Re: Trek goes back to the fans
Hypatia Kosh
--- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, "Cait N." <caitn@m...> wrote:
> the best stories told not those written by Gene or any other
> "professional writers" (no offense to the short-lived, but well
intentioned
> animated series), but by people like Sondra Marshak, Myrna Culbreath
Ron Moore, who has written some truly wonderful episodes of DS9 and
Voyager, is a Marshak and Culbreath fan?
I don't think I can take this kind of news... *dry heaves, pupils
dilate, hallucinations*
-Hy
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
ASCEM messages are copied to a mailing list. Most recent messages
can be found at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASCEML.
Cait N.
Someone sent me this article (I'll have to ask him where he found it),
and thought I'd share it with the group. I liked some of the questions
he asked near the end. :-) You'll know which one in particular.
- Cait N.
February 04, 2005
Trek goes back to the Fans
by Ron Moore
Now that Enterprise has been cancelled, we're about to enter a period not
seen since the orignal series ended its run just a few weeks before Apollo
11 landed on the moon: a time without a Star Trek film or TV project on the
horizon. From the reaction I've seen thus far, the consensus view seems to
be that this is merely a pause in the trek, and that before too long, we'll
be talking about the newest take on Roddenberry's universe, be it
television, feature, animation or sock puppet. I tend to agree, insofar as I
know first hand that Viacom considers "the Franchise" to be one of their
crown jewels and I've personally heard them refer to the "next fifty years
of Star Trek" as a corporate priority.
So Star Trek isn't dead and it isn't dying. It has, however, entered into
an interregnum, a pause in the treadmill of overlapping productions that
have become the norm for the series that was once considered "too cerebral
for television."
Certainly there is sadness in this news. There has been a Star Trek
production either in prep or being filmed on Stages 8 & 9 on the Paramount
lot since 1977, when Star Trek: Phase Two began initial construction for a
second series featuring all the original characters but Spock (these sets
were then revamped for Star Trek: The Motion Picture). An entire
infrastructure has been built around the productions, staffed by people
whose involvement in the Franchise goes back over two decades. The
dedication, passion, and talent of these artisans and craftsmen cannot be
overstated. The unsung heroes of Trek, the people who sweat every detail,
who take the time to think through continuity and try to make the vast
universe consistent, people like Mike and Denise Okuda, Dave Rossi, Michael
Westmore, Herman Zimmerman, Bob Blackman, and many others, are about to
leave and take with them an enormous body of knowledge and talent that
cannot be and will not be replicated again. That is cause for both tears and
eulogies as the close of Enterprise signals the true end of an era.
However, there is another side of this story, one that perhaps is somewhat
more hopeful and positive: Star Trek has now been returned to the care of
its community of fans.
I say returned because there was a time when the fans were the exclusive
owners and operators of what would later become the Franchise. From 1969
until 1979, a genuine grassroots movement of fans gathered together in
conventions, published newsletters (in the primordial ooze of the
pre-internet era, no less), wrote scads of fan fiction, created their own
props and uniforms, and dreamed the dream of what it was to live aboard the
good ship Enterprise.
I was one of those fans; I was a kid growing up in the 1970's who found
Star Trek in strip syndication and bought every book and magazine I could
lay my hands on and every piece of fan merchandise I could con my parents
into buying and I can tell you that some of those efforts were abysmal and
some were brilliant, but all of them were driven by a sense of passion
rooted in a belief that Trek was our secret club. We, the fans, embroidered
the Trek tapestry while the powers that be at Paramount dawdled. In those
years, the best stories told not those written by Gene or any other
"professional writers" (no offense to the short-lived, but well intentioned
animated series), but by people like Sondra Marshak, Myrna Culbreath, and
Jacqueline Lichtenberg. Who are they? Fans. People who loved Star Trek and
were able to breath life into it during the interregnum between the show and
the Franchise.
Star Trek now returns to the care of its fans and its fans can decide for
themselves what kind of experience they want to have during this next
interregnum. They can consume the seemingly endless licensed products
available to them from the Franchise, everything from barware to shower
curtains, and read only the mainstream, officially licensed and sanctioned
books, or they can go their own way. Some of the most daring and creatively
challenging Star Trek material has been created not by Paramount, but by
amateurs, who simply had an idea for an interesting twist on the Trek
universe. Think Kirk and Spock were secret lovers? Wonder about the social
and cultural history of the planet Vulcan? Believe the Mirror Universe is
more fascinating than our own? All these topics and many others were, and
are, tackled by fans in their own fiction, their own stories, their own
dreams.
Step back from the merchandising. Rediscover the joy and wonder of the
universe Roddenberry created. Talk to people who share your common interest
and who understand the difference between phaser mark I and mark II (duh!).
You don't need another series to enjoy Star Trek. You need only your own
imagination and the desire to boldly go where no man has gone before.
