotta say, guys, the allegorical homoerotic romantic pursuit on display here is turning me on.

 

[Sci]

I gotta say, guys, the allegorical homoerotic romantic pursuit on display here is turning me on.

Gep Malakai for the win!

 

[Myasishchev]

Ha, that was pretty good.

 

[Bob Karo]

I have to agree with Christopher.



That whale was totally gay for Ahab.

 

[david g]

Andy, you managed to invoke John Wayne Gacy and Nazism in the same post...more and more, I find your dispute with my position simply hard to follow. If you take a look at most critical books about literature, film, television, consulting the creators on their views of their own work is not a primary focus. Rather, the focus is on interpretation, as mine is here.

I proceed from D. H. Lawrence's maxim. "Never trust the artist, trust the tale." I dont think that Lawrence should be taken entirely literally, but I am not writing criticism in order to explain what its creators meant to say, but the different levels at which the work may be expressing meaning. Many, many distinct kinds of sensibilities have shaped Trek.

If I believed that Trek were a fundamentally homophobic institution, I probably wouldnt be terribly interested in it. Rather, I find Trek fascinating precisely because it is so ideologically inconsistent and complex, both radical and mired in limitations...

But more importantly, what I try to get at in this book is why gay fans have so consistently been drawn to the Trek mythos *despite* Trek's prolonged explicit indifference to gay/queer themes...what is it about Trek that makes it so moving and resonant for us? That's the major interest of my book.

 

[Christopher]

Okay, sorry, Sci, I misread your comment there. I thought you said "arguments about Star Trek" rather than "argument about Star Trek II." It's unusual to see that movie referred to by that title instead of "The Wrath of Khan" or "TWOK," so my mind glossed over the "II." Not sure why I perceived an "s" after "argument"; perhaps because it was directly under the word "earnest" and my mind transposed some letters.

And I'm sorry, but people trying to read gay subtext into everything is a pet peeve of mine. I've got nothing against it where it actually exists, but it annoys me the way our culture assumes that sex is the only kind of relationship or passion that exists or matters, and trying to define every relationship as sexual just strikes me as emotionally arrested and narrow-minded, and a failure to appreciate the value of an entirely platonic relationship such as friendship, professional partnership, or the like. So call it preconception if you like, but the suggestion that Khan's obsession with killing the man he blames for the death of his wife can somehow be read as homoerotic romance -- even just the use of the word "romantic" for something that violent, totally aside from anything homoerotic -- sounds so preposterous to me that it does nothing to make me want to read the book. Not that I would've bothered anyway, since my past experience with lit-crit analyses of Star Trek has left me of the opinion that it's mostly a pretentious and self-serving exercise that's often wildly off the mark.

 

[Smitty]

i would have to agree with just about everything Christopher said above.

 

[TerraUnam]

Khan is an archetypal vengeful, angry man who blames the tragedies of the past twenty years of his life on another man's actions. Khan's character is quite complete without imputing anything to his motives other than grief over the loss of his wife.

I agree with Christopher that reading anything homoerotic into his character is baseless and stretching a point.

 

[scotpens]

. . . I'm sorry, but people trying to read gay subtext into everything is a pet peeve of mine.

Ditto.

Not that I would've bothered anyway, since my past experience with lit-crit analyses of Star Trek has left me of the opinion that it's mostly a pretentious and self-serving exercise that's often wildly off the mark.

Why limit it to Star Trek?

 

[Sci]

Okay, sorry, Sci, I misread your comment there. I thought you said "arguments about Star Trek" rather than "argument about Star Trek II." It's unusual to see that movie referred to by that title instead of "The Wrath of Khan" or "TWOK," so my mind glossed over the "II." Not sure why I perceived an "s" after "argument"; perhaps because it was directly under the word "earnest" and my mind transposed some letters.

Apology accepted, and I can see why you made that mistake. I just tend to think of that film as "Star Trek II" rather than "TWOK."

And I'm sorry, but people trying to read gay subtext into everything is a pet peeve of mine. I've got nothing against it where it actually exists, but it annoys me the way our culture assumes that sex is the only kind of relationship or passion that exists or matters, and trying to define every relationship as sexual just strikes me as emotionally arrested and narrow-minded, and a failure to appreciate the value of an entirely platonic relationship such as friendship, professional partnership, or the like.

Fair enough, and I think that that's a valid critique of the tendency to over-read homoerotic subtexts into works.

But I also think that David's argument is worth hearing before dismissing it. I can't say that I agree with that interpretation of TWOK, either, but I won't dismiss it without having read it.

(Possibly I am biased by the fact that I find it endlessly amusing to read gay subtexts into works you wouldn't expect to find them or where they probably weren't intended. I'm convinced that Gaston in Beauty and the Beast was in denial. )

Not that I would've bothered anyway, since my past experience with lit-crit analyses of Star Trek has left me of the opinion that it's mostly a pretentious and self-serving exercise that's often wildly off the mark.

I think it's fair to say that the world of literary criticism is full of works that are pretentious and self-serving, but I don't think that's fair to David. He's been consistently polite to everyone here, yet you seem to be implying that you're just assuming that his work is probably pretentious and self-serving just because it's a work of literary criticism.

 

[Steve Roby]

Wow. Some really amazing hostility in this thread from surprising directions. There's some remarkable know-nothingism about the concept of literary criticism, and (though everyone will deny it) it looks like some people are having some buttons pushed just by the subject matter.

