Philosophical Objections to Trek Lit
- Thread starter The Laughing Vulcan
- Start date
I see no problems with IDIC here whatsoever.
So IDIC is that we should have infinite diversity in infinite combinations as long as we agree with each particular combination.
Nothing William Leisner is inconsistent with IDIC or with the idea of a healthy mix of diverse opinions. He is objecting to donners22's insistence that he shouldn't have to be exposed to another person's point of view on the dedication page of a novel. Leisner, therefore, is pointing out the logical inconsistency of objecting to being exposed to someone else's point of view whilst expressing your own; he is demanding intellectual consistency from donners22 by either ceasing to engage in hypocritical behavior or by donners22 admitting himself to be a hypocrite.
That's not refusing IDIC. That's refusing a refusal of IDIC. Tolerance requires intolerance of intolerance.
The obvious responses being firstly that you are not paying to read what I write, and secondly that you are under no obligation to read it. This thread is related directly to this issue. I do not attack those who disagree with me, nor do I declare my view to be morally right. I do not demand those who share different views admit they are wrong.
I simply describe my reaction, and the reasoning I attribute to it. All I know is that I was excited to see a book by those authors, having enjoyed another of theirs, flicked through the first few pages, saw that section, and put it back. This thread asked for philosophical objections to Trek books. I objected to the use of a Trek book for a personal political message outside the narrative, and noted that. If an author has those views, they're entitled to them. If they can cleverly work them into the narrative, fine. I just objected to the means in which this view was expressed. If the publishers regard this as appropriate, that's their decision. If I disagree with it, that's my choice, and I vote with my wallet.
Of course, there is then the irony of the hypocrisy going round in circles, not to mention the aggression from people who have different views. Intolerance, aggression, hypocrisy - it's good to see that this board is truly representative of the outside world.
Last edited:
Some issues have more than two sides. Some issues have sides that any sane person would recognize as wrong.
All you have to do is look at history. There aren't very many people making what they consider moral, practical, and principled stands in favour of slavery, or child labour, or burning witches and heretics, or racial segregation. Those positions don't merit the same respect as the opposing views that won out, and there are positions held by people here that will be seen as self-evidently wrong by the majority before too long.
Firstly, you didn't buy the book, so you didn't pay to read that.
Secondly, since when are you obligated to read any book, whether you bought it or not? (School required books not withstanding).
And really regarding the buying of a book... you can always return it (within the stores specified return time) if you object to it.
I never said GR never saw it or never approved it. He just never thought it was important to suggest modifications to FJ because ST was dead as a series. Roddenberry really wasn't expecting to do more ST at the time. And, of course, he wasn't being asked annoying questions about the manual's content until after it came out, and GR noticed the militaristic slant it was giving Starfleet, and the influence it was having on some ST fans.
And I deliberately called it a "war game", for want of a better term. The term "role-playing game" (or "RPG") was really being used by anyone at the time, as far as I recall.
Exactly. And then he can affix a book plate over the dedication page and enjoy a great novel.
I recall being confused about the fuss over the dedication when the book came out. Wasn't the woman receiving the dedication someone who'd lost a child in the war against Iraq? (Sorry, the news of her situation never made it over here and I had to Google her.) Whether you support Bush or not, when did anger and frustration over war become so wrong?
True, but it's also worth noting that (particularly in the time frame under discussion) the distinction between RPGs and tabletop war games could be a little blurry, particularly to casual outside observers unfamiliar with either type.
Unfortunately, Ian, free speech has taken a beating in the United States since 9-11. Dissent has become equated with disloyalty. Politicians pander to the fears of the mob, while our leaders live in informational bubbles of their own making. As Keith Olbermann rightly pointed out last week, the one person in the world least informed about the state of the war in Iraq is the President of the United States. It was Leibniz who said that we lived in the best of all possible worlds. I don't think that's true anymore.
My greatest fear is that it is true. If so, we're screwed.
QFT!
Lately it does feel like if you say a single bad thing about the President, the US, or the War, then you should be worried about being hauled off for treason. But the ironic thing is that it seems that you hear nothing but bad things about all three constantly.
The whole dedication is free speech at work. It's been made clear that the dedications page is basically a free-for-all for the writer, at least with this publisher.
So our writer is entitled to say what he wants. That said, there's an argument that the writer was somewhat foolhardy or made an error in doing so, as it seems to have cost them sales of said book. But that's free speech: you can say what you want, but you also have to be aware of the consequences of saying it. In this case the writer would have had to weigh up the potential lost sales of putting in this dedication against how strongly he felt on the issue. In the end, the latter won out, which I feel gives it a strong sentiment.
So our writer is entitled to say what he wants. That said, there's an argument that the writer was somewhat foolhardy or made an error in doing so, as it seems to have cost them sales of said book. But that's free speech: you can say what you want, but you also have to be aware of the consequences of saying it. In this case the writer would have had to weigh up the potential lost sales of putting in this dedication against how strongly he felt on the issue. In the end, the latter won out, which I feel gives it a strong sentiment.
not having read the book in question, WTF is the fuss all about?
The complete dedication page, in an effort to provide context:
Star Trek: Enterprise--Last Full Measure said:
^Amen!
Well Allyn Gibson and I definitely have differing views on politics, but that doesn't mean I don't read his work. In fact, I thought one of his short stories was brillant, because despite our differences in political philosophy, the story was one that hit home. I thought the story was so touching, that I actually sent him an e-mail expressing my complete satisfaction, to which he responded. I still have the e-mail he sent saved.
I don't recall the exact title, but it dealt with a mother and child dealing with the death of her husband and his father with a tie into Star Trek as a television show.
To some degree I see the view of the future federation as being made up of "perfect" individuals somewhat unrealistic, its why I like DS9 over TNG. I am generally a pessimist and believe the future will get much worse. Of course that's my worldview. On the other hand, although I'm probably closer to Carey's political philosophy than Gibson, I usually can't stand much of her work. I grew up a military brat, served in the military, and many family members have had long service careers, so that at least partial rationale for my worldview.
And in regards to Dedications and Acknowledgements, I quickly glance at their message; and then just focusing on the actual work itself.
I don't recall the exact title, but it dealt with a mother and child dealing with the death of her husband and his father with a tie into Star Trek as a television show.
To some degree I see the view of the future federation as being made up of "perfect" individuals somewhat unrealistic, its why I like DS9 over TNG. I am generally a pessimist and believe the future will get much worse. Of course that's my worldview. On the other hand, although I'm probably closer to Carey's political philosophy than Gibson, I usually can't stand much of her work. I grew up a military brat, served in the military, and many family members have had long service careers, so that at least partial rationale for my worldview.
And in regards to Dedications and Acknowledgements, I quickly glance at their message; and then just focusing on the actual work itself.
Similar threads
