TrekLit politics

[Nerys Ghemor]

I can't understand how anyone can read a David Mack book and see only a simplistic, black-and-white moral parable. His books are full of unnerving, ambiguous situations, stories where the heroes have to make uneasy moral compromises and questionable choices, stories where the nominal antagonists can be sympathetic and admirable, stories where it's unclear whether anyone has really done the right thing.

I think that happens when a reader believes that Mack crossed the line between it being "unclear whether anyone has really done the right thing" and "clear that the characters have done the wrong thing".

Part also has to do with the universe that this is set in.

If this were nuBsG, then to be blunt, the worst behavior would be expected at all times and there would be no pretensions of anything being presented as an ideal. nuBsG as a universe is presented as an apocalyptic, worst-case scenario, a showcase of the absolute worst human behavior. Star Trek, on the other hand, is supposed to be an ideal universe in certain ways...playing out the way that we wish things could be, in many cases.

Given that the majority of the readers, and possibly authors, are indeed left-leaning, then what we have here is indeed a case of wish-fulfillment that is playing to an audience that is considered likely to "enjoy" it.

As for the person who made the comment that there are times when depicting a fictional assassination is a useful plot point, yes--there are indeed cases where it can work. Even alternate-history works can be written, after there is sufficient distance between the person's life and the writing of the work in question (we have, for instance, sufficient distance from the lives of the leaders of World War II to do this). But NOT when it is an intentional, deliberate parallel to a living person and (at the time the book was written) a current office-holder. That is inexcusable, because it constitutes gloating about the possibility of a currently-living person's violent death. And worse considering that the democratic system thrives on the orderly, non-violent transition of power, and we cannot let violence anywhere near that process, regardless of the person or politics involved. An assassination attempt is a de facto threat to not just that person, but to the peaceful transition of power itself and thus becomes doubly inexcusable when combined with the fact that Zife/Azernal were written as a direct, blatant parallel to Bush/Cheney.

I would NEVER, EVER DARE write such a thing about a thinly-disguised Obama, especially while the man is still in office. That is a line that should never, ever be crossed, even in fiction. A president is to be VOTED out, or in the case of misconduct, impeached and removed from office PROPERLY. NOT assassinated. And that includes when lefties are indulging in such fantasies just as much as it does when people on the right do. It's inexcusable regardless of who does it or takes delight in the possibility.

 

[Janos]

The point being that sometimes it can be a mistake to try to read any sort of political statement into what was meant to be just a rippin' yarn.

I agree with that too. Sometimes there are deliberate political elements by the writers, sometimes I imagine with writers it might just slip in by accident, and in other cases its figment of a reader's imagination.

 

[Thestral]

Star Trek, on the other hand, is supposed to be an ideal universe in certain ways...playing out the way that we wish things could be, in many cases.

Given that the majority of the readers, and possibly authors, are indeed left-leaning, then what we have here is indeed a case of wish-fulfillment that is playing to an audience that is considered likely to "enjoy" it.

First, the "ideal" ship has sailed (and you yourself note it's only "in certain ways"). Second... umm, . Did you miss where Zife was assassinated by Section 31, who have in all 24th Century appearances been depicted as self-righteous villains more concerned with their own power than anything else? And this without the knowledge of Our Heroes - with the exception of one compromised Admiral who feared the same would happen to the new President if she ever found out. The assassination was in no way presented as a positive thing, so how could it be wish-fulfillment?

As for the person who made the comment that there are times when depicting a fictional assassination is a useful plot point, yes--there are indeed cases where it can work. Even alternate-history works can be written, after there is sufficient distance between the person's life and the writing of the work in question (we have, for instance, sufficient distance from the lives of the leaders of World War II to do this). But NOT when it is an intentional, deliberate parallel to a living person and (at the time the book was written) a current office-holder. That is inexcusable, because it constitutes gloating about the possibility of a currently-living person's violent death.

Bolding mine. Writing an assassination - even of a thinly disguised current office-holder - is not necessarily gloating, especially if it's portrayed as an overwhelmingly evil and negative thing. If you're trying to make the point that assassination is an evil, despicable threat on the foundation of peacefully transferring power, then including an assassination would be a powerful tool.

 

[Thrawn]

Given that the majority of the readers, and possibly authors, are indeed left-leaning, then what we have here is indeed a case of wish-fulfillment that is playing to an audience that is considered likely to "enjoy" it.

If anything, it was exactly 100% the opposite of this. If any kind of political statement about Bush was intended, it was more like "hey all you people that wish he was assassinated: here's what that feels like. Not so comfortable with the idea now, are you?"

