Discussion in 'Trek Literature' started by Dayton3, Aug 20, 2008.
I know people keep saying this, but man are you in the wrong fandom.
Not really, no. Biology is not sexual education. It addresses none of the practical and social issues. I still think, by definition, information-based approaches cannot be combined with 'abstinence-only' programs; as a form of (religious) absolutism, it, by definition, denies all other possibilities.
Since god hates fags, intensely homosocial environments are the next best thing.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
First off for those making some inferences, I am not homosexual. Never was.
But I like the concept of all male teams involved in a common pursuit. Like football teams for example or the U.S. military before large numbers of women were allowed to join (my dad was a soldier back in that era).
All male organizations tend to function better than ones that mix males and females. Females are a major distraction and a source of tension for males. Males are far, far easier to control and command where not females are present.
And I like organizations will little emphasis on individualism but emphasize common striving for a goal.
One reason that I dislike emphasis on "character" in Star Trek and prefer a focus on "the plot" or "the mission".
Neither was Larry Craig.
I just gotta say that I'm soooooo glad that you have nothing to do with how the novels are written because then they really would all be crap!
A little thought experiment:
Throw Jews in there, too. Or gay people. Or aliens. No matter how you slice it, it's total bullshit, and offensive in the extreme.
Murder, child molestation and rape are the three lowest forms of human behavior. Bigotry is the fourth.
Dude, you seriously don't get it do you? I know people say Star Trek is different things to different people or whatever, but I think most Star Trek fans will agree that two of the most important elements to great Star Trek are the characters and it's diversity. And if Trek ever got rid of either of those things I think I would stop watching and/or reading it.
No, just misogynistic.
Where are you posting from, 1953?
Yet one more reason why it's inexplicable that you watch Star Trek at all.
i'd like to see some factual evidence to back up those claims...
fun fact #937133789
A few years back, the Royal Marines decided to allow a couple of women volenteers to try out for selection. They came extremely close to passing, but (so rumour has it) they weren't allowed to finish. Why? because they were close to passing and if they did, entitling them to wear the RM green beret, then the Marines and the MOD would have to let women become Marines, or at least front-line infantry soldiers.
Dayton3, I still don't understand why you persist with ST. It seems to offer so much that you do not enjoy.
Perhaps because manly men who definitely aren't gay relish exposing themselves to undesirable experiences so they can prove how tough and manly and definitely not gay they are? Maybe watching and reading Star Trek is Dayton3's equivalent of a gruelling endurance trial. Instead of Klingon painstiks, he subjects himself to the ordeal of stories that explore character and emotion and have actual girls in them and stuff.
How the hell did you ever get into Trek fandom in the first place? It seems clear you want a series set 300 years in the past rather than the future. (Or the present, for that matter.)
Do you like gladiator movies?
^Not particularly though Spartacus was good.
I don't get the hostility here.
Everyone has different reasons for enjoying Star Trek. Why try to claim that my reasons are any more or less appropriate than anyone else's?
It seems among some, that Star Treks revered diversity and tolerance only run in one direction...
But I think the thing that none of us can understand - Star Trek has never featured all male crews, it's never been a feature of the show, it's never going to be a feature of the show or the books.
But we don't live in the Star Trek universe, we live in the real one, where we have to try and reconcile your rather odd statements with what the rest of us understand the show to be about. You seem to want a version of the show that never existed and is entirely against ever single principle and idea ever seen on screen.
You might as well be asking why Sesame Street doesn't promote the ideals of National socialism for the sense it would make to the rest of us.
EDIT: This was obvious in response to Dayton3, and not you Joe. You just posted quicker than I did.
Because your "reasons" go completely against the whole point of the Star Trek franchise. The whole point of the franchise was that it was about a better future in which bigotry, and hate no longer existed (at least originally), and also about diverse group of well developed characters going out and exploring the universe and making new friends (hopefully). It was not, and was never intended to be a purely action based series.
^Who can say what Star Trek will be in the future?
Would anyone 30 years ago have figured that a number of Trek novels would feature large scale space warfare? Not me.
What might the future bring? What if the next David Drake or David Weber started writing Trek novels that were allowed to be published and they moved Star Trek to a highly militaristic viewpoint with a very "old fashioned" type of society evolving on Earth and in the Federation?
Say these novels became very popular selling in the millions of copies?
Inevitably, such a different vision of Star Trek would come to the fore as those types of novels would be demanded more and more.
Don't ever claim "but it isn't Star Trek".
Todays Star Trek "isn't Star Trek" when looked at from the Original Series or even the early ST:TNG perspective.
I would say that TOS, and even TNG and Voyager, usually concentrated on the planet-of-the-week plot in lieu of stories stemming from their characters. So I can see where he gets his preference for "a focus on 'the plot' or 'the mission'."
Damned if I can tell where he gets the rest of it.
Yeah, it has changed, but it's baisic principles, and goals have not.
No-one's claiming that Star Trek hasn't changed, or that it isn't varied.
Look at Arena, Sub Rosa, In the Pale Moonlight, Tsunkatse and Carpenter Street - each one of those episodes is tonally and thematically different to the next.
What we're saying is that the fundamental concepts on which all incarnations of Star Trek are based - a better future, acceptance of life in all its forms, etc. - are in direct opposition to some of your own views.
I'm all for a better future.
I just think it would be better portrayed with an all male cast.
Note, when I say "all male cast" I'm referring to an "all male MAIN cast".
Female guest stars and minor characters are fine.
Remember, the early years of "Law & Order" (which are considered quite good) featured an all male main cast.
Certain movies such as the original "The Longest Yard" had all male main casts (there were only two women with speaking roles at all in The Longest Yard).
It seemed to do quite well.
Separate names with a comma.