Vanguard controversy

[foravalon]

TheLonelySquire said:

foravalon said:
well, they're not really that controversial, one poster took an awkward exception to the smallest aspect of one of the books, and a much larger percentage of the posters took exception that person's condemnation of said tiny aspect. It's really much ado about nothing for what originally amounts to a one line remark from a single trek fan from an ideological niche contrary to our norm. But hey, ridiculous as some of us may see it, IDIC right?

What is the idealogical niche contrary to the norm that you are speaking of, exactly?

Hey sorry it took so long to get back to you, I've been away.

It appears you're already mis-quoting the Apostle Paul but I'd like to point out that you are mis-quoting me as well.

I didn't refer to you as "a single trek fan from an ideological niche contrary to the norm."

I made reference to your comments as being from "a single trek fan from an ideological niche contrary to our norm."

Namely, the majority of the Trek fanbase, who I imagine, by their very nature of being a people who embrace a phenomena which celebrates the tenants of fellowship, tolerance and diversity, is a group that by and large shares a similar philosophy. You might say that's contradictory in light of the response you've gotten regarding your chosen viewpoint. But when you consider that that viewpoint is in direct opposition to those goals which define the genre it makes perfect sense. That chosen viewpoint, as stated, is by definition opposed to the goals of fellowship, tolerance, and diversity.

If the curious trait of a being Trek fan opposed to diversity wasn't a slim enough ideological niche, it also appears that you seem to embrace material with depictions of deceit, violence, and murder while condemning an act of love. Which is just bewildering in itself if one were to suppose that you do buy, read, and enjoy, any other trek fiction, or if you enjoyed any other aspects of this book excepting said act of love. If you do read, buy, or enjoy any other Trek fiction, say from the Original Series, one might be further bewildered by the support of any fiction involving James T. Kirk, a man who habitually engages in acts of sexual intercourse outside of wedlock. Why would one choose to condemn one sin in blatant disregard of all of these others? Doesn't that then become a tacit endorsement of all the rest? It's an unusual stance to choose.

So in a nutshell, contrary to the beliefs of our norm, that is more or less exactly the idealogical niche I'm speaking of.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

foravalon said:

TheLonelySquire said:

foravalon said:
well, they're not really that controversial, one poster took an awkward exception to the smallest aspect of one of the books, and a much larger percentage of the posters took exception that person's condemnation of said tiny aspect. It's really much ado about nothing for what originally amounts to a one line remark from a single trek fan from an ideological niche contrary to our norm. But hey, ridiculous as some of us may see it, IDIC right?

What is the idealogical niche contrary to the norm that you are speaking of, exactly?

Hey sorry it took so long to get back to you, I've been away.

It appears you're already mis-quoting the Apostle Paul but I'd like to point out that you are mis-quoting me as well.

I didn't refer to you as "a single trek fan from an ideological niche contrary to the norm."

I made reference to your comments as being from "a single trek fan from an ideological niche contrary to our norm."

Namely, the majority of the Trek fanbase, who I imagine, by their very nature of being a people who embrace a phenomena which celebrates the tenants of fellowship, tolerance and diversity, is a group that by and large shares a similar philosophy. You might say that's contradictory in light of the response you've gotten regarding your chosen viewpoint. But when you consider that that viewpoint is in direct opposition to those goals which define the genre it makes perfect sense. That chosen viewpoint, as stated, is by definition opposed to the goals of fellowship, tolerance, and diversity.

If the curious trait of a being Trek fan opposed to diversity wasn't a slim enough ideological niche, it also appears that you seem to embrace material with depictions of deceit, violence, and murder while condemning an act of love. Which is just bewildering in itself if one were to suppose that you do buy, read, and enjoy, any other trek fiction, or if you enjoyed any other aspects of this book excepting said act of love. If you do read, buy, or enjoy any other Trek fiction, say from the Original Series, one might be further bewildered by the support of any fiction involving James T. Kirk, a man who habitually engages in acts of sexual intercourse outside of wedlock. Why would one choose to condemn one sin in blatant disregard of all of these others? Doesn't that then become a tacit endorsement of all the rest? It's an unusual stance to choose.

So in a nutshell, contrary to the beliefs of our norm, that is more or less exactly the idealogical niche I'm speaking of.

Hi. Thanks for the reply. With regard to the idealogical niche, sorry if I misunderstood you.

Now, you may or may not be correct that I or other conservatives fit the profile for the typical Trek fan, but I think you're using a pretty broad brush to be honest. Especially when it comes to TOS fans.

Yes, diversity and inclusion are important. People should be allowed to live their lives as they choose as long as it doesn't directly harm someone else, especially children. This includes homosexuals. I don't reject homosexuals as people. I disagree with one aspect of their lifestyle.