How many times do people have to say: it was MEANT to be horrible. It was MEANT to be awful. It was MEANT to be profoudly disquieting. I don't think anyone - ANYONE - read the ending (or wrote, or edited it) and thought "hell yeah! Asshole is dead!"

You're assuming the worst of your fellow fans, for no reason I can see.

 

[Christopher]

If this were nuBsG, then to be blunt, the worst behavior would be expected at all times and there would be no pretensions of anything being presented as an ideal. nuBsG as a universe is presented as an apocalyptic, worst-case scenario, a showcase of the absolute worst human behavior. Star Trek, on the other hand, is supposed to be an ideal universe in certain ways...playing out the way that we wish things could be, in many cases.

Yes, and it often illustrates that ideal in contrast to the bad things that are going on in the universe. And sometimes those bad things are perpetrated by members of the Federation: Lt. Stiles being racist against Vulcanoids, Cmdr. Maddox trying to declare Data a piece of property, Adm. Layton trying to stage a military coup, Adm. Cartwright and Adm. Pressman engaged in conspiracies of their own, etc. As Kestral said, Section 31 has never been portrayed as an embodiment of Trek's ideals, but as a compromise of them, an exception to the Federation's usual righteousness, just like all those others. How can you possibly read a story about Section 31 and think they're meant to be the good guys?

Given that the majority of the readers, and possibly authors, are indeed left-leaning, then what we have here is indeed a case of wish-fulfillment that is playing to an audience that is considered likely to "enjoy" it.

Bullshit. That is unadulterated bullshit, and a gross insult. Maybe there are a few fanatical idiots out there who take their political rivalries so seriously that they'd wish for the assassination of a president whose policies they disagreed with, but it is a monstrous, horrible thing for you to accuse the rest of us of thinking in such hideous terms. I may have hated George W. Bush's policies and his politics, I may have considered him a dangerous incompetent who never got legitimately elected in the first place, but I would NEVER wish for the assassination of anyone, ever. Have you forgotten that part of being liberal is being opposed to capital punishment and warmongering? Liberals don't think problems are solved with killing. And for that matter, no remotely decent human being of any political leaning would wish for the death of someone they simply happened to disagree with on political issues. Decent people of any political stripe want to resolve their political disagreements through discussion, through compromise, or at the very least through outvoting the opposition. And it's indecent of you to accuse those you disagree with of being so vile in their attitudes as to see assassination as a desirable fantasy. You should be ashamed of yourself.

But NOT when it is an intentional, deliberate parallel to a living person and (at the time the book was written) a current office-holder. That is inexcusable, because it constitutes gloating about the possibility of a currently-living person's violent death.

Lies. You've been told over and over that this is a lie, and yet you keep repeating it as if repetition could change the facts. Fortunately most of the people in this thread seem to know better.

 

[Dancing Doctor]

And, honestly (despite my having defended Section 31) they (being Section 31) tend to exemplify many of the traits that the neoconservatives and the Bush Administration people had/have:

-The absolute certainty that they are doing the right thing all the time
-The willingness to bend and/or outright break any and all laws in the pursuit of accomplishing their goals
-The willingness and ability to utilize assassination and other questionable techniques (I'm sure rendition and torture are probably/possibly tactics used by Section 31)
-Being answerable (or considering themselves to only be answerable) to themselves
-The support of and for operatives, among other things, outside of the traditional security forces

 

[Janos]

And, honestly (despite my having defended Section 31) they (being Section 31) tend to exemplify many of the traits that the neoconservatives and the Bush Administration people had/have:

-The absolute certainty that they are doing the right thing all the time
-The willingness to bend and/or outright break any and all laws in the pursuit of accomplishing their goals
-The willingness and ability to utilize assassination and other questionable techniques (I'm sure rendition and torture are probably/possibly tactics used by Section 31)
-Being answerable (or considering themselves to only be answerable) to themselves
-The support of and for operatives, among other things, outside of the traditional security forces

I imagine all of the above aplies to the current Obama administration too. In terms of politics, folks need to look past rhetoric (on either side) and look at their actions. All of the above describes Dem and Con admins of the last few decades. I just disagree with the "being answerable to themselves" comment since in politics all politicians are answerable to citizens in elections. And Bush, and Clinton, won two terms.

