Worst Trek book?

[William Leisner]

(Anyone who has not read Taking Wing and wants to avoid any info, skip this post.)

AJA said:
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.

Okay, so I grabbed my copy of Taking Wing and flipped through the first few chapters. Chapter One (pp. 1-15) is on Romulus, with confirmed heterosexual Tuvok. No hot man-on-man action there.

Chapter Two (pp. 16-26) has two flamboyant heterosexuals, Riker and Troi, shamelessly hugging and touching each other. Once they finally get their hormones under control, they go to welcome Dr. Ree aboard. No mention of Ree's mating preferences is made.

In Chapter Three, we see Melora Pazlar at work (pp. 27-36) interacting with blatently heterosexual crewmates, and reflecting on her own female-male relationship with Reg Barclay. Then on pages 36-44, we see confirmed breeder Alyssa Ogawa with Ra-Havreii (later, but not yet, revealed as polyamourous) and the still-asexual Ree.

Finally, on page 43, Ranul makes his first appearance, tutoring young Noah Powell. And here, we at last, we find the first example of where teh gay is thrown in our faces:

Ranul had lost Sean Hawk to the Borg six years ago; two years later, Ogawa had lost Andrew Powell, Noah's father, during the Dominion War at the Battle of Rigel.

One page later, after Ranul is introduced to the persistently-asexual Ree, the scene is over, and the focus of the book switches to Riker (sans his heterosexual life-partner). And stays with him all the way to the end of Chapter Four, on page 66.

My apologies for degrading the reputation of the board this way...

 

[Derishton]

Dayton Ward said:


The Neutral Zone on this board?

Talk about your pots and kettles.

Believe it or not. I have my theories, but to state them publicly would ruin one my favourite forum-watching pastimes. You understand.

 

[AJA]

Christopher said:

AJA said:
I'm starting to hate forums...
So I'll just resort to this: Just drop it, forget it, I'd delete it if I could, but this forum has a setup that prevents that.

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.

That's not fair, and I'm sure you know it. I wasn't challenged, I was flat out attacked. You would know, as you participated in it. And why the hell should you give a fuck as to how I spell? That's my issue, not yours. Now, ONcE AGAIN, I apologize for offending anyone, but I am allowed to have my views and everyone else theirs, so let's just move on to a topic other than my mistake. Such as peoples oppinions about the worst Trek book, hint, hint.

 

[KRAD]

Yes. The facts on the ground have effectively shown that this is an untenable hypothesis.

I would disagree, and point to this very thread as evidence against it. I could be wrong, but I think that AJA has been reconsidering his response to the homosexuality in Taking Wing, which is all the better. If reasoned discourse has caused someone to think instead of just jerking their knees and shouting at ever-increasingly-shrill-and-strident-and-pedantic levels, we've done something right.

 

[Dayton Ward]

Derishton said:
Believe it or not. I have my theories, but to state them publicly would ruin one my favourite forum-watching pastimes. You understand.

No worries

Hey, I enjoy reading TNZ, too, for a number of reasons. There are frequently a number of thought-provoking topics, but some times it's just fun to watch certain folks rip into certain other folks.


Okay, worst Trek book? I'm going with the novelization to Sex Trek: First Contact. The story's portrayal of Diaphragm Cockring was just so not in keeping with canon that it's actually painful to read.

Oh, wait.

That was just all in my head.

Never mind.

 

[TerriO]

AJA said:

Christopher said:

AJA said:
I'm starting to hate forums...
So I'll just resort to this: Just drop it, forget it, I'd delete it if I could, but this forum has a setup that prevents that.

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.

That's not fair, and I'm sure you know it. I wasn't challenged, I was flat out attacked. You would know, as you participated in it. And why the hell should you give a fuck as to how I spell? That's my issue, not yours. Now, ONcE AGAIN, I apologize for offending anyone, but I am allowed to have my views and everyone else theirs, so let's just move on to a topic other than my mistake. Such as peoples oppinions about the worst Trek book, hint, hint.

Enough. Christopher, please go back and re-read the thread. You attacked him. If you interpret it another way, I'd love to hear how. Word of advice: get off the bloody high horse before you piss off everyone who isn't already mad at you.

Look, I asked the directed questions that determined that what AJA was saying wasn't exactly what he intended or thought he said. Nobody seems to be seeing that in the knee-jerk response to "oh, it's another gay-basher, and why should we have to put up with a gay basher?" But, hey, we don't want to bother with trying to figure if that's really the case, right? It would kill the wonderful righteous indignation at Yet Another Perceived Slight. I'm sure nobody here has ever been misunderstood in their entire lives. Give people a chance to examine what they're saying before you bitch people out. Give people the respect you'd want shown toward yourself.

This is not me being a mod. That has absolutely nothing to do with it (and if EMH or Aatrek see fit to warn me for this, I will not contest it). This is me finally getting sick and tired of some of the crap I've been watching going on here for years from people whom I know are capable of behaving like the adults they are and treating people with respect even if they disagree with them, I've seen them do it. I feel it necessary to speak up now. Whether we're aware of it or not, we have a reputation in this forum of being unwelcoming and unfriendly. Attacks like this in knee-jerk response to a conclusion you've jumped to are just confirming that reputation. Is that rep something you guys want to keep? Because I sure as hell don't.

My sincerest apologies to the OP for contributing to derailing the thread completely.

 

[Christopher]

Trent Roman said:

TerriO said:
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?

Yes. The facts on the ground have effectively shown that this is an untenable hypothesis.

Damn straight. There's no "hate" in trying to correct people's misstatements and distortions of fact, or in pointing out how ridiculous their arguments are. It's not "hate" if you get angry at someone for being intolerant toward others and trying to disguise it via hypocritical distortions.

It's far too common these days for proponents of hate to co-opt the language of inclusion to their ends, to claim that it's somehow intolerant to condemn intolerance, or that they're somehow exercising their rights by insisting that others should not have rights. So we mustn't give any credibility to the idea that arguing emphatically against homophobia somehow constitutes hate speech in itself.

That said, I agree that it is best not to let ourselves get dragged down into the kind of confrontational climate you talk about, Trent -- after all, one thing that people like this are very good at is provoking the other side to make us look more mean-spirited and irrational than they are. For the most part, we need to keep our responses focused on the factual flaws and untenable logic.

Still, it just gets so frustrating to hear the same false and unfair claims made over and over and over again. Nobody deserves the kind of constant attacks that Andy gets subjected to. And I wonder, why do these people never get up in arms about Bart Faulwell in SCE, or the lesbian characters in Susan Wright's books? It's always Andy and Mike's stuff that gets singled out, and nobody ever criticizes Mike for his role in it. And that just proves it's not about the characters or the writing, it's about the fact that these people disapprove of Andy himself, no matter what lies they spin to try to hide it (even from themselves). I think that's something we're entitled to get angry about. I think that's something we should get angry about.

 

[AJA]

Christopher, you're not helping. As TerriO said, you attacked me, not the other way around. And if you had persued a mature form of discourse rather than jumping on the bandwagon with everyone else and attacking me without even asking for clarification, or making sure you were correct, a calm, civilized conversation could have ensued. But, instead, I got to see people who are all probably older than me acting more immature than my friends and I. Now, why not move on to the real subject of this thread.

 

[Sci]

*whistles innocently*

So, yeah, I didn't really enjoy that book where the TNG crew travel to the dragon planet all that much.

*looks over thread*

My goodness, there's certainly a lot of... um... weather. Yeah. There's a surprisingly large amoung of weather outside, isn't there? Just flocks. Gaggles. Plethoras of weather outside, yessiree...

 

[Baerbel Haddrell]

After having read this latest edition of the so-called "sexual agenda" discussion in the Titan books, I think I will add a few comments after all.

By the way, I can`t find any "sexual agenda" (meaning the one of the gay kind that keeps being criticized) in their Enterprise novel "Last Full Measure".

Well, I am still amazed that there are people out there who use such vocabulary and are reacting with strong indignation when they get strong replies. Especially when these were fly-by comments without giving any more thorough explanation, it shouldn`t surprise anybody.

The tone makes the music. I remember, we also had interesting, civilized discussions about gay characters in Star Trek, also containing comments I very much disagreed with. Throwing the "sexual agenda" argument into a thread in connection with gays is not the way it should be done. Maybe it wasn`t trolling but it certainly smells like it.

My opinion is, don`t give trolls a platform to stand on and the attention they are looking for. The same applies to comments that have stirred up trouble in the past and have been discussed several times. A short reply would have been completely sufficient.

Discussing with anti-gays, pro-life people, Bush and Iraq supporters and Bible thumpers is, in my case, usually the same as banging your head against the wall. I have better things to do and it is better for my blood pressure. Only now and again I feel the need to speak out here, in the Lit forum, usually once, and leave it at that.

Some people use the argument that bad opinions should result in more speech against it. Of course to a certain degree I agree but there is also a fine line between when speaking out does some good and when you reach the point when you are used by those people.

I don`t think this forum is really unwelcoming and hostile. Not counting one bad exception of the rule, I never had any trouble to participate here. Of course misunderstandings and occasional overreactions are possible but when it happens, theres is usually a very good reason for it.

 

[Kevin Dilmore]

I like taffy.

Taffy is delicious.

Kevin

 

[ElaysianInvasion]

^^ Paola Kansas taffy

 

[Sci]

Kevin Dilmore said:
I like taffy.

Taffy is delicious.

Kevin

You know, I've never actually had any taffy.

I get the impression I'm missing out.

 

[Marco Palmieri]

Sci said:
You know, I've never actually had any taffy.

That's cuz you're a rabid anti-taffite.

 

[Cyclonus]

TBonz said:

ClayinCA said:

Dayton Ward said:
Worst Trek book? I nominate The Prometheus Design.

Wow, there are just so many ways that I won't argue with that...

Me either. **shudders**

Hmmm...I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but what do you despise so much about this book?

 

[William Leisner]

Marco Palmieri said:

Sci said:
You know, I've never actually had any taffy.

That's cuz you're a rabid anti-taffite.

Hey, some of my best friends like taffy....

 

[Dayton Ward]

AJA said:
Christopher, you're not helping. As TerriO said, you attacked me, not the other way around. And if you had persued a mature form of discourse rather than jumping on the bandwagon with everyone else and attacking me without even asking for clarification, or making sure you were correct, a calm, civilized conversation could have ensued.

I'm trying to be on your side, dude, so I hope you'll take this in the spirit with which it's intended: I find it hard to believe that you had no idea that this original statement of yours would not be construed as inflammatory, or that you somehow believed it was the precursor to "mature" discussion:

Posted by Aja

Definately any of Andy Mangles books. He has an annoying sexual agenda; he always insert a gay character.

Now, for what it's worth, I think you're just getting piled on at this point, particularly since you've made several attempts to explain what you truly meant. I'll admit that I don't get how you couldn't know the type of reaction that statement would elicit, but I for one am willing to take you at your word that no harm was intended.

But, instead, I got to see people who are all probably older than me acting more immature than my friends and I.

What you saw was people coming to the defense of a friend, who's been repeatedly attacked by others who have used the same language you did as the prologue to some of the ugliet, vilest things I've seen one human utter about another. Given your statement and its lack of clarification, surely you can agree that to people used to fielding such comments on an all-too frequent basis, it looked like more of the same?

Now, why not move on to the real subject of this thread.

A mighty fine idea. I've already wailed on The Prometheus Design. I guess my runner up would have to be...well...pretty much anything written by Kevin Dilmore.

 

[ClayinCA]

Well, not to pick on Marshak & Culbreath (sp?) too much, I was never wild about Triangle, either.

Hey, which book was it that referred to Spock only as "Mr. Spock", every single time he was referred to - was that Shadow Lord? Didn't have much of an opinion of that book one way or another, but that drove me crazy...

 

[Christopher]

Personally, I thought The Prometheus Design was the best of the four Marshak-Culbreath novels, though that's faint praise.

Frankly I'm surprised The Fearful Summons hasn't been mentioned more in this thread.

 

[Dayton Ward]

I'd managed to erase that one from memory.

Until now.

Thanks.

Thanks a lot.