 

[Bob Karo]

 

[Andy Mangels]

Andy, you managed to invoke John Wayne Gacy and Nazism in the same post...more and more, I find your dispute with my position simply hard to follow. If you take a look at most critical books about literature, film, television, consulting the creators on their views of their own work is not a primary focus. Rather, the focus is on interpretation, as mine is here.

I used extreme examples of negative creators to make a point. I also used the creators of LOST as an example that was less extreme, and contemporary.

I proceed from D. H. Lawrence's maxim. "Never trust the artist, trust the tale." I dont think that Lawrence should be taken entirely literally, but I am not writing criticism in order to explain what its creators meant to say, but the different levels at which the work may be expressing meaning. Many, many distinct kinds of sensibilities have shaped Trek.

Your final sentence there makes my point. Those "many distinct kinds of sensibilities" which have "shaped Trek" were guided at their forefront (during the Berman years) by a man which every interview about (public and personal) has painted as homophobic. A fans' view may shape Trek for fans, but the originating producer of those elements to be shaped for the public certainly should be taken into account.

If I believed that Trek were a fundamentally homophobic institution, I probably wouldnt be terribly interested in it. Rather, I find Trek fascinating precisely because it is so ideologically inconsistent and complex, both radical and mired in limitations...

I've NEVER argued that Trek was a fundamentally homophobic institution, only that under the control of Berman, it has been numbingly horrible in its treatment of and portrayal of GLBT characters and situations. I fully and utterly agree that it is "ideologically inconsistent and complex, both radical and mired in limitations."

But more importantly, what I try to get at in this book is why gay fans have so consistently been drawn to the Trek mythos *despite* Trek's prolonged explicit indifference to gay/queer themes...what is it about Trek that makes it so moving and resonant for us? That's the major interest of my book.

OK, thanks. That certainly hasn't been clear from what you have represented about your book so far. What has seemed clear is that the context from which those stories sprang -- or the homophobic decision-making that stopped further work from existing -- does not matter to the text of your interpretations. That is the crux of the matter for me.

I can enjoy Trek under Berman. I can even enjoy Trek created by Berman. But I can never divorce my enjoyment from the knowledge of what Berman did behind the scenes. It's quite similar to the idea that criticism of Roman Polanski projects (or for a while, Woody Allen projects) cannot be divorced from the knowledge of their actions behind the scenes. I suspect Mel Gibson will run into that same critical and interpretive wall when future critics look at his films.

There's some remarkable know-nothingism about the concept of literary criticism...

Film and television criticism discusses, by its very nature, a collaborative process.
Literary criticism discusses, by its very nature, the far more solitary art of writing literature.

I am not, by and large, discussing literary criticism. I have been discussing criticism and interpretation of a collaborative process that appears to purposely not address that process, or the collaborators behind it who have shaped that property.

To put it another way, one would likely not do a book on Moby Dick without some discussion of Melville and his views. So to do a book on this topic and ignore the views of those people who controlled and/or collaborated on the property is, in my thinking, missing a large part of the puzzle.

Despite what appears to be an element of David taking my comments as personally hurtful, my comments have no bearing on the author's person, nor even his abilities or skills as a critical writer.

I believe that to properly critique a collaborative entertainment medium, one needs to take into account the creators of that collaboration and what their intents were or were not. Sometimes that means asking questions of them, or others, to form informed opinions or hypothesis that may or may not be contrary to the critic's personal interpretation of said work.

It appears as if David, and some others, disagree. Perfectly fine. That's what makes for debate.

 

[david g]

Actually, to tell you the truth, Andy, as a scholar of 19th American literature, I can attest that I believe a focus on what the author "meant" is often the last question many of us raise. Dont get me wrong--Melville's views on whaling, relationships possibile between men on whaleships, on race and racism, on the literary tradition (Shakespeare, Milton) that he tried to top--all of these aspects of his thinking are relevant.

But I dont believe that Im interpreting Moby-Dick to explain what Melville was trying to say, exactly, but to illuminate or evoke something about what the *work* is saying. I agree with you, of course, that a wildly improbable reading of the work wouldnt hold much water or be of much interest...it's also true that some scholars try to reconstruct the scene of a work's making, while others of us place more emphasis on interpreting the work for and of itself (a technique that stems from the New Criticism).

I suspect that you wont really see my point, Andy, and that's okay. I just balked a bit at the enflamed hostility in your tone, which seemed to suggest that what I am doing in this book is a wild violation of critical propriety, ie, I didnt consult with you first.

 

[Rosalind]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/impostor.png

Bob, hotlink to an image on a site you do not own is not allowed on this board. Please read the rules on the subject.

Please don't do it again


ETA: nevermind, XKCD does allow hotlink

 

[ST-One]

And I'm sorry, but people trying to read gay subtext into everything is a pet peeve of mine. I've got nothing against it where it actually exists, but it annoys me the way our culture assumes that sex is the only kind of relationship or passion that exists or matters, and trying to define every relationship as sexual just strikes me as emotionally arrested and narrow-minded, and a failure to appreciate the value of an entirely platonic relationship such as friendship, professional partnership, or the like. So call it preconception if you like, but the suggestion that Khan's obsession with killing the man he blames for the death of his wife can somehow be read as homoerotic romance -- even just the use of the word "romantic" for something that violent, totally aside from anything homoerotic -- sounds so preposterous to me that it does nothing to make me want to read the book. Not that I would've bothered anyway, since my past experience with lit-crit analyses of Star Trek has left me of the opinion that it's mostly a pretentious and self-serving exercise that's often wildly off the mark.

This. ^

And, I'm as gay as they... come.