What pet peeves do you have about trek books?

[Sci]

Give buddy a break, he got the whole speech already. I also think the tone of your last sentence there is uncalled for.

How so? It's not that hard to read Frontier's post as saying that Star Trek should be full of people with his ethnic background, and that anyone else is there just to serve some political/philosophical point about diversity. That may not be what he meant, but he hasn't posted any follow-ups to the responses to his post, so who knows?

Look, I don't know who Frontier is...maybe he/she's one of those who posts about too many gay people or Titan's crew being too diverse...if he/she does that then I withdraw my defense.
Until then it just seems like some people were being too harsh and trying to beat others with their knwoledge on common surnames around the world.

It's not about knowing trivia like what the most common name on Earth is. It's about a fundamental mindset -- Frontier implicitly argued that there's something more "normal" about Anglo-Saxon names, but there isn't. Calling Anglo-Saxon names more "normal" or "common" privileges Anglo-Saxon culture above other cultures; it implies that Anglo-Saxon culture is somehow the "default" culture for Humans, the "standard" from which other cultures deviate. But Anglo-Saxon culture is not more "normal" or "standard" and other cultures do not "deviate" from Anglo-Saxon culture; it's just another culture, no more or less valid than any other, and its names are no more normal than any other's.

Frontier may not have in any way intended to be, but when he said that there was something more "common" or "simple" about Anglo-Saxon names, he was being profoundly ethnocentric, and it's not at all hard to see where someone from another culture might be deeply insulted by the implication that his/her name isn't "common" or "simple," is somehow less normal.

 

[Christopher]

^Okay, this is getting too heated. Speaking for myself, I wasn't responding to Frontier's statement as an insult or ideological position, but simply as an objectively incorrect statement. Names which are common in the United States cannot be said to be equally common on a global scale; that's a simple matter of numerical fact. And Star Trek is meant to represent a globally inclusive humanity; therefore, it is logical that its character names should be drawn from societies around the world rather than just from European culture. The overwhelming abundance of European names on the show itself is therefore an uncorrected error. I take Frontier's statement that using a greater diversity of names in the books feels incongruous relative to the show as nothing more than that; indeed it does make the books feel different from the show. But it's done in the interest of trying to compensate for the show's oversight and make the universe as a whole feel more balanced and plausible. So it's a justified change, in the same way that the greater abundance of nonhumanoids in the books is a justified change.

 

[Nardpuncher]

How so? It's not that hard to read Frontier's post as saying that Star Trek should be full of people with his ethnic background, and that anyone else is there just to serve some political/philosophical point about diversity. That may not be what he meant, but he hasn't posted any follow-ups to the responses to his post, so who knows?

Look, I don't know who Frontier is...maybe he/she's one of those who posts about too many gay people or Titan's crew being too diverse...if he/she does that then I withdraw my defense.
Until then it just seems like some people were being too harsh and trying to beat others with their knwoledge on common surnames around the world.

It's not about knowing trivia like what the most common name on Earth is. It's about a fundamental mindset -- Frontier implicitly argued that there's something more "normal" about Anglo-Saxon names, but there isn't. Calling Anglo-Saxon names more "normal" or "common" privileges Anglo-Saxon culture above other cultures; it implies that Anglo-Saxon culture is somehow the "default" culture for Humans, the "standard" from which other cultures deviate. But Anglo-Saxon culture is not more "normal" or "standard" and other cultures do not "deviate" from Anglo-Saxon culture; it's just another culture, no more or less valid than any other, and its names are no more normal than any other's.

Frontier may not have in any way intended to be, but when he said that there was something more "common" or "simple" about Anglo-Saxon names, he was being profoundly ethnocentric, and it's not at all hard to see where someone from another culture might be deeply insulted by the implication that his/her name isn't "common" or "simple," is somehow less normal.

I "see" what you're "saying" I just didn't "want" to paint an "unfair" "picture" of the guy. Some "stuff" that was said "sounded" a little too much like "somebody" went to college too hard.

 

[Sci]

Look, I don't know who Frontier is...maybe he/she's one of those who posts about too many gay people or Titan's crew being too diverse...if he/she does that then I withdraw my defense.
Until then it just seems like some people were being too harsh and trying to beat others with their knwoledge on common surnames around the world.

It's not about knowing trivia like what the most common name on Earth is. It's about a fundamental mindset -- Frontier implicitly argued that there's something more "normal" about Anglo-Saxon names, but there isn't. Calling Anglo-Saxon names more "normal" or "common" privileges Anglo-Saxon culture above other cultures; it implies that Anglo-Saxon culture is somehow the "default" culture for Humans, the "standard" from which other cultures deviate. But Anglo-Saxon culture is not more "normal" or "standard" and other cultures do not "deviate" from Anglo-Saxon culture; it's just another culture, no more or less valid than any other, and its names are no more normal than any other's.

Frontier may not have in any way intended to be, but when he said that there was something more "common" or "simple" about Anglo-Saxon names, he was being profoundly ethnocentric, and it's not at all hard to see where someone from another culture might be deeply insulted by the implication that his/her name isn't "common" or "simple," is somehow less normal.

I "see" what you're "saying" I just didn't "want" to paint an "unfair" "picture" of the guy. Some "stuff" that was said "sounded" a little too much like "somebody" went to college too hard.

Being fully aware of the meaning of a statement does not mean that one "went too college too hard."

What does that even mean, anyway? That one is too educated?

 

[Steve Roby]

Going a little farther off on a tangent for a minute, to address the notion of "simple" names in a different way... my name is Steven Roby. Looks pretty simple to me. My ancestry is mostly British and French, with a handful of other things tossed in the mix over the generations. Steven is a common and simple name in English, but people often spell it Stephen. That's not my name. That's part of the reason I tend to go by Steve most of the time. No one ever spells that as Stephe.

As for Roby -- it's only four letters long, there are a number of people with that surname in Britain, France, Canada, and the USA, it looks just like Toby or Moby. But it completely, utterly stumps people all the time. People sometimes assume my first name is Robbie. Or they stare at it unsure how to pronounce it. Or don't look close enough to see the "o" in there and say ruby or rhyme it with maybe. And if they hear my name and have to spell it... Robey? Robi? Robie? Rouby? Raby? Robby? This happens routinely.

Simple, shmimple. There's no name that's simple for everyone.

 

[Christopher]

^Indeed. The Steven/Stephen thing gets me all the time. I have the damnedest time keeping track of which spelling to use for which person. I can only remember it in rare cases where I've seen the name very often, like Steven Spielberg. I'm not even sure about Stephen King, though that looks right. (Checks spine of On Writing -- yep, that's right. Maybe the fact that that's the only King book I've ever read is why I have trouble with the spelling.)

The ironic thing is, I'm working on a spec novel whose main character is named Stephen, and even there I have trouble remembering the spelling.

 

[Therin of Andor]

There was one book (My Brother's Keeper) where they tried to explain why Kirk's gravestone had 'James R. Kirk' on it in 'Where No Man has Gone Before'. However the explanation, such as it was, just said 'it was an old joke between Kirk and Mitchell'. No explanation of the joke, just a crappy cover-up.

You recall incorrectly. The joke was explained, and it became a running gag between the two characters, where they made up new words the "R" could stand for, in both of their names, every time they did the gag.

My Dad and uncle used to play a similar running gag, relating to a hat (a fez, actually), and they played out that gag from their late teens right up till my uncle's passing when he was in his 60s.

 

[Sci]

I'm not even sure about Stephen King, though that looks right. (Checks spine of On Writing -- yep, that's right. Maybe the fact that that's the only King book I've ever read is why I have trouble with the spelling.)

OOoooooooh. You should give at least two of his books a try one day: It and The Stand.

 

[Nardpuncher]

It's not about knowing trivia like what the most common name on Earth is. It's about a fundamental mindset -- Frontier implicitly argued that there's something more "normal" about Anglo-Saxon names, but there isn't. Calling Anglo-Saxon names more "normal" or "common" privileges Anglo-Saxon culture above other cultures; it implies that Anglo-Saxon culture is somehow the "default" culture for Humans, the "standard" from which other cultures deviate. But Anglo-Saxon culture is not more "normal" or "standard" and other cultures do not "deviate" from Anglo-Saxon culture; it's just another culture, no more or less valid than any other, and its names are no more normal than any other's.

Frontier may not have in any way intended to be, but when he said that there was something more "common" or "simple" about Anglo-Saxon names, he was being profoundly ethnocentric, and it's not at all hard to see where someone from another culture might be deeply insulted by the implication that his/her name isn't "common" or "simple," is somehow less normal.

I "see" what you're "saying" I just didn't "want" to paint an "unfair" "picture" of the guy. Some "stuff" that was said "sounded" a little too much like "somebody" went to college too hard.

Being fully aware of the meaning of a statement does not mean that one "went too college too hard."

What does that even mean, anyway? That one is too educated?

Just using a word like ethnocentric sounds like we're all still in some college coffee house trying to make sure we look more knowledgeable and understanding than each other. Forgive me, I'm 36 and put all that stuff behind me.
I was also making light of your abundant usage of scare quotes.

 

[Sci]

I "see" what you're "saying" I just didn't "want" to paint an "unfair" "picture" of the guy. Some "stuff" that was said "sounded" a little too much like "somebody" went to college too hard.

Being fully aware of the meaning of a statement does not mean that one "went too college too hard."

What does that even mean, anyway? That one is too educated?

Just using a word like ethnocentric sounds like we're all still in some college coffee house trying to make sure we look more knowledgeable and understanding than each other. Forgive me, I'm 36 and put all that stuff behind me.

Ethnocentrism is a basic sociological concept, and there is nothing mature about ignoring the effects of ethnocentrism on our culture's thinking.

 

[donners22]

Just using a word like ethnocentric sounds like we're all still in some college coffee house trying to make sure we look more knowledgeable and understanding than each other. Forgive me, I'm 36 and put all that stuff behind me.
I was also making light of your abundant usage of scare quotes.

Much of this discussion reminds me of being on a bus with a group of Arts students. At least this thread doesn't come with the smell that many of them did... I think the point has been made sufficiently already, and the poster is well aware of the error of his ways.


In any event, ony of my major peeves with Trek books is particularly graphic violence, often involving knives. PAD is my favourite Trek author, but I find some parts of his books a bit annoying in that sense, and it seems to be increasingly common. I can expect a bit of that in Forgotten Realms; less so in Trek.

I've seen somebody have their throat slit IRL. I really don't need some author's attempt to describe it.

 

[Nardpuncher]

Being fully aware of the meaning of a statement does not mean that one "went too college too hard."

What does that even mean, anyway? That one is too educated?

Just using a word like ethnocentric sounds like we're all still in some college coffee house trying to make sure we look more knowledgeable and understanding than each other. Forgive me, I'm 36 and put all that stuff behind me.

Ethnocentrism is a basic sociological concept, and there is nothing mature about ignoring the effects of ethnocentrism on our culture's thinking.

How about on any culture's thinking. It would also be ethnocentric to think all of this can only happen in America. I'm a Canadian living in Taiwan, by the way...and if that matters.

 

[Greg Cox]

Just using a word like ethnocentric sounds like we're all still in some college coffee house trying to make sure we look more knowledgeable and understanding than each other. Forgive me, I'm 36 and put all that stuff behind me.
I was also making light of your abundant usage of scare quotes.

Gotta disagree there. "Ethnocentric" doesn't strike me as a particularly high-falutin' or pretentious word. It's a basic term of anthropology. And it perfectly describes what the poster was trying to convey. What's wrong with using the precise word that conveys your meaning? That's why we have lots of words!

And, is it just me, or is it kind of odd to object to big, college-level words on a bulletin board where posters routinely argue about "quantum filaments" and "alternate space-time continuums"?

Unless you're implying that only woolly-headed, ivory tower intellectuals worry about ethnocentrism at all . . . .

 

[bbailey861]

I'm not even sure about Stephen King, though that looks right. (Checks spine of On Writing -- yep, that's right. Maybe the fact that that's the only King book I've ever read is why I have trouble with the spelling.)

OOoooooooh. You should give at least two of his books a try one day: It and The Stand.

Yes, indeed. If no other Stephen King book is read, do read The Stand. Then, Swan Song by Robert McCammon, if you haven't done so already.

Now, for pet peeves, totally unrelated to the "name debate", I still wish all the books were numbered. I know I've said it before, but I'm Army....and somewhat anal in that regard. Can't help it, I like numbers.

 

[Elias Vaughn]

Ever notice how Peter David gives all his favorite characters the ability to walk through crowded rooms completely unnoticed no matter how well-known they are? Si Cwan was bad enough, but Spock? While he's on the Enterprise?

Pulls me out of the story every time.

 

[Nardpuncher]

Just using a word like ethnocentric sounds like we're all still in some college coffee house trying to make sure we look more knowledgeable and understanding than each other. Forgive me, I'm 36 and put all that stuff behind me.
I was also making light of your abundant usage of scare quotes.

Gotta disagree there. "Ethnocentric" doesn't strike me as a particularly high-falutin' or pretentious word. It's a basic term of anthropology. And it perfectly describes what the poster was trying to convey. What's wrong with using the precise word that conveys your meaning? That's why we have lots of words!

And, is it just me, or is it kind of odd to object to big, college-level words on a bulletin board where posters routinely argue about "quantum filaments" and "alternate space-time continuums"?

Unless you're implying that only woolly-headed, ivory tower intellectuals worry about ethnocentrism at all . . . .

What I meant was the idea of using the word here on a Trek BB and all that seemed pretentious to me.
I went to university, and anthropology was my major surprisingly.
Well, that's about all I have to say about it. It was more of an opinion thing about it being used...no real way to defend how I felt about it. I didn't really care one way or the other about the surnames in Trek novels.

 

[Thestral]

Ethnocentrism is a basic sociological concept, and there is nothing mature about ignoring the effects of ethnocentrism on our culture's thinking.

Don't ascribe to malice what can be ascribed to ignorance. There's no way of knowing what Frontier meant by that comment. It's entirely possible Frontier comes from a background where British Isle-originated surnames are the 90% norm and hasn't had any meaningful exposure to the larger world. Ignorant, but not necessarily malicious, and not deserving of hostility.

I mean really, if you tell an ignorant person with no wider experience they're wrong and should be ashamed of themselves for feeling that way, what sort of a reaction do you think is gonna happen?

 

[Greg Cox]

What I meant was the idea of using the word here on a Trek BB and all that seemed pretentious to me. .

Nothing personal. Your comment just triggered one of my pet peeves: which is the idea that using the right word in the right context is somehow "pretentious." Believe it or not, a friend of mine was recently scolded by her boss because her big vocabulary was making her co-workers uncomfortable. I'm sorry. That's just wrong.

(And, trust me, my friend is not a snobby intellectual; just a well-read sf writer type.)

To my mind, if you're talking about Vulcans, you talk about pon farr and plomeek soup. If you're talking about cultural blinders, you use the word "ethnocentric." That's what the word is for. Using the right word to discribe a specific concept is just good communication.

Words are fun. And what could be more resplendent or mulltifarious than using every word at our disposal?

(Says the guy who gets cranky if he can't finish his crossword puzzle every night.)

 

[Nardpuncher]

Ok, what I guess I mean is that we shouldn't use the word to judge someone according to them talking about names of Star Trek characters in novels.

 

[Christopher]

Don't ascribe to malice what can be ascribed to ignorance. There's no way of knowing what Frontier meant by that comment. It's entirely possible Frontier comes from a background where British Isle-originated surnames are the 90% norm and hasn't had any meaningful exposure to the larger world. Ignorant, but not necessarily malicious, and not deserving of hostility.

But "ethnocentrism" is still the correct word for that. It doesn't mean malice, it just means thinking in a way that's centered around one's own cultural experience and assumptions. If anything, ethnocentrism is usually based more in ignorance of the broader world than in deliberate malice toward it.