Still seems sus.
Nana Visitor's 'A Woman's Trek' book coming in 2022
- Thread starter DS9forever
- Start date
What does?
She claims that Gates McFadden wanted to have her pregnancy, which she found out about just after the filming a Remember Me, written into the show so that she didn't have to hide her pregnancy. Nana then claims she was told that they couldn't do that because another actor was already pregnancy and having it written into the show- which was her, with the whole 'carrying Keiko's baby' thing, and, she concludes, 'there was only one 'slot' for a pregnant woman in Star Trek, and I was already occupying it.' (I can cite page numbers if necessary).
Only Gates pregnancy happened in 1990, 3 years before DS9 began, and Nana's was in 1996.
Don't get me wrong- I think Nana raises a lot of valid points in the book. I'm not saying her takes are wrong, per se. But when she throws in clearly-false anecdotes or really tenuous interpretations to support them, it makes her points seem less credible, and her research questionable. Which, I think, is a shame, because her points- and these women's stories- would stand well enough on their own. She didn't need to exaggerate or twist Trek's narratives to make her case, her case would have worked well enough without them. But because she does choose to do so, it (to me) instead casts doubt on how much else that we can't concretely verify is also exaggerated or twisted. It casts doubt on her work- and again, I think, sadly uneccessarily, because her overall thesis would have stood up just fine without trying to invent more supporting points.
Maybe she was thinking of Roxann Dawson, who was pregnant during season 4 of Voyager.
It is possible. The timelines still don't quite align, but they are close enough that the producers cold have said 'we just did that' as opposed to 'we're already doing that.'
But the book's statement is pretty explicit about Gates and referencing her actual pregnancy (which she famously didn't yet know about when performing wirework in Remember Me). Either way, it... raises questions about her fact-checking of the final text, at the very least. :-)
In addition, on page 213, she is talking about people's online complaints that Michael Burnham was always the one to solve everything, and that, like Kirk and Picard, she monopolized the character development of the series (?). Then immediately goes on to imply that it's because Burnham is a black woman, and people should really get used to seeing someone that isn't like them onscreen (and also that it's better this time somehow because she doesn't have the support of Starfleet)- despite this
A. Not addressing the actual criticisms
B. Adding in a logic fallacy assuming the motivation of the critics, and
C. Acknowledging that the same criticisms were already identified- by the same posters- of being true of Kirk and Picard
I just really do not find this book to be written in an intellectually honest manner, and it's so severely disappointing. Because there is 75% of a great book here, just layered on with an additional 25% of narrative dishonesty and double-talk that (once again) it really didn't need to successfully make its points, but kind of raises doubts about their veracity by trying so hard to overdo it with intellectually-dishonest arguments.
I am finishing it on principle- and still looking forward to the SNW section. But I am deeply disappointed.
A. Not addressing the actual criticisms
B. Adding in a logic fallacy assuming the motivation of the critics, and
C. Acknowledging that the same criticisms were already identified- by the same posters- of being true of Kirk and Picard
I just really do not find this book to be written in an intellectually honest manner, and it's so severely disappointing. Because there is 75% of a great book here, just layered on with an additional 25% of narrative dishonesty and double-talk that (once again) it really didn't need to successfully make its points, but kind of raises doubts about their veracity by trying so hard to overdo it with intellectually-dishonest arguments.
I am finishing it on principle- and still looking forward to the SNW section. But I am deeply disappointed.
Having just (re)watched DISCO, I did walk away feeling it was all-too-often "The Michael Burnham Hour", and that that (and to some degree, possibly a significant one, the short seasons), detracted from the development of the other characters. It's hard for me to think the writers/TPTB weren't aware of that and that to some degree it must have been a conscious choice.
I'm not exactly sure how Burnham being a black woman factors into it though, unless the implication is that TPTB were so concerned with presenting a non-white non-male perspective that this is what resulted (my apologies if I've articulated that poorly). Maybe I'll read what Visitor actually wrote at some point.
I certainly feel the other shows did a much better job of balancing their captain with the other crew. VOY probably came closest to having the same issue, in that there's a valid argument to be made that toward the end it became largely the Janeway-Seven-EMH show, but that's still three characters rather than one.
I'm not exactly sure how Burnham being a black woman factors into it though, unless the implication is that TPTB were so concerned with presenting a non-white non-male perspective that this is what resulted (my apologies if I've articulated that poorly). Maybe I'll read what Visitor actually wrote at some point.
I certainly feel the other shows did a much better job of balancing their captain with the other crew. VOY probably came closest to having the same issue, in that there's a valid argument to be made that toward the end it became largely the Janeway-Seven-EMH show, but that's still three characters rather than one.
Indeed, that was my puzzlement, too; rather 'what does that have to do with anything?' when it was brought up.
She did mention a few salient points- that Michael was not specifically as a black woman, just 'someone not white' (maybe not the best way of putting it). That the show was intend to be an outsider or marginalized character's perspective. And that the writers spent a lot of time talking to African-American women (Mae Jameson in particular) to try and understand a female perspective for the character.
So maybe 'they were so concerned with presenting that perspective that this is what resulted' was the claim this book is trying to make? Those points she brings up seem like they could be intended to support such a thesis? But I found it very unclear exactly what she was trying to say, there.
Personally, I didn't even necessarily mind 'the Michael Burnham hour', in spite of the complaints; for me, it was the severe over-emotionality that started to wear thin by season 3. I understand wanting to be more psychologically realistic, but seeing the crew constantly emotionally paralyzed by things we've seen other crews just shrug off by the end of the episode... wasn't always a great look. :-) But that is probably a topic for another thread...
I think the issue is the flip-side of the CHUDs making it hard to criticize diverse or minority-driven stories, since they frequently use critical language as a fig-leaf when their real criticism is "I don't like that someone who isn't straight/white/male is the focus of the story." So even if DSC could've been better, merited criticism is mixed in with unmerited criticism that's a cover for rank bigotry, and it makes it easy to dismiss all of it as unjustly maligning the show.
Similar threads