Julianna
--- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, "Hypatia Kosh" <berli@m...> wrote:
>
> --- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, "Julianna" <sterjulie@y...> wrote:
> > Well, if nothing else, Marshak and Culbreath first introduced me
to
> > fan fiction and conventions with their first three pro books.
Their
> > two volume (and the recently released third volume) novel was so
> > darn angsty!
>
> What's this? Third volume, recently released? Can I have an Amazon
> link? Quite curious, I am...
>
> -Hy
Well, heck! It's February 8 and I've already made a mistake in
2005! It was Diane Duane that published another volume (Honor Blade)
to her Rihannsu series. The cover was based on that yummy picture
of Spock with the sexy lower lip. (Pouty or puffy, it's stickin'
out more than usual!) See it here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-
/0671042106/qid=1107918376/sr=1-41/ref=sr_1_41/104-2998214-6911114?
v=glance&s=books
Peace!
Julianna
Hypatia Kosh
--- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, "Julianna" <sterjulie@y...> wrote:
> Well, if nothing else, Marshak and Culbreath first introduced me to
> fan fiction and conventions with their first three pro books. Their
> two volume (and the recently released third volume) novel was so
> darn angsty!
What's this? Third volume, recently released? Can I have an Amazon
link? Quite curious, I am...
-Hy
Julianna
--- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, "Hypatia Kosh" <berli@m...> wrote:
>
> Ron Moore, who has written some truly wonderful episodes of DS9 and
> Voyager, is a Marshak and Culbreath fan?
>
> I don't think I can take this kind of news... *dry heaves, pupils
> dilate, hallucinations*
>
> -Hy
Ahem...At first I thought I saw "Roger Moore." <=^/
Well, if nothing else, Marshak and Culbreath first introduced me to
fan fiction and conventions with their first three pro books. Their
two volume (and the recently released third volume) novel was so
darn angsty!
Peace!
Julianna
Julianna
Welllll, you'll have to cut and paste that onto a Word doc, remove
the hard returns, then paste the whole thing to get to the book:
Odosgirl
Cait N. wrote:
> Someone sent me this article (I'll have to ask him where he found it),
It's posted on Ron Moore's blog at http://blog.scifi.com/battlestar/
> and thought I'd share it with the group. I liked some of the questions
> he asked near the end. :-) You'll know which one in particular.
This is an amazing article. Thanks so much for posting it, Cait. When I
heard about the cancellation of Enterprise, these were pretty much my
thoughts as well. Whatever one might think of the fiction written by
authors such as Marshak, Culbreath, and Lichtenberg (and I consider them
all worth reading--particularly Lichtenberg, who went on to create the
fascinating Sime-Gen universe in her professional sf novels), the fact
is that they were an part of the larger Trek fan community that did
indeed keep the show alive, not to mention some of the earliest writers
of fanfic who dared to deviate from a strict interpretation of the Trek
canon. For that alone, we owe them a great deal.
My admiration for Ron Moore, a former DS9 writer, has grown enormously
over the years, largely because of his public praise for fans and
fan-fiction, and his free admission that he began his own writing career
as a fanboy. His re-imagined "Battlestar Galactica" may well be the best
science fiction I've ever seen on TV, and I sometimes wonder if this
show, for him, might be a kind of fanfic--an extended AU epic that
revives a beloved sf icon from the 1970s.
And the fact the he references K/S slash here is simply too cool for
words. You go, Ron!
BTW, anyone who is interested should seriously consider hunting out some
of those old Trek zines from the 1970s. Many of them are amazing, and
even the crappy ones can be enormous fun--especially the ones that are
hand-stapled and mimeographed. :-)
Chris, zine-freak
tdancinghands
Here! Here!
And further more, I say the franchise is *better off* in the hands of the fans. I've
been saying so since the last season of Voyager. As long as B&B have anything to do
with it, I'd just as soon they not do anything at all.
The Star Trek universes belong to all of us, for they have passed into the relm of
mythology. Nobody owns the myths. They're Ours!
T. Dancinghands
--- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, "Cait N." <caitn@m...> wrote:
> Someone sent me this article ...
snip
... don't need another series to enjoy Star Trek. You need only your own
tdancinghands
Angsty?! Angsty?!!
Those books were the wellspring of the hurt comfort genera!
That and they reeek, from cover to cover of (not so) thinly vieled S&M. To this day I
wonder how those books got published. They certainly have never let anything like
them be published since.
T. Dancinghands
Hypatia Kosh
--- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, "tdancinghands"
<taylordancinghands@l...> wrote:
>
> Angsty?! Angsty?!!
> Those books were the wellspring of the hurt comfort genera!
> That and they reeek, from cover to cover of (not so) thinly vieled
S&M. To this day I
> wonder how those books got published. They certainly have never let
anything like
> them be published since.
Naaa, the only masochism is trying to read them.
I nearly tossed the first Phoenix book from the third story atrium of
my local library down to the first floor reading room because my brain
hurt so much from trying to follow their idiocy.
"hee hee! we're so clever! we snuck slash into a pro-novel! bow down
to our genius!"
Goddamnit, write a good story and get out! Oh no, I'm having
flashbacks ... noooo, brain, I don't want to relive my Top Ten
Greatest Headaches. <where's my tea?>
-Hy
Hypatia Kosh
--- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, "tdancinghands"
<taylordancinghands@l...> wrote:
>
> As long as B&B have anything to do
> with it, I'd just as soon they not do anything at all.
I hear ya.
-Hy
Julianna
Ah, I remember those bits. I guess because it was mostly teasing
from Omnedon and not a free expression of affection on Spock's part
that I didn't recognize it as slash (Not that I knew that term
back then!)
"Where's my logical Vulcan?" I fondly remember that line.
Peace!
Julianna, blessing Farfalla for not making her reread the Phoenix
books!
Hypatia Kosh
--- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, "Julianna" <sterjulie@y...> wrote:
>
> Ah, I remember those bits. I guess because it was mostly teasing
> from Omnedon and not a free expression of affection on Spock's part
> that I didn't recognize it as slash (Not that I knew that term
> back then!)
Spock and Rommy have some discussions about love, duty, and Kirks,
though. Spock is cast as the strong silent type, but it's clear that
he wants Kirk--and very badly.
Actually, it's less clear what Kirk wants, since he spends most of
those books as a sex object.
> "Where's my logical Vulcan?" I fondly remember that line.
I think I posted something to ASCEM a year or two ago cringing over
that very passage... I wrote "Publishers print the darndest things."
-Hy
Farfalla
--- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, "Hypatia Kosh" <berli@m...> wrote:
>
> --- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, "Farfalla" <blueberrysnail@y...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, "Julianna" <sterjulie@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ah, I remember those bits. I guess because it was mostly teasing
> > > from Omnedon and not a free expression of affection on Spock's part
> > > that I didn't recognize it as slash (Not that I knew that term
> > > back then!)
> >
> > It was also presented as very wholesome, as opposed to the kind of
> "ooo... illicit" vibe that
> > slash sometimes gives off.
>
> What? No, I can't agree with that.
I think it was the candles/flowers/bond/naked/my Logical Vulcan thing. It reminded me of
a wedding and i'm a complete, predictable sucker. *hangs head*
> There's another K/S story in New Voyages/New
> Voyages 2, by the way--a really cute one where Spock's inhibitions are
> released for a moment by some hive mind of butterflies and he starts
> talking about a desire to get away from people and be alone with Kirk.
So cute. Pockie :-) *wibble*
Odosgirl
Hypatia Kosh wrote:
>>Angsty?! Angsty?!!
>>Those books were the wellspring of the hurt comfort genera!
>>That and they reeek, from cover to cover of (not so) thinly vieled
>> S&M. To this day I wonder how those books got published.
> Naaa, the only masochism is trying to read them.
>
> I nearly tossed the first Phoenix book from the third story atrium of
> my local library down to the first floor reading room because my brain
> hurt so much from trying to follow their idiocy.
Well, I haven't actually read beyond the first few chapters of that
one--though I intend to try again (and the fact that I'm having to "try"
obviously says something). But as I've admitted before, I absolutely
could not put down "Triangle." I loved every trashy, kinky, slashy, Mary
Sue-filled page of that book.
<<"hee hee! we're so clever! we snuck slash into a pro-novel! bow down
to our genius!">>
Er, well--from what I did read of this novel, and the others, it's not
so much snuck in as hiding out in plain sight. :-)
It seems to me that the sharp divide that now exists between fanfic and
"pro" Trek novels really wasn't firmly in place at the time those books
were published. (Obviously books were books and zines were zines, but
there was no automatic assumption that fanfic was unfit for professional
publication.) Marshak and Culbreath also edited two volumes of "Star
Trek: The New Voyages," for Bantam, both of which contained stories
culled from fanzines (and I wonder if those collections weren't what
Moore was thinking of when he mentioned M&C by name...) Professionally
written Trek novels evolved alongside of, and arguably in the wake of,
the fanfic. The editors of the pro books, no doubt totally unaware of
slash culture and possibly not even that well versed in the Trek canon,
probably didn't even know what they were looking at.
I also doubt that M&C were trying to pull a fast one on Bantam by
"slipping" slash content into their books. More likely they simply saw
no reason to leave the slash elements out as long as they were "toned
down" enough to be ambiguous. Early Trek novel publishers couldn't put a
ban on slash material in their books if they didn't know what slash was.
M&C probably just wrote the story that they wanted to write and then
edited it until Bantam said the manuscript was acceptable. The
publisher, eager to profit from the popularity of Trek, may well have
rushed the books into publication with minimal attention to certain
details.
There are a fair number of early Trek pro-novels that are obvious
mutations of fanfic, of varying quality. What's nice about many of these
early works, however good or bad they may be as literature or science
fiction, is that the writers are obviously passionate about the
characters and write as if they, not Paramount, own them. I think that's
greatly preferable to the kind of soul-less, by-the-numbers junk that's
been published in more recent years by Pocket. These newer books are so
thoroughly vetted by the Trek image-police that they rarely have any
creative bite. And they tend to be created by writers for whom Star Trek
is just another job rather than a passion.
Chris
Hypatia Kosh
--- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, "Farfalla" <blueberrysnail@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, "Julianna" <sterjulie@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Ah, I remember those bits. I guess because it was mostly teasing
> > from Omnedon and not a free expression of affection on Spock's part
> > that I didn't recognize it as slash (Not that I knew that term
> > back then!)
>
> It was also presented as very wholesome, as opposed to the kind of
"ooo... illicit" vibe that
> slash sometimes gives off.
What? No, I can't agree with that. The whole series is doom and gloom
with a heavy dose of Sadism--and not just from Omne.
It's very much in the bodice-ripping mysterious tall dark stranger and
blushing debutante tradition, but even creepier, if possible.
That one scene in particular is cute. It's one of the few times Kirk
expresses intent (other than his intent to get free and take down
Omne). K'Sal did a good breakdown of the "plot", and I'm sad to say I
can't remember her exact words, but they were reminiscent of Olive Oyl
screaming to be saved from Bruno, except in this case Olive wants to
get caught. I think K'Sal called the books obscene. They really are.
> I don't like the "ooo... illicit" vibe, myself :P
Well, then what's up with them sneaking slash into a heavily
suggestive story? Why not portray their relationship in wholesome
terms (avoiding out-and-out slash that won't get published, of
course)? Two male writers, Joe Haldeman and Gene Roddenberry in
"Planet of Judgment" and "Star Trek: The Motion Picture", did a better
job of portraying the emotional relationship between Kirk and Spock
than Marshak and Culbreath did.
M & C's writing operates on pure hormones, brain not required. There's
no love in these stories, only lust. I mean, reread Procrustean Petard
if you don't believe me. There's another K/S story in New Voyages/New
Voyages 2, by the way--a really cute one where Spock's inhibitions are
released for a moment by some hive mind of butterflies and he starts
talking about a desire to get away from people and be alone with Kirk.
(On the Bridge, so Kirk hastily shuts him up, of course.) PP isn't
actually K/S but there's the clear implication that: Spock wants to
get in Kirk's pants; and Kirk is a slut.
-Hy
Farfalla
--- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, "Hypatia Kosh" <berli@m...> wrote:
> Actually, it's less clear what Kirk wants, since he spends most of
> those books as a sex object.
Yes, he does. And even if both Spock and Rommy got to keep a Kirk of their own, both
Kirks would be somewhat mopey because Spock's Kirk would miss Rommie and vice versa.
What a weird premise.
Farfalla
--- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, "Julianna" <sterjulie@y...> wrote:
>
> Ah, I remember those bits. I guess because it was mostly teasing
> from Omnedon and not a free expression of affection on Spock's part
> that I didn't recognize it as slash (Not that I knew that term
> back then!)
It was also presented as very wholesome, as opposed to the kind of "ooo... illicit" vibe that
slash sometimes gives off.
I don't like the "ooo... illicit" vibe, myself :P
> "Where's my logical Vulcan?" I fondly remember that line.
It's beyond cute. Flirtastic, even! ^_^
Go read Tonati's story in today's AAK/SA update. I think you'll like it.
Hypatia Kosh
--- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, "Julianna" <sterjulie@y...> wrote:
> (Pleeeeeease don't make me go read them again!)
Don't. Just say no to Marshak and Culbreath.
(The Procrustean Petard--which is one of the stupidest titles ever--is
easier to read and slashy too. It's a bloody-minded, stupid story, but
it isn't the sheer pain that the Phoenix books are to read.)
-Hy
(who doesn't get why everyone bitches about Turnabout Intruder, which
was a very good episode, but nobody bitches about the suck that was
Procrustean Petard. Appeal to the clit, get out of stupidity free?)
Acidqueen
Hello Odosgirl,
> But as I've admitted before, I absolutely
> could not put down "Triangle." I loved every trashy, kinky, slashy, Mary
> Sue-filled page of that book.