I would also add truely liberal and conservative minded people are equally frustrated with their "instiutional" political parties. Both parties campaign from the respective lib and con bases, but try to appeal to the swing voters, and compromise and shift to the centre when in office (certainly many of the presidents that lasted 2 terms - even Bush Jr. If you look at the facts particularly in foriegn policy - Obama's practical foreign policy is pretty much the same as Bush's, but his rhetoric is different for sure. Not much daylight between their economic policies either outside of healthcare). Any objective view of the facts, not rhetoric, of both administrations will lead folks to the same conclusion IMHO.

In terms of ST lit though, STAR TREK is a progressive, inclusive vision of the future. It does have other types of views within that universe, and not all characters have the same politics. I'm all for showing different politically minded characters in Trek. Calling ST secular and liberal is a bit misleading since the state of Earth's religions, etc. has been deliberately danced around so that readers of any religious and political persuasion are not alientated by the ST lit. That's why most religious and polarizing political views in ST lit come from stories about aliens.

 

[BillJ]

I don't care if author's put political messages in their stories. They're stories and don't affect how I live my life nor will they change my personal political beliefs.

If you're afraid of a political message in a story, you probably aren't all that firm in your beliefs to begin with. YMMV.

 

[Janos]

I don't care if author's put political messages in their stories. They're stories and don't affect how I live my life nor will they change my personal political beliefs.

If you're afraid of a political message in a story, you probably aren't all that firm in your beliefs to begin with. YMMV.

That's a pretty healthy perspective. Cheers to that.


Subtlety and a pluarlity of perspectives in all kinds of stories is what I prefer. When writers are heavy-handed and one-sided on any topic/subject matter, that's just poor writing. I haven't encountered that kind of heavy-handness in my ST reads (yet).

 

[JD]

I can't understand how anyone can read a David Mack book and see only a simplistic, black-and-white moral parable. His books are full of unnerving, ambiguous situations, stories where the heroes have to make uneasy moral compromises and questionable choices, stories where the nominal antagonists can be sympathetic and admirable, stories where it's unclear whether anyone has really done the right thing.

I think that happens when a reader believes that Mack crossed the line between it being "unclear whether anyone has really done the right thing" and "clear that the characters have done the wrong thing".

Part also has to do with the universe that this is set in.

If this were nuBsG, then to be blunt, the worst behavior would be expected at all times and there would be no pretensions of anything being presented as an ideal. nuBsG as a universe is presented as an apocalyptic, worst-case scenario, a showcase of the absolute worst human behavior. Star Trek, on the other hand, is supposed to be an ideal universe in certain ways...playing out the way that we wish things could be, in many cases.

Given that the majority of the readers, and possibly authors, are indeed left-leaning, then what we have here is indeed a case of wish-fulfillment that is playing to an audience that is considered likely to "enjoy" it.

As for the person who made the comment that there are times when depicting a fictional assassination is a useful plot point, yes--there are indeed cases where it can work. Even alternate-history works can be written, after there is sufficient distance between the person's life and the writing of the work in question (we have, for instance, sufficient distance from the lives of the leaders of World War II to do this). But NOT when it is an intentional, deliberate parallel to a living person and (at the time the book was written) a current office-holder. That is inexcusable, because it constitutes gloating about the possibility of a currently-living person's violent death. And worse considering that the democratic system thrives on the orderly, non-violent transition of power, and we cannot let violence anywhere near that process, regardless of the person or politics involved. An assassination attempt is a de facto threat to not just that person, but to the peaceful transition of power itself and thus becomes doubly inexcusable when combined with the fact that Zife/Azernal were written as a direct, blatant parallel to Bush/Cheney.

I would NEVER, EVER DARE write such a thing about a thinly-disguised Obama, especially while the man is still in office. That is a line that should never, ever be crossed, even in fiction. A president is to be VOTED out, or in the case of misconduct, impeached and removed from office PROPERLY. NOT assassinated. And that includes when lefties are indulging in such fantasies just as much as it does when people on the right do. It's inexcusable regardless of who does it or takes delight in the possibility.

 

[Sci]

...

There is almost nothing reasonable in your entire argument. Where to start?

I can't understand how anyone can read a David Mack book and see only a simplistic, black-and-white moral parable. His books are full of unnerving, ambiguous situations, stories where the heroes have to make uneasy moral compromises and questionable choices, stories where the nominal antagonists can be sympathetic and admirable, stories where it's unclear whether anyone has really done the right thing.

I think that happens when a reader believes that Mack crossed the line between it being "unclear whether anyone has really done the right thing" and "clear that the characters have done the wrong thing".

You get upset when the villains have clearly done the wrong thing? It's not very clear in Star Trek: A Time to Heal when the protagonists (Picard, Troi, etc.) have done the right thing. Those are the characters to whom Christopher was referring. But it is very clear that Section 31, villains, have done the wrong thing by assassinating Zife, and it's never depicted as something the narrative endorses.

If this were nuBsG, then to be blunt, the worst behavior would be expected at all times and there would be no pretensions of anything being presented as an ideal. nuBsG as a universe is presented as an apocalyptic, worst-case scenario, a showcase of the absolute worst human behavior. Star Trek, on the other hand, is supposed to be an ideal universe in certain ways...playing out the way that we wish things could be, in many cases.

No. Star Trek is supposed to be a better universe, not an ideal one. It's a narrative setting that allows for a wide variety of settings and themes -- sometimes idealistic, and sometimes quite dark. It is the universe of both "The Devil in the Dark" and of "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges," and to claim that someone writing a Star Trek story has some sort of obligation to refrain from depicting villainous characters doing bad things is just silly.

Given that the majority of the readers, and possibly authors, are indeed left-leaning, then what we have here is indeed a case of wish-fulfillment that is playing to an audience that is considered likely to "enjoy" it.

Again, bullshit. If that were the case, then that chapter would not have ended with the phrase "the murderous hands of Section 31." That's not wish-fulfillment, that's condemnation from the narrative itself.

And your entire thesis here -- that liberal Trek fans will enjoy a story where a Bush substitute gets murdered -- is fallacious. And by fallacious, I am I am personally insulted you would make that assumption.

I am a Liberal. I am a Progressive. I support same-sex marriage, I want to tax the rich, I think the banks that caused the Great Recession should be nationalized, I think the Iraq War was a crime against humanity, I think George W. Bush is a war criminal, I support tougher environmental standards, I support the right to unionize as sacrosanct, and I think it's time to declare victory and leave Afghanistan. I've been called a Socialist.

I say that not to argue the merits of my beliefs, but to establish my bona fides: I am very much a left-leaning Star Trek fan who enjoyed seeing a Trek novel comment on the Bush Administration and the Iraq War.

And I did not enjoy the idea of someone assassinating the President.

It was a clear example of someone taking their anger at a President too far, of someone becoming just as bad as him or worse, and I did not experience any sort of wish fulfillment.

You know what would have been wish fulfillment for me? The Federation Council passing articles of impeachment against Min Zife and him being indicted by a Federation Grand Jury. That would have been liberal wish fulfillment, because that's what we liberals wanted to see happen to George W. Bush. And that didn't happen in the novel.

That was not liberal wish fulfillment, that was a liberal horror scenario. And a conservative horror scenario. And a moderate horror scen-- Really, it was just a horror scenario all around.

As for the person who made the comment that there are times when depicting a fictional assassination is a useful plot point, yes--there are indeed cases where it can work. Even alternate-history works can be written, after there is sufficient distance between the person's life and the writing of the work in question (we have, for instance, sufficient distance from the lives of the leaders of World War II to do this). But NOT when it is an intentional, deliberate parallel to a living person and (at the time the book was written) a current office-holder. That is inexcusable, because it constitutes gloating about the possibility of a currently-living person's violent death.

Absolute, complete and utter, rank, pure, 100% grade-A bullshit.

You may not enjoy a story in which a fictionalized version of a real office holder is assassinated, you may reasonably argue that it's not in good taste because of the negative feelings it stirs up, but that does not mean that such a depiction constitutes gloating about the possibility of a living person's violent death. A creator may have any number of reasons for making such a depiction, including condemning acts of violence!

For you to assume that any depiction of an assassination is inherently endorsing or "gloating" about such a possibility is just absurd and irrational. In the musical Assassins, for instance, even when an assassination or attempted assassination is depicted in an ironic or somewhat flippant manner, the intent is not to be flippant about the assassination itself, but rather to use depictions of acts of political violence to examine the horrors of American society. In the film Death of a President (2006), the intent was not to gloat about the possibility of then-President Bush's assassination, but to explore what one scenario of how America would respond might say about how America works.

You need to learn to distinguish between a press release making a political argument and a novel.

 

[Christopher]

I say that not to argue the merits of my beliefs, but to establish my bona fides: I am very much a left-leaning Star Trek fan who enjoyed seeing a Trek novel comment on the Bush Administration and the Iraq War.

And I did not enjoy the idea of someone assassinating the President.

It was a clear example of someone taking their anger at a President too far, of someone becoming just as bad as him or worse, and I did not experience any sort of wish fulfillment.

You know what would have been wish fulfillment for me? The Federation Council passing articles of impeachment against Min Zife and him being indicted by a Federation Grand Jury. That would have been liberal wish fulfillment, because that's what we liberals wanted to see happen to George W. Bush. And that didn't happen in the novel.