With regard to embracing the acts of deceit and violence, yet excepting an act of love, I see it much differently. Good versus evil, with good winning in the end. I do not endorse them in any way.

I'm sorry that I don't see homosexual acts as acts of love. I see them as misguided attempts at love, not sanctioned by God. I also find the adultery in the book very distasteful as a married person who cherishes marital values.

In a nutshell, David wrote the books specifically to include homosexual acts. That doesn't jibe with my value system so I simply returned the other two books. Now, if I had known about the Dan Rather parallel beforehand, I never would have brought them in the first place! (sorry Dave!)

Anyway, thanks for your well thought out post. I appreciate it.

 

[JD]

Maestro said:
I am curious to see why you were offended, and if your offense is justified, or if you are misunderstanding. I also want to see if the books are enjoyable.

As long as you don't share his views on the elements we've been disscussing here you will probably enjoy it.

 

[Geoff]

TheLonelySquire said:
In a nutshell, David wrote the books specifically to include homosexual acts.

Must... not... dignify... such... idiocy... with... a... response... AAAAUUGGGHHHH!!!

 

[JD]

TheLonelySquire said:


In a nutshell, David wrote the books specifically to include homosexual acts. That doesn't jibe with my value system so I simply returned the other two books. Now, if I had known about the Dan Rather parallel beforehand, I never would have brought them in the first place! (sorry Dave!)

Anyway, thanks for your well thought out post. I appreciate it.

I'm sorry, but I seriously doubt that that was the whole reason that David wrote the book. He might have decided to include that as one element of the T'Pol and Anna's characters, but I have a very hard time believing that the whole point of Vanguard is to introduce them. In fact they aren't even the first gay characters in Trek books.

Sorry, bout the 2x post, I didn't realize there was a 7th page when I responded to the other post.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Geoff said:

TheLonelySquire said:
In a nutshell, David wrote the books specifically to include homosexual acts.

Must... not... dignify... such... idiocy... with... a... response... AAAAUUGGGHHHH!!!

Geoff,

See, it's a response like this that stops the idea exchange process in it's tracks. The statement you quoted does not deserve such a response. I'm sorry you felt otherwise.

 

[David cgc]

You said an entire novel of tens of thousands of words was written "specifically to include" about a page to a page in a half of girl-on-girl naughtiness.

 

[JD]

I'm sorry, but you can't make a statement like that and then not expect to piss people off.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

David cgc said:
You said an entire novel of tens of thousands of words was written "specifically to include" about a page to a page in a half of girl-on-girl naughtiness.

Then perhaps I should have wrote "specifically included". If he misunderstood or if I misspoke, I apologize.

 

[David Mack]

I wrote Vanguard to introduce a series that would present a darker, morally complex interpretation of the TOS era, while also serving as a vehicle for exploring epic-feeling SF adventures and personal dramas. I chose to include characters who are a mix of noble and ignoble traits, quirks, and motivations.

I did not write it specifically to create a venue for homosexual acts; they simply are part -- and a small part, at that -- of its larger tableau. And while the Dan Rather parallel underpins the core engine of the narrative in Harbinger, neither does it represent my sole intention in creating the series.

The overall theme of Vanguard, as it has developed over the first few books, appears to be about the struggle to balance personal morality and professional duty/responsibility, and the sacrifices that are made and the consequences that are suffered when those two aspects of characters' lives come into opposition.

Finally, while I am trying to remain understanding and accepting of everyone's right to disagree and voice their opinions, I take vehement exception to TheLonelySquire's presumption that he has some authority to state why I wrote (or have done) anything, ever. I won't bother trying to disabuse anyone of their opinion about something I've written, but I won't stand by and let them put words in my mouth to justify their dribble.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

David Mack said:
I wrote Vanguard to introduce a series that would present a darker, morally complex interpretation of the TOS era, while also serving as a vehicle for exploring epic-feeling SF adventures and personal dramas. I chose to include characters who are a mix of noble and ignoble traits, quirks, and motivations.

I did not write it specifically to create a venue for homosexual acts; they simply are part -- and a small part, at that -- of its larger tableau. And while the Dan Rather parallel underpins the core engine of the narrative, neither does it represent my sole intention in creating the series.

The overall theme of Vanguard, as if has developed over the first few books, appears to be about the struggle to balance personal morality and professional duty/responsibility, and the sacrifices that are made and the consequences that are suffered when those two aspects of characters' lives come into opposition.

Finally, while I am trying to remain understanding and accepting of everyone's right to disagree and voice their opinions, I take vehement exception to TheLonelySquire's presumption that he has some authority to state why I wrote (or have done) anything, ever. I won't bother trying to disabuse anyone of their opinion about something I've written, but I won't stand by and let them put words in my mouth to justify their dribble.

David,

My point is that you intentionally included it in your novels. I didn't mean to say that was why you wrote them in the first place. Is this not the case?

No need to ge testy. It's just a book.

 

[David Mack]

TheLonelySquire said:
My point is that you intentionally included it in your novels.

As opposed to what? Having it appear in the printed novel by accident? Yes, I made considered decisions and chose to include an adulterer and a lesbian in my principal group of characters because I felt it worked for the long-term story arcs they were embarking upon. Just as I also included an unrepentant drunkard, a hotheaded idealist, and many other individuals of varying temperaments.

No need to ge testy. It's just a book.

No need to get self-righteous and patronizing, either.

 

[Therin of Andor]

TheLonelySquire said:
It's just a book.

To you it's "just a book". One you elected to return for a refund.

To David Mack, I imagine it was a very large part of his life for many months of drafting, writing, editing and galley proofing.

And to the rest of us, it was thoroughly enjoyable entertainment, which also made us think a little about life, the universe and everything - for which we gladly handed over our $$$$ (a tiny slice of which made it to David's bank account so he could afford to eat and write sequels).

 

[TheLonelySquire]

David Mack said:

TheLonelySquire said:
My point is that you intentionally included it in your novels.

As opposed to what? Having it appear in the printed novel by accident? Yes, I made considered decisions and chose to include an adulterer and a lesbian in my principal group of characters because I felt it worked for the long-term story arcs they were embarking upon. Just as I also included an unrepentant drunkard, a hotheaded idealist, and many other individuals of varying temperaments.

No need to ge testy. It's just a book.

No need to get self-righteous and patronizing, either.

That's not my intention David. Honestly. The fact is when a topic such as this is started it leads to strong opinions.

It works for some and not for others. Enough said.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Therin of Andor said:

TheLonelySquire said:
It's just a book.

To you it's "just a book". One you elected to return for a refund.

To David Mack, I imagine it was a very large part of his life for many months of drafting, writing, editing and galley proofing.

And to the rest of us, it was thoroughly enjoyable entertainment, which also made us think a little about life, the universe and everything - for which we gladly handed over our $$$$ (a tiny slice of which made it to David's bank account so he could afford to eat and write sequels).

Therin,

Because it's just a book doesn't take away the time and effort David invested in writing it. I recognize that. I also recognize his writing talents.

We can agree on that I am sure.

 

[Therin of Andor]

TheLonelySquire said:
We can agree on that I am sure.

Your earlier comment "It's just a book" seemed extremely dismissive. Hence my clarification.

 

[Maestro]

I think the question is: Did it serve a purpose to the larger story and development of the characters, or was the passage in question there just to tittilate.

If Mack wrote that passage so that he and we could just get our jollies off in reading it, then it really shouldn't be there.

If he wrote it to show a flawed character's journey, then it's fine.

TLS, I'm wondering what kind of characters you enjoy reading about, and why you're stuck on this issue. Do you have a problem with violence? Killing? What about disrespectful teenagers? Female leaders?

What makes you draw the line at homosexuality? And why does your understanding of God's law for man apply to other races?

 

[William Leisner]

Maestro said:
If Mack wrote that passage so that he and we could just get our jollies off in reading it, then it really shouldn't be there.

If he wrote it to show a flawed character's journey, then it's fine.

What possible effing difference could it make to you, the reader, what was in David's mind as he wrote any particular part of his book? And who the hell are you to declare what is "fine" and what "shouldn't be there"?

 

[Maestro]

First off, I'm a consumer, so I get some say. Second of all, I'm a participant in this debate, so I also get some say. What's your problem that you need to chew my ass over this? Hunh?

I'm trying to understand TLS's objection and maybe, just maybe, try to help him see whether or not his objection is warrented.

 

[Trent Roman]

Maestro said:
I think the question is: Did it serve a purpose to the larger story and development of the characters, or was the passage in question there just to tittilate. If Mack wrote that passage so that he and we could just get our jollies off in reading it, then it really shouldn't be there.

It established that two characters were in a relationship by showing rather than telling, always a good authorial tactic, and demonstrated the, shall we say, 'particular passion' which animates that relationship. But if one reads the actual book, one would see how entirely blown out of proportion this manufactured controversy really is. It's a few paragraphs of lesbian foreplay... hell, prelude to foreplay. And of a very aggressive kind, too, which frankly isn't my thing and doesn't particularly titilate (not, mind you, that I'd have any objection if it did).

Maestro said:
I'm trying to understand TLS's objection and maybe, just maybe, try to help him see whether or not his objection is warrented.

It obviously isn't to any sound-minded individual, but why try? Lonely has established that his objection stems from his religious beliefs, and you can't reason with what is, at origin, irrational (or at least, arational). To achieve the same effect of the attempt, it would be more expendient to simply dash one's head against a brick wall (like so: ).

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman