I neither said nor implied absolutely nothing of what you accuse me of. Did you pull this interpretation out of the air, or out of a tighter, darker place?
Whatever Happened to Diane Carey?
- Thread starter RonG
- Start date
I neither said nor implied absolutely nothing of what you accuse me of. Did you pull this interpretation out of the air, or out of a tighter, darker place?
^ So what did you mean when you said this?
He did no such thing. He was replying to CaptainGold's demonstrably false claim that no conservatives complain about the comparatively liberal beliefs espoused in some of the novels -- whether in the story itself or in the dedications pages -- when, in fact, there have been numerous instances where conservative readers have complained about such things as Trek novels' depiction of equal marriage rights for gays. At no point did he say anything about all non-liberals holding such views.
I was, sarcasticly, pointing out that there have been non-liberals complaining about gay characters.
Which there have been.
What's the difficulty here in understanding this?
I think it's the Minneapolis side of the river Minnesota accent. It comes across even when you're typing. Over here in St. Paul, I can still understand you, as long as I read your posts very slowly. Of course, I always read slowly after I have a few bowls of wine.
Nice job on the up-to-the-minute signature. I must say I thought Colbert pulled it off a bit better than Stewart. The question is: does Diane Carey like Colbert?
Scott Pearson said:
I'm a raving liberal, and I never really thought about Carey's politics either. I'm sure I must have noticed if her characters were more conservative than myself, but most people are, so I don't necessarily hold that against them!
It's bizarre what can be your 'jump the shark' moment.. I'd enjoyed the Piper books, and First Frontier, and then one of Diane Carey's books had a dedication along the lines of 'I finished this book on the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. All patriots please stand' and suddenly her politics seems to shout through, in books I'd previously enjoyed as well as new ones.
It almost felt as if she'd said 'You're foreign? You're not welcome here' (I'm British, to save you checking the loc) - which is bizarre, because earlier when I first visited Boston my reaction to reading a plaque saying 'Here so-and-son, patriot, first called for rebellion against the British' was a momentary instinctive double-take at the 'contradiction', followed by 'Well of course - you're in America, remember?' (and it has to be said, I would never had known who Benedict Arnold was if American SF writers didn't use his name as a synonym for traitor so often. I had to look him up to confirm my assumption was right...)
But anyway, once the penny had dropped, Carey's books have always seemed to have this undercurrent of expecting me to apologize for not trying to get American citizenship that puts me off them...
i always find it funny that the rebels are called patriots when actually they were a bunch of treasonous terrorists...
at the time...
at the time...
I have the same attitude towards the Maquis.
I would tend to consider the British government of the era to have betrayed the colonies first, m'self. (To be fair, though, the War of 1812 was pretty much a war of American aggression against the British/Canadians.)
But, hey, it's irrelevant now. I consider myself a proud British-American (I have English, Welsh, and Irish ancestors -- nearly the entire United Kingdom!), and think that closer cooperation and exchange between Great Britain and America to be key to both countries' futures.
Hey, work has been rough lately. And I'm not talking about little cereal bowls, I'm talking a big ol' farmhouse mixing bowl, one that you could make pancakes for all the farmhands in. But instead, it's full of, you know, wine.JD said:Bowls?Ummm, yeah.
Are you talking about the DS9 Maquis or the French Maquis?
Stephen Ambrose?
That's interesting. In what way to you see the metropole as having betrayed the colony? I ask because, while you can easily make an ethical case for the Revolutionary War, I can't think of any broken promises, legal or tacit, that would lead to the notion of betrayal. The metropole never pretended that her colonies and the people there were anything more than extractive, second-class citizens whose purpose in colonization aligned with the mercantile beliefs of the time: to extract primary resources to send back to the motherland and serve as dumping ground for products in return. No pretence of equity was made or wanted, not by the government anyway. The period of largely self-directed growth that came to an end with ever-greater micromanagement of colonial affairs in the twenty-odd years prior to the war was a result of Parliament being fixed on European affairs previously, a kind of bening neglect (from the colonist's viewpoints) and not any sort of recognition of a right to self-rule.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
This may certainly be a matter of interpretation -- I am not an expert -- but when I took a course in formative US history, the text and the professor described a policy of "salutory neglect" that was previously adopted by the British towards their American colonies and which was reversed after the French and Indian War. As for whether or not there was a genuine promise -- you bring up an excellent point when noting that there was no formal promise of autonomy for the colonies, but from what I've studied of it, it does seem to me to have been an implicit agreement of autonomy for the colonies that the British reneged on. So, yes, I would argue that the British betrayed the colonies first.
I suspect it might very well be a matter of interpretation, and the readings coloured by our respective nations' heritage. But for what it's worth, the version of history I was taught never suggested any kind of de facto agreement between the colonies and the metropole, simply that Parliament was more occupied with matters closer to home to pay much attention to a colony that was running well enough of its own, until they needed to find some money to pay for military affairs and all those new holdings (curious that we both have 'neglect' in our terminology, if one account passive and the other active). What could support a 'salutory' interpretation is the fact that, along with the frenzy of en-Act-ments leading up to the Revolutionary War, the metropole began to seriously enforce laws and tariffs that had been on the books for a while but the application of which had been allowed to lapse. That being said, however, mercantilism has always been at its core a theory that states the colonies exists solely for the good of the Empire--the good of the colonies is secondary, and what the colonists themselves might want quite irrelevant. So I rather suspect that even if the colonists saw 'magnaminous neglect' as a gesture towards greater autonomy by the motherland, it was a one-sided accord, an agreement of only one partner; the British rulers of the time were nowhere near the 'responsible government' stage of their conceptualization of imperial management, and would think even a tacit acknowledgement of their property and profit-generators becoming self-governing quite mad.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Don't get angry on my account, I really did know what you meant . . .Babaganoosh said:I was referring to the Trek Maquis.
And now I don't know who to be more angry at. You, for (possibly) thinking I am a Nazi sympathizer (I'm not), or me, for such sloppy editing as to not immediately make it clear I was referring to this Maquis.
I started the New Earth series in December and wanted to finish that up before commenting.
I can't stand Red Zone and Ship of the Line. For SotL, if you're basing your protagonist on a 10 second scene and you get it wrong, like having a male only crew when the scene shows a woman, man, that is just dumb. Which would be forgivable if you had a good story but solving your plot by having Picard being taught how to be a captain by a hologram of Kirk, unbelievable to say the least. RZ had other issues and for the people that think it's great, I just flat out don't get it.
Station Rage left me feeling she had never seen DS9. I didn't hate the book but it's certainly not one of my favorites.
All that being said, I liked the New Earth series a LOT more than I thought I would. And her Invasion book was OK too. Maybe she just shouldn't write TOS books. Ok, maybe a dictum like that is a bit harsh, maybe I should shouldn't read non-TOS Carey books.
I can't stand Red Zone and Ship of the Line. For SotL, if you're basing your protagonist on a 10 second scene and you get it wrong, like having a male only crew when the scene shows a woman, man, that is just dumb. Which would be forgivable if you had a good story but solving your plot by having Picard being taught how to be a captain by a hologram of Kirk, unbelievable to say the least. RZ had other issues and for the people that think it's great, I just flat out don't get it.
Station Rage left me feeling she had never seen DS9. I didn't hate the book but it's certainly not one of my favorites.
All that being said, I liked the New Earth series a LOT more than I thought I would. And her Invasion book was OK too. Maybe she just shouldn't write TOS books. Ok, maybe a dictum like that is a bit harsh, maybe I should shouldn't read non-TOS Carey books.
Similar threads