That was not liberal wish fulfillment, that was a liberal horror scenario. And a conservative horror scenario. And a moderate horror scen-- Really, it was just a horror scenario all around.

Exactly. Absolutely right. I feel the same way about Bush as you do, but -- for all that I praised Dave earlier -- I was actually angry at him when I first read that assassination scene, because I hated seeing my beloved Federation tarnished by something so hideously wrong as a political assassination. And I'd have felt the same way if anyone had actually assassinated or attempted to assassinate Bush. To have something so obscene done in the name of my own side would've felt like a corruption, a betrayal, an attack on my own honor. It's the exact opposite of wish fulfillment. Horror is absolutely right.

 

[Thestral]

To be fair, there was a lot of angry, irrational and threatening talk from left-leaning people during President Bush's term, and I know I heard plenty of jokes about assassination. Sure it never went beyond angry internet/drunken talk, but it was there.

So I think depicting it in a horrible light was the right move because, as Thrawn said

"If any kind of political statement about Bush was intended, it was more like "hey all you people that wish he was assassinated: here's what that feels like. Not so comfortable with the idea now, are you?""

 

[Christopher]

^Well, there are always going to be a few extremists and idiots who make so much noise that they seem more numerous or dominant than they are. The important thing is to understand that they don't represent the majority.

 

[ATimson]

You get upset when the villains have clearly done the wrong thing? It's not very clear in Star Trek: A Time to Heal when the protagonists (Picard, Troi, etc.) have done the right thing. Those are the characters to whom Christopher was referring. But it is very clear that Section 31, villains, have done the wrong thing by assassinating Zife, and it's never depicted as something the narrative endorses.

Sci, I couldn't tell from your quoting whether you meant to respond to a statement of Nerys's here, or mine that she quoted. Going on the assumption that it was the latter...

I was actually alluding to Harbinger, not A Time to Kill/Heal. In which case, I think it is the protagonists who are clearly in the wrong (Reyes and T'Prynn), and yet something the narrative endorses.

 

[Thrawn]

^ Maybe it seemed that way in that book, but in later Vanguard entries, events transpire that would make both of them agree with you that they were in the wrong. And the narrative much more firmly "endorses" said realizations and comeuppance.

 

[David Mack]

I was actually alluding to Harbinger, not A Time to Kill/Heal. In which case, I think it is the protagonists who are clearly in the wrong (Reyes and T'Prynn), and yet something the narrative endorses.

I think you're mistaking depiction for endorsement. Just because a character believes his or her actions to be justified does not mean that he or she is right. And because the narrative in any given scene is filtered through a particular character's perspective, his or her feelings about a situation will color the exposition. Again, do not mistake details interpreted from one point of view for objective statements of fact.

Some of the underlying themes of the Vanguard saga are the struggle to find a balance between civil liberties and national defense, and the possibility that flawed people can repent their wrongful actions and seek redemption (though not necessarily successfully). Naturally, the exploration of such ideas leads one into some very morally ambiguous territory.

 

[KRAD]

One minor point -- Nan Bacco is not based on my grandmother. She is based in part on my great-grandmother, Grazia Silverio DeBacco, who came to this country from Italy as a girl in the early 20th century, moved to rural western Pennsylvania, and proceeded to have ten kids and raise them spectacularly well in the height of the Depression. She died in 2003 at the ripe old age of 98, in her sleep, surrounded by all ten kids.

President Bacco is also based, in part, on former Texas governor Ann Richardson, on the late political writer Molly Ivins, and yes, in part, on both Jed Bartlet and Andrew Shepherd, fictional presidents created by Aaron Sorkin.

 

[Thestral]

^Well, there are always going to be a few extremists and idiots who make so much noise that they seem more numerous or dominant than they are. The important thing is to understand that they don't represent the majority.

Of course, and I wouldn't try to say otherwise. I'm just saying that in fairness, those extremist sentiments did (do?) exist.

 

[Lonemagpie]

To be fair, there was a lot of angry, irrational and threatening talk from left-leaning people during President Bush's term, and I know I heard plenty of jokes about assassination. Sure it never went beyond angry internet/drunken talk, but it was there.

So I think depicting it in a horrible light was the right move because, as Thrawn said

"If any kind of political statement about Bush was intended, it was more like "hey all you people that wish he was assassinated: here's what that feels like. Not so comfortable with the idea now, are you?""

Seems to me that Presidential assassination stories have been a staple of thrillers for *decades* - I don't see the fuss.