That makes two of us *g* (as I admitted before as well). But then, I
started with Spock/f ideas...and will never be a real slasher ;)
Birgit, the threesome fan
http://www.syredronning.de - Home of the Acidqueen
Hypatia Kosh
--- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, Odosgirl <odosgirl@g...> wrote:
> Marshak and Culbreath also edited two volumes of "Star
> Trek: The New Voyages," for Bantam, both of which contained stories
> culled from fanzines (and I wonder if those collections weren't what
> Moore was thinking of when he mentioned M&C by name...)
Yeah, you're probably right. Those collections were excellent.
> Professionally
> written Trek novels evolved alongside of, and arguably in the wake of,
> the fanfic. The editors of the pro books, no doubt totally unaware of
> slash culture and possibly not even that well versed in the Trek canon,
> probably didn't even know what they were looking at.
Right, and the pro-novels at that time were rather lousy. Also, sexual
content to an extent not allowed in the Pocket series today (even for
Peter David--Imzadi wouldn't be published today under Pocket's written
guidelines) was not uncommon. (Read "Spock, Messiah!" if you doubt me.)
> I also doubt that M&C were trying to pull a fast one on Bantam by
> "slipping" slash content into their books. More likely they simply saw
> no reason to leave the slash elements out as long as they were "toned
> down" enough to be ambiguous.
There seems to have been a conscious effort to write slashy
conversations in such a way that if the reader didn't know it was
slash, they couldn't put the pieces together (and would just be
confused). The book is basically an exercise in social cryptology--if
you don't get it, you don't get it. It's like an entire book written
in Cockney slang.
The Phoenix books aren't "toned down" in the least. If you want toned
down slash, try Margaret Wander Bonnano.
> Early Trek novel publishers couldn't put a
> ban on slash material in their books if they didn't know what slash was.
That's not really it, though ... There was a very porous line between
K/S and the K&S friendship stuff which was loved by a wide swath of
fans (not necessarily K&S zines, but the sort of typical stuff you see
in gen and pro fics between Kirk and Spock from that period, as well
as on the animated series--for example, the scene where Kirk and Spock
hug in "Mudd's Passion").
The publisher was probably deficient in clue--after all, they printed
some really crappy Trek novels by scifi authors looking to make a
buck, including wives and brothers of people they'd already published,
and some of them really didn't know Trek. (One author had apparently
learned about Trek by watching some TAS episodes.)
And if you look at the guidelines today, it's a bit broader than "no
slash"--although K/S is certainly not wanted, while certain other
pairings make it into print via some mysterious process not known to
mere mortals. (Like that Mirror Universe novel a couple of years ago
where everyone is a lesbian.) There have been gay characters in Trek
books from the 80's on, although I haven't seen a really major gay
character in a Trek book yet. Of course, the hint that any Trek cast
character could be bi or gay is assiduously avoided. Just silly.
> M&C probably just wrote the story that they wanted to write and then
> edited it until Bantam said the manuscript was acceptable. The
> publisher, eager to profit from the popularity of Trek, may well have
> rushed the books into publication with minimal attention to certain
> details.
That's an interesting idea. Possible. The books sold (and continue
do). But ... gack. The only books that are worse than the Phoenix
books from that run are "Spock, Messiah!" and "Vulcan!" (Hmm, noticing
a pattern with the "!" in the title....)
Bantam lost their contract with good reason.
> There are a fair number of early Trek pro-novels that are obvious
> mutations of fanfic, of varying quality. What's nice about many of these
> early works, however good or bad they may be as literature or science
> fiction, is that the writers are obviously passionate about the
> characters and write as if they, not Paramount, own them.
The Pocket books is what I'm sure you're referring to. I love those
books.
> I think that's
> greatly preferable to the kind of soul-less, by-the-numbers junk that's
> been published in more recent years by Pocket.
They changed to rules so that they only publish crap.
> These newer books are so
> thoroughly vetted by the Trek image-police that they rarely have any
> creative bite. And they tend to be created by writers for whom Star Trek
> is just another job rather than a passion.
Not necessarily bad--I read a pretty good story about Riker and his
father by a guy who's written novels for other genre fandoms, like
Buffy (I think). It was a lot better than the stuff they've been
publishing recently. The guy was a pro, not somebody who's only really
done Star Trek.
I could rant more about this topic, if you want.
-Hy
Farfalla
--- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, "Hypatia Kosh" <berli@m...> wrote:
> There seems to have been a conscious effort to write slashy
> conversations in such a way that if the reader didn't know it was
> slash, they couldn't put the pieces together (and would just be
> confused).
I don't know. I rather think my homo-shy mother would be somewhat put off by the naked
bonding flirting stuff.
> The publisher was probably deficient in clue
LOL! That's a very funny phrase.
Farfalla
--- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, "tdancinghands" <taylordancinghands@l...> wrote:
> But this is just the fabulous double standard that you see everywhere: Gay *women*
> are okay, because we can just imagine that if there was a *real man* present they'd all
> just get it on with him, and that's okay.
Yeah, that drives me up the wall. There's an underlying social myth stemming from the
warm-up acts in porn movies or something that bisexual girls are just bisexual because
we're *so very horny* that we'll fuck each other if there are no guys around. The whole
idea makes me so uncomfortable that I've been referring to myself internally as a lesbian
for a year or so, even though I obviously have a male partner and like him, & Kirk, Spock,
McCoy, etc. to some extent. For a long time, I've felt very strongly about liking female
bodies better, but the word 'bisexual' just feels weird to me because of all that fallacy built
up around the word from both male ego and porn movies. Or something.
> it's my unhappy suspicion that this sanitized standard also
> applies to scripts, and this is one of the big reasons why the show now sucks so bad.
I don't think Trek is the only place that's happened. I've had the uncomfortable, eerie
feeling these days while watching movies like "Van Helsing" that certain characters are
being written certain ways in order to prevent possibility of slashy implications. First off,
that's impossible. Have you seen the preposterous, "unjustified" pairings the little'uns are
writing these days? There's no way to prevent slash even if the characters have never even
MET each other, lol. Second of all, if it's so obvious that they're doing that, it sticks out as
awkward. It takes you "out of" the story, as it were.
Bluh. I like the way they did it in "Chicago", which seems to be semi-sapphic-on-purpose
anyway. It was gleefully and unapologetically anti-man (not that I'm condoning that or
agree with that) and there were writhing female forms and bulging bosoms all over the
place (which I condone with every cell of my body!) There are even little slashy lines
thrown in all over the place--"Keep your paws off my underwear", etc. They weren't afraid
of it, BUT, if you wanted also to NOT see it, the movie's just as good without it. It's not a
"lesbian" movie. But it's a movie lesbians can have a lot of fun watching.
I wonder, if you asked Catherine Zeta-Jones or any of the other people involved in Chicago
if there were sapphic undertones, if she'd give an answer similar to Roddenberry's t'hy'la
footnote, which gives everyone carte blanche to do whatever.
I am so off topic. I should be smacked. With Major Kira's bra. :P
Farfalla
--- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, "Alara Rogers" <alara@m...> wrote:
> It drives me up the wall when female slashers always assume that the
> male interest in femmeslash and lesbian scenarios is so nasty and
> prurient, but *our* interest in Teh Gay is pure and healthy.
Dancing hands might have been referring not to men who enjoy femslash fanfiction, but
instead to society's treatment of lesbians in general. Until really recently, it seemed like
everyone found lesbians less threatening for the reasons we said in our earlier posts. Now,
things are more blurry--Queer Eye and the huge slash fad have made gay men "hip", and
it's obvious from politics that people who feel threatened by same-sex relationships don't
care about which gender it is.
> just as offensive as femmeslash
> in which it's like, "You're a hot girl with big breasts? So am I!
> Let's screw! In nauseating detail! Using every rude word we know!"
But that's fun! ~_^
> I'm fine with lesbians. If we can't get gay guys, well,
> at least we can have lesbians.
Only in the MU, though, from what I hear. And in that Bonnano book I haven't read.
~Farfalla
Alara Rogers
--- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, "tdancinghands"
<taylordancinghands@l...> wrote:
>
> But this is just the fabulous double standard that you see
everywhere: Gay *women*
> are okay, because we can just imagine that if there was a *real
man* present they'd all
> just get it on with him, and that's okay. Gay *men* on the other
hand -well that's just
> plain sick!
You know, I've spoken to a lot of men who like f/f, and it's not
necessarily like that. A lot of them like f/f the way we like slash.
It's not "ooh, if I was there they'd have sex with me"-- it's
more "one chick hot, two chicks hotter!"
It drives me up the wall when female slashers always assume that the
male interest in femmeslash and lesbian scenarios is so nasty and
prurient, but *our* interest in Teh Gay is pure and healthy. Uh, no.
The main difference is that men have historically been the people
who will consume a material that openly appeals to prurient
interest, and women would not, so over time standards have evolved
to try to sell sex to men without being totally sure how to sell sex
to women. I find slash in which two snarky, emotionally repressed
guys who are fun because of the undercurrent of real emotion *under*
the constant insults are all of a sudden gushing with Luuuuv and
acting like 16 year old girls to be just as offensive as femmeslash
in which it's like, "You're a hot girl with big breasts? So am I!
Let's screw! In nauseating detail! Using every rude word we know!"
I admit that I wish Pocket Books had the cojones to... well... have
cojones. :-) I wish they'd have gay male characters; they have to
know women form a large part of their audience and that gay male
characters in a book would be eaten up by every Trek slasher on the
planet. But I'm fine with lesbians. If we can't get gay guys, well,
at least we can have lesbians.
Farfalla
--- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, "Hypatia Kosh" <berli@m...> wrote:
> If the agenda is truly humanistic, you don't get there by trampling on
> 5% of the population.
Yep *echo chamber*
B5 did it and the sky didn't fall down. Did anybody outside of sci-fi even notice?
Hypatia Kosh
--- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, "Alara Rogers" <alara@m...> wrote:
>
> --- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, "tdancinghands"
> <taylordancinghands@l...> wrote:
> >
> > But this is just the fabulous double standard that you see
> everywhere: Gay *women*
> > are okay, because we can just imagine that if there was a *real
> man* present they'd all
> > just get it on with him, and that's okay. Gay *men* on the other
> hand -well that's just
> > plain sick!
>
> You know, I've spoken to a lot of men who like f/f, and it's not
> necessarily like that. A lot of them like f/f the way we like slash.
> It's not "ooh, if I was there they'd have sex with me"-- it's
> more "one chick hot, two chicks hotter!"
>
> It drives me up the wall when female slashers always assume that the
> male interest in femmeslash and lesbian scenarios is so nasty and
> prurient, but *our* interest in Teh Gay is pure and healthy.
Fuck it, man, I am not a female slasher, I am a gay female, and as a
gay female, I found the existence of that book HIGHLY offensive.
I'm all for lesbian chic, but why is is okay for 7of9 to be gay in the
fucking MIRROR UNIVERSE and not on the frigging show? Everyone who
watched that fucking show--from slobbering fanboys (hey, they're
cool), to lesbians, to the indifferent--thought she was gay. Her
relationship with Janeway had obvious homoerotic undertones. But
noooooo, never mind that DS9 had flirted with it, nevermind that
Northern Exposure had had gay characters years before, and B5 had a
main character admitting to a bisexual love affair, no Star Trek main
character could POSSIBLY be a ... gay. We don't have gays in the
future. Nosiree.
You know what, it's totally fine for you, as a heterosexual consumer
of slash to go "oh, cool, some femmeslash for my consumption" but as a
gay person, it was just one more slap in the face from the supposedly
liberal but truly cowardly fuckwits who run that franchise. I have had
it. Star Trek is dead to me. I'm going to play around with my happy
little TOS characters and pretend that Season 7 of TNG and everything
after it didn't happen. Because I am FUCKING sick of this patronizing
SHIT from so-called progressives who think that the lavender menace is
getting in the way of their agenda.
If the agenda is truly humanistic, you don't get there by trampling on
5% of the population.
And if the agenda is not humanistic, then ta-ta, liberal left, I'm not
with you. I'm against you.
Sure, I'm talking from a position of self-interest, but who else will?
I'm in a teeny-tiny minority. And most of the time, guess what? I
don't have to care about it. But sometimes I do. I've been angry about
this book for a good two years about this, and I guess I still am.
-Hypatia
<whew, I think I need a fire extinguisher now...>
Acidqueen
Hello Farfalla,
>> I'm fine with lesbians. If we can't get gay guys, well,
>> at least we can have lesbians.
> Only in the MU, though, from what I hear. And in that Bonnano book I
> haven't read.
There is a gay pairing in
Star Trek Next Generation: Double Helix (series): Red Sector (book)
http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671032577/qid%3D1108207359/028-8675365-7962152
At least that's what you can read betwen the lines (Styles, grandchild
of the TOS Styles, and a Romulan). It is more about friendship and
trust in bad times, though, than about sex.
This book is also very much about Spock and McCoy, and since they are
both single and no partners around, it can be easily read as S/Mc
*gggg* And since it's during TNG time, we get some Picard-Spock
interaction. Nice too. Unfortunately, the ending ist a bit abrupt.
BTW, a rather conservative het trek writer pointed me to this book,
saying that she had no problem with the homosexual relationship here.
But she can't see how we slash all the main characters when those are
obviously all het...
Birgit
http://www.syredronning.de - Home of the Acidqueen
tdancinghands
--- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, "Alara Rogers" <alara@m...> wrote:
>
> --- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, "tdancinghands"
> <taylordancinghands@l...> wrote:
> >
> > But this is just the fabulous double standard that you see
> everywhere: Gay *women*
> > are okay, because we can just imagine that if there was a *real
> man* present they'd all
> > just get it on with him, and that's okay. Gay *men* on the other
> hand -well that's just
> > plain sick!
>
> You know, I've spoken to a lot of men who like f/f, and it's not
> necessarily like that. A lot of them like f/f the way we like slash.
> It's not "ooh, if I was there they'd have sex with me"-- it's
> more "one chick hot, two chicks hotter!"
>
> It drives me up the wall when female slashers always assume that the
> male interest in femmeslash and lesbian scenarios is so nasty and
> prurient, but *our* interest in Teh Gay is pure and healthy. ...
Fair enuf. I'm certain that there are more than a few het. or bi men out there who
like fem slash for reasons equivalent to the reasons I -a bi, married female- enjoy the
heck out of gay male slash, and if guys like that were calling the shots in our
television networks and movie studios I would have *nothing* to complain about.
But they're not. The guys (and I do mean males here, primarily) calling the shots in
our entertainment industry are pretty darned fucked up, sex wise, and we get to see
their neuroses translated into what apperes on tv and movie screens.
At the heart of this bias I find a phenomenon I call "Phalliphobia" -the fear of dicks. I
first observed this phenomenon back when I was working in market research.
As a break from the surveys we did about brands of beans, cell phones and bed
linnens, we once did a poll to discern "community standards" in several midwest
states. In other words, we called up a bunch of people and asked them what they
thought was "obscene".
Outside of the sheer number of people who are just plain disgusted by any part of the
human body, there were an alarming number of male respondants who found *no*
depiction of the female body to be obscene, but *any* portrayal of a male body,
particularly any portrayal which included a willy, was obscene.
Evidently most men are really disturbed by seeing other men's dicks. Is this because
they fear that all men's dicks are bigger than theirs? (the current craze for certain
types of pharmecuticals gives creedence to this theory). Or is it that they fear that
they will be aroused? Whatever the reason, it seems that an awful lot of guys are
terrified of seeing other mens willys, hence: phalliphobia.
Phalliphobia is what lies behind a lot of homophobia, if you ask me, and it certainly
seems to be a factor in how tv and movies are created these days.
Am I right?
T. Dancinghands
Odosgirl
tdancinghands wrote:
> Evidently most men are really disturbed by seeing other men's dicks. Is this because
> they fear that all men's dicks are bigger than theirs? (the current craze for certain
> types of pharmecuticals gives creedence to this theory). Or is it that they fear that
> they will be aroused? Whatever the reason, it seems that an awful lot of guys are
> terrified of seeing other mens willys, hence: phalliphobia.
At the risk of sounding horribly Freudian, I think it has more to do
with our culture's collective fear that no one's dick is as big,
powerful, or omnipotent as it is supposed to be. If penises become just
another body part that a camera can look at, then the phallus as a
symbol of power loses some of it's "magic," if that makes any sense.
Real penises don't actually look all that imposing. They often look
vulnerable or even silly. And just as most women do not have perfect
breasts, most men don't have ideal dicks. :-)
In other words, yes, there's a risk of exposure ... although exactly who
and what is being exposed could be open for discussion.
Chris, thinking that I should go back and read John Updike's "The
Disposable Rocket," again ...
Odosgirl
Farfalla wrote:
> B5 did it and the sky didn't fall down. Did anybody outside of sci-fi even notice?
I assume that you mean the widely presumed love affair between Susan
Ivanova and Talia Winters. I've heard many fans, mostly at conventions,
praising that relationship as "openly gay," a designation that always
mystifies me. I think that in terms of what we see onscreen, the
relationship is really only barely there, and the audience has to do an
awful lot of inferring to get it there. Basically we get some early
animousity/fascination between the characters, followed by one vague,
ambiguous one-night stand, and then ... nothing--until a season or two
later when Winters is turned into an expendable character and disposed
of. And then another season or two down the road, Ivanova says: "I think
I loved her"--and then never mentions her again. I think Data actually
spent more screen-time time thinking about Tasha Yar after her death. Of
course, I could be mis-remembering or forgetting something; it's been
years since I watched any B5, but I used to follow it faithfully.
Certainly there's more than enough material in the canon on which to
build credible Ivanova/Winters fanfic, and I can even believe that J. M.
Straczynski may have intended a relationship there, but beyond that,
I've never been clear about how this treatment of homosexuality is any
less coy or offensive than what Trek does. I suppose I can see the
argument that B5's (presumed) treatment of homosexuality as no big deal
is a positive development, but think about it. Had it been a
heterosexual relationship, would there have been so much subterfuge?
Compared to the let's-record-every-significant-glance of the John/Delenn
affair, it seems kind of insulting that they forced Susan and Talia's
relationship to depend so much on inference.
I think there was more to be had in terms of a loving, interesting, and
possibly sexual relationship between women in a good episode of "Xena:
Warrior Princess."
Chris
beth...@aol.com
The B5 gay honeymoon thing:
Garibaldi was annoyed by it but that's just because Marcus was playing it up
like the delightfully annoying creature that he was.
Beth
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Farfalla
--- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, bethdrgyn@a... wrote:
> The B5 gay honeymoon thing:
>
> Garibaldi was annoyed by it but that's just because Marcus was playing it up
> like the delightfully annoying creature that he was.
*sigh* That's another reason he'd have made such a good Sirius Black.
~Farfalla,
TOTALLY off topic, lol
tdancinghands
--- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, Odosgirl <odosgirl@g...> wrote:
