Worst Trek book?
- Thread starter Xploda
- Start date
.
How about being sorry for saying "he" instead of "they?" As you've been told repeatedly and keep ignoring, these books are written by both Andy Mangels (who happens to be gay) and Mike Martin (who happens to be hetero). And they both choose to include characters of all sorts of types -- people of all ethnicities, lots of nonhumanoid aliens, etc -- as well as characters who happen to be gay. So the fact that you're only complaining about the gay half of the team and only complaining about their "writing style" pertaining to gay characters makes it pretty clear that it is the sexual preference that's at issue for you.
I'm glad to see you're not the kind of drive-by troll I thought you were when I posted earlier, but I'm still curious as to how the writing style can be the reason why you perceive a gay agenda. It seems more nonresponsive than ambiguous. What sort of writing style would be more appropriate for a book with a gay character? Can you suggest some books with gay characters you think are better presented because the writing style is more appropriate?
TerriO said:
Sxottlan said:
TerriO said:
And people wonder why this forum has the rep it gets.
What would that be? I hadn't heard anything.
For being a place where people are afraid to post negative opinions of anything for fear of being attacked.
Opinions of anything? I thought the reputation this forum had was for being a bunch of fanboys who suck up to the novelists. That's obviously not true, given the fact that this very topic exists.
When I read AJA's first post, though, I didn't read it as a criticism of Andy Mangels's writing. I read it as bigotry. If I'm mistaken, then my initial response was uncalled for.
Whether it's true or not doesn't change the fact that that's the way this forum has been seen by many outside of it. I've seen the complaints first-hand. I've been trying to tell them that's not the case, but then something like this happens and everyone just goes and proves them right. I'm quite frankly tired of defending everyone only to be proven wrong.
Has it occurred to anyone that responding to perceived hate with automatic hate might not be a good way to do things, and it might not make you any better than the bigots? Or are our knees jerking at Warp 10 again? "Stop being such a bigot!" might not nearly be effective as asking "Why does this bother you?" and allowing people to explain themselves. How many people actually bother to think before they post when these things come up?
This is usually a pretty peaceful place, but Goddess bless can we be quick to jump down peoples' throats sometimes. (And yes, I know full well I've done it in the past. I've made a concerted effort to stop doing it.)
Has it occurred to anyone that responding to perceived hate with automatic hate might not be a good way to do things, and it might not make you any better than the bigots? Or are our knees jerking at Warp 10 again? "Stop being such a bigot!" might not nearly be effective as asking "Why does this bother you?" and allowing people to explain themselves. How many people actually bother to think before they post when these things come up?
This is usually a pretty peaceful place, but Goddess bless can we be quick to jump down peoples' throats sometimes. (And yes, I know full well I've done it in the past. I've made a concerted effort to stop doing it.)
Negative opinions about books? Not usually. This thread is just the latest example of that. If someone honestly doesn't like something, that usually causes no problems. If someone's just looking to stir up shit, that's a different matter. Such behavior isn't tolerated in other forums, so I don't understand why the rules should be any different here.
As for negative opinions or attacks about people? Yeah, that has the potential to unleash the hounds, depending on what's said. However, it's been my experience that the people complaining the loudest about "being attacked" more often than not come in here with some kind of chip on their shoulder, anyway, and then cry foul when they find themselves outnumbered.
Unfortunate? Sometimes. Avoidable? Probably.
The place is relatively self-policing, and I trust the mods to play their role and hand out warnings or other guidance to keep things civilized. The fact that warnings from this forum seem few and far between indicates to me that the mods think things are okay (at least most of the time). The only other explanation would seem to be that they're asleep at the switch, and I find that unlikely.
If everbody worked a bit harder to observe the Golden Rule, things would be fine almost all the time. I usually try to follow it, but I'll be the first to admit that I have little tolerance for anybody who feels they're entitled to just unload on people.
Just my $.02.
Now, for the thread topic: Worst Trek book? I nominate The Prometheus Design.
The Golden Rule for web forums: "Don't start none, and there won't be none."
(Owner of many online forums by the way)
(Owner of many online forums by the way)
Thank you. I thought about over night, and my specific problem was that less than 50 pages into the book (Taking Wing) BAM! Some guys horny for another. I was nonplussed because I hadn't bought a Trek book for erotica, gay or otherwise. And I didn't like the TNG Section 31 book because of the story and how many of the characters, not just Lt. Hawk, were portrayed much differently than they are in the shows. Sorry once again for being ambiguous, but I must agree with TerriO's comment about asking why something bothers someone rather than going strait to the torches and pitchforks.
And to Christopher: It was a baseless assupmtion, please forgive me
.
Just wait till you get to Orion's Hounds. BAM! Right in the very first chapter you have -- gasp -- a man in bed with his wife!!! Quelle horreur!!
It's ridiculous to say it's "erotica" if a book just mentions that a man loves or has a relationship with another man. Yes, Andy and Mike have used the character of Ranul Keru, a man who had a loving relationship with the late Sean Hawk, in just about all their Trek fiction. And yes, they have mentioned that Keru loved Hawk and misses him very much. But to the best of my recollection, they have never once written a single scene in which Keru and/or Hawk had their clothes off together or had sex. All they do is acknowledge the existence of the relationship. And yes, in Taking Wing they did show that Norellis was attracted to Keru, but the attraction was not mutual and was not acted on. That's no more "erotica" than, say, The Flintstones acknowledging that Fred is married to Wilma or Gilligan's Island acknowledging that the Skipper's got the hots for Ginger. Erotica is material that explicitly depicts sexual acts, not merely attraction, flirtation or
If the book had mentioned a man being attracted to a woman or vice versa, I'm sure you wouldn't have had a problem with it. But when it comes to showing a man attracted to another man -- not acting on it, just being attracted -- you consider that obscene. It's a blatant double standard. So don't pretend that your objection has nothing to do with the characters' sexual orientation. It's obvious that that's entirely what it's about.
And to Christopher: It was a baseless assupmtion, please forgive me
I'm not the one you need to apologize to.
The Neutral Zone on this board?
Talk about your pots and kettles.
Actually, the first scene of same sex attraction doesn't occur until a little later in the book.
That aside, those same pages (and the rest of Taking Wing) are also rampant with displays of heterosexuality, on the same level as the one you found objectionable. None of them struck me as particularly erotic, but I'd be interested in knowing what exactly it was that made the same-sex ones stand out for you. As one of the ST editors, I think the fiction does a pretty fair job of treating all these relationships with comparable degrees of emphasis--or lack thereof. So if we're not actually doing that, I'd very much like to know in what way our efforts fall short of that intent.
Yeah, it's so terrible to have to express your opinions in a place where other people can respond to them and challenge them and point out the flaws in them. That's just so unfair. We should all be free to spout whatever we feel like and not allow anyone to criticize it. Because it's just so unfair that we should have to listen or think or grow or change our minds or learn to live together.
Yes. The facts on the ground have effectively shown that this is an untenable hypothesis.
First of all, does condemning the KKK descend you to their level? Does desiring the destruction of al-Qaeda make you no better than said terrorist network? Certain groups and individuals merit scorn; more than that, it is our responsibility to scorn them. Bigotry must be opposed, not just some of the time, not just in certain locales, but always, actively. To let a bigoted statement slide is to give silent consent, no matter how petty the occasion.
As to the effectiveness of such a tactic? Nada. But neither is the alternative viable. I've been online for over ten years now, and it seems like gay-bashers have been a feature of electronic discussions since the days of IRC channels and mailing lists, from the very first inception of BBSs. I've been involved in more such skirmishes than I could or would care to count. What I've learned from such experiences is that debate is utterly futile. At first, I tried the concilliatory approach, using arguments from the perpetrator's own religion to turn them away. The problem was, and remains, that it doesn't matter how thouroughly debunked the perpetrator's arguments are; their M.O. is to slink away, lick their wounds, then come back spouting the same senseless bullshit that was disproven a few weeks ago, and everything starts over again.
It's a neo-Nazi Ouroboros, a self-renewing cycle of discrimination. And that is the very crux of intent. Over the years, I have come to realize that gay-bashing has never been about opinions, but about climate. Was discussion ever the point of such exchanges? I doubt it, particularly rational discussion since the kernel of hate lies in the irrational to begin with. The intent is to reinforce a climate of hatred, and while I doubt many will lose much sleep over what some inbred redneck who has somehow managed to master a keyboard has to say about their lifestyle, it combines with other social and legislative pressures to try and make it such that homosexuals can never feel totally at ease, totally relax, never certain of when they'll suddenly have their very existence assailed by a legion of petty assholes. As such, to even engage with gay-bashers about their beliefs is to give them a soap-box from which to sprout their propaganda, to unwittingly participate in furthering the siege climate the gay-bashers seek to induce in the GLBT community. Whereas "sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up", while hardly constructive, will at least terminate the discussion, or turn the blow elsewhere (such as a discussion of rude posting habits).
I understand where you are coming from, Terri. As a moderator, you are a keeper of the peace, and comitted to certain standards of free expression. I've been in a similar position on other boards which, while not as large as this one, where nonetheless pretty active. And the worst part of those experiences, and the reason I never put myself forward to moderate anything but small, focused boards anymore, was having to play Neville Chamberlain to the legion of gay-bashers (and, to a lesser extent, the racists and the sexists); telling the other posters to lay off and let them have their say and demonstrate just what thorough idiots they are when all I really wanted to do was jump in and defend my friends who were being slandered, defend those being assailed. It's a frustrating, impotent feeling, unfortunately all too common in such discussions, online or off. And I know it doesn't make your job any easier, but I refuse to stay silent when bigotry rears its head any longer.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Similar threads
