Just ask the character's permission first or you might hurt their feelings. Broccoli, anyone?
How do you name alien characters/species?
- Thread starter Laura Cynthia Chambers
- Start date
Just ask the character's permission first or you might hurt their feelings. Broccoli, anyone?
I'll just read 'em all. Thanks for the warning thoughOf two different varieties, so make sure you're getting SG-1 novels.
There are a ton of novels based on SG-1, but then there were also novels done by Bill McCay that were sequels to just the movie; they started before SG-1 came out, but they continued for a couple books after it started while ignoring the show continuity entirely, which I'm sure confused at least some people.
"I WILL CALL YOU DONNY! Is that OK? Do you like that name?"
"Who's Donny?"
"He's my roboctopus."
-- recent ARCO commercial
DISCLAIMER: I don't work for ARCO, nor for BP, and while I have a few shares of BP stock, I prefer to buy Union 76 gas.
Oh, and at the risk of putting myself directly in the crossfire of a religious debate, I will say that for many years, I've found that Fundamentalists and Atheists seem to both be suffering from the same malady: a condition I call "Looking for God in All the Wrong Places." Which is to say, what sort of deity could be more believable, and more worthy of worship, than one who (1) writes a universe's laws of physics in such a way that life is not only possible, but inevitable, (2) goes to the unimaginable (to mere Humans, at least) difficulty of creating not only life, but free-willed sentience, and (3) seeks to be in relationship with that sentient life? And conversely, if a supreme being were to go to the immense trouble of doing #2, only to demand that that sentient life behave with the mindless obedience of the robots we can now build from kits stocked in any well-appointed toy store, would He be worthy of worship? Or of a psychiatrist's couch?
As Einstein put it,
„Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht."
God is subtle, but not malicious. Nor, I would ad, insane.
Last edited:
I can see your point, but in practice, all storytelling directs the audience to a specific culture within humanity. I mean, we all have different worldviews, even within the same culture (from stuff you've written, I take it that you're not a religious person, while I'm a practicing Christian, which means that our views on how the world works and the future are different, even if we both live in the States). A major reason people tell stories is to share their views and ideas (not the only reason, granted).
I'm not very sure I'm really getting the idea in my brain translated into print very well, but I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I'm not sure that storytelling is really designed to speak for and to everyone globally. It's a way that the authors and cultures they live in explain their views on the world, and share what's important to them, whether it be values, dreams, or even senses of humor.
Not sure if I'm making any sense here, but there it is.
(On top of all that, I think I was referring to the original audience of the hypothetical work when commenting on my thoughts of acceptable breaks from reality for the sake of the story, not humanity as a whole. Your mileage may vary.)
Fair enough.
I'd argue by the standards of whoever the intended audience of the work is. After all, it's very likely written to fit in the context of their culture.
A related conversation question: I find it really funny that Star Trek gets blasted for being America-centric. Since it's written for an American audience, it's that way by design. The fact that it appeals cross-culture is a nice bonus. I mean, why does Doctor Who get a pass for being custom written for British audiences and not being more accessible outside of the UK?
Okay.
"America-centric" doesn't mean "written for an American audience", though; it means "having an undue focus on American cities and culture". Things like Tom Paris having a ton of knowledge about 20th-century US pop culture, or Kirk's hero being Abraham Lincoln, or every time travel episode to Earth ending up with people going to the US. I mean, yeah, you can make up reasons to justify it in-universe, but that's not why the writers chose it in the first place.
And I have heard that as criticism of "Doctor Who" from more than one source, that the UK always seems to be the place hit first by any alien invasion, and that Cardiff in particular seems to be the most important city in the universe in the newer edition of the show.
(Less so lately, though, that; that seemed to be more a RTD thing.)
Last edited:
No, I think a lot of storytelling directs the audience outward to a more cosmopolitan point of view. Especially science fiction. I mean, science fiction is specifically about exploring things that are outside the audience's everyday experience. So it stands to reason, I would think, that most SF fans would be xenophiles who were interested in broadening their horizons beyond what they already know (although I'm aware there are some exceptions, as revealed by the Hugo Awards controversies of the past couple of years). That's why I'm drawn to reading SF and to writing it. I don't want something that just reflects my own culture or ethnicity or gender. I want something that surprises and challenges me, that shows me a new way of seeing the world. And the audience I'm writing for is the audience that feels the same way.
I think that's a very egocentric mindset. One of the reasons I tell stories is to explore views and ideas that are different from my own -- to get into the heads of characters who have different value systems and perspectives and try to see the world through their eyes. For instance -- you're right that I'm not a religious person. But one of my favorite characters to write was Rishala, the high priestess in Ex Machina. She was a character who was devoutly religious, but not in a fanatical way like the villain of the novel. I wanted to explore the mindset of someone who arrived at religious conviction through informed and intelligent reasoning and applied her faith with compassion, open-mindedness and respect for others, like some of my college friends. I disagreed with Rishala on a lot of things -- for one thing, she didn't have a high opinion of literacy, while I've been a reader for literally as long as I can remember (and that's literally literally, not figuratively literally). But she was like the kind of friend that you disagree with about a lot of things but can have a lively, respectful, enlightening argument with, the kind that's intriguing and informative even if you don't come away with your mind changed. It was fascinating to explore such a different point of view. Similarly with Qui'hibra in Orion's Hounds. I'm a pacifist and I don't like hunting, but it was intriguing to explore the psychology and beliefs of a civilization of predators that depended on hunting for survival. It's an exciting challenge to get into the head of a character that you disagree with completely and find a way to make them sympathetic and their worldview understandable and worthy of respect.
No. If the only views I ever expressed in my work were my own, then that would just be a polemic. It would be boring as hell if all the characters agreed on everything, or if the characters who disagreed were caricatured straw men only there to be knocked down. What makes an effective story is that it has characters who disagree with each other sincerely and have valid, defensible reasons for their conflicting points of view.
Lots of authors enjoy the challenge of developing characters they disagree with. For instance, Joss Whedon has said that he completely disagrees with the libertarian views of Mal Reynolds of Firefly/Serenity, and probably wouldn't enjoy sharing a meal with the character, but still found him fascinating to write for and explore as a character. And Chris Carter, creator of The X-Files, is a skeptic about UFOs and paranormal phenomena, not a believer. Indeed, that would've been a far worse show if it had just been a polemic by someone who uncritically believed in that stuff.
Something can be geared toward a culture's existing experience yet still seek to expand its knowledge. What's the point of just telling people things they already know? For instance, Michael Palin has done a ton of world-travel specials for the BBC, aimed at informing British audiences about all the other diverse cultures that can be found around the world. When he visits Kenya or Malaysia or Brazil, he explains things that wouldn't need to be explained to a Kenyan or a Malaysian or a Brazilian, because he knows he's addressing a largely British (or at least Anglophone) audience. But he's still telling them about other cultures. What you seem to be suggesting would be like if all of Michael Palin's travel specials had been based entirely within the British Isles, telling UK audiences about the cultures and traditions of the peoples of London and Liverpool and far-flung Glasgow. Which might make for a decent Monty Python sketch (in fact, they did a few like that), but it'd be pretty pointless in reality.
The problem, as Idran says, is not that it's aimed for an American audience, it's that it portrays a future that's unrealistically dominated by Anglo-Saxons. Today, non-Hispanic whites make up maybe 1/6 of the world's population, and that number is falling. At least half of the human race comes from Asia. So when you show a supposedly "United Earth" of the future, one that's supposed to have overcome all prejudice and inequality, and yet overload it with characters who have an Anglo-American cultural or ethnic background -- with only a few scattered Asians here and there who are mostly Asian-American anyway -- then that's simply not a plausible portrayal of the future. Hell, it's not even a plausible portrayal of America's ethnic and cultural diversity anymore. Writing for an American audience, for all Americans, means writing an ethnically, culturally, religiously, and sexually diverse cast of characters.
And the reason Doctor Who "gets a pass" is because it's never aspired to the same standard of plausibility. Star Trek was intended by Roddenberry to be a grounded, believable science fiction future. It's often fallen short of achieving that goal, but it was one of the few SFTV shows that even made a token effort at research and credibility, and so it put itself out there as something meant to be taken seriously and held to a high standard. But Doctor Who was created as a fantasy show for children. It initially made an effort to be educational, but soon left that behind and just focused on adventure. It hasn't made any attempt to be scientifically credible or grounded since the late '60s.
That's also a good point, but even given that, like I mentioned, I've definitely heard people still call Doctor Who out as being too UK-centric. So it doesn't even actually universally "get a pass" in the first place.
I think it did a better job avoiding UK-centrism in the early years, when the TARDIS traveled all over the world (although tending to interact with Europeans while doing so, with some exceptions). The First Doctor's historical adventures included visits to China (with Marco Polo), the Aztecs (pre-contact), France in two different eras, ancient Rome, the Holy Land during King Richard's Crusade, the Empire State Building (briefly), ancient Troy, ancient Egypt, and Tombstone (for the Gunfight at the OK Corral), and only a few visits to the British Isles (usually in the present, but including historical visits to Northumbria and Cornwall). It did get rather more UK-centric in later years, though.
This does seem to be something the modern TrekLit authors do better at than the television writers.
Oh yeah, I should clarify that I'm talking just about the new series (and mostly RTD's tenure on it, Moffat seemed to have been a little better about "everything is the UK"). I honestly have very little experience with the old, and I haven't looked into reactions to it either.
I liked how "Dinosaurs on a Spaceship" casually portrayed an India-centric future civilization.
I think the 1970s consisted entirely of visits to Welsh quarries.
Are there any specific examples of "cosmopolitan" sci-fi (or writing in general)? I might have an easier time understanding you if I had a less abstract frame of reference.
I did add the qualifier that not all writing fit into the same box. I guess I also don't see that writing about your own views automatically means that you don't explore other ideas. I mean, your examples seem to be discussing stuff that resonates with you and you talking about it. But, I will agree from experience that it can be interesting to read about other view, so I can get that it can be interesting to write about it, too. (For full disclosure, my interest in writing is more in the self-expression part of it, so I'll be the first to concede that writing covers a wider range of spectrums than I tend to explore.)
Um, I didn't mean that. I think that writing about what you think can also cover simply exploring ideas that are important to you. Case in point, I'm a religious person, so I tend to find it interesting to read stuff with characters working through ideas related to religion and the questions of if there's more to this world than the one we see. (For example, even though I don't really like the first and fifth Star Trek movies that much, I do find their commentary on belief interesting, even though I don't agree with the conclusions. Also, DS9's exploration of religion is something I find interesting about the show.)
I'll agree with that.
Is a documentary really comparable with fiction? I wasn't suggesting that people should only write about what they know and nothing else. I guess my opinion is that everyone is a product of their environment, to some extent, and writing is filtered through the person's perspective. In retrospect, I guess I shouldn't have sounded as definitive as I was in the earlier postings.
Wonder how much of this was intentional and how much wasn't?
We'll have to see where the new show goes, as far as increased diversity is concerned. Hopefully, the take advantage of that and put some well-written new characters with varying backgrounds into the mix.
Okay, I'm going to have to think that one over a bit.
It's something worth considering from a social perspective, but in terms of the show as a show, it's honestly kind of irrelevant. To a randomly chosen audience member, whether it was intentional or unintentional wouldn't change anything at all about how it would be received since they'd have no way of knowing if it was or not, and it'd be unreasonable to expect the audience for a work, or even a significant fraction of it, to investigate that. A narrative work of art stands on its own and has the impact and reception it will regardless of the intentions of its creators.
Right. The unintentionality of excluding marginalized groups from fiction is exactly the problem. It's not a conscious choice, it's just the result of taking that marginalization for granted and failing to question one's preconceptions. Prejudice and bias are rarely intentional. They're something well-meaning people do without realizing it, and that's what makes them so pervasive and hard to overcome. Neglect can be as harmful as malice.
What, no love for Aaron Rosenberg, Melissa Scott and...that other guy?
I was going to go trough every novel's Stargate wiki page to find out which ones were written by ST authors, but that saves me the trouble. Now I only have to find a logical order to read them, that still has to be complicated enough to at least provide a couple of hours of research...What, no love for Aaron Rosenberg, Melissa Scott and...that other guy?
*A couple of hours of research later*
- Sacrifice Moon
- The Barque of Heaven
- Hostile Ground
- Exile
- Do No Harm
- Heart's Desire
- Alliances
- Oceans of Dust
- Sunrise
- Hall of the Two Truths
- Kali's Wrath
- City of Gods
- Survival of the Fittest
- Hydra
- Behind the Throne
- Four Dragons
- Relativity
- Trial by Fire
- A Matter of Honor
- The Cost of Honor
- Siren Song
- Valhalla
- Two Roads
- Transitions
- The Drift
- Ouroboros
- Murder at the SGC
- Roswell
- Moebius Squared
Last edited:
"Lieutenant, set course for original topic." "Course laid in, sir." "Punch it."
Maybe Number One had an unpronounceable/annoying name. Something which sounded wrong or tongue twisting. "Please stop trying to pronounce her name, sir. You're giving the bridge crew the giggles."
How do you break the mold of naming a character from a certain race while still feeling as though it's consistent with others of that group? Like, how do you get a feel for the type of sounds which would come from someone's linguistic background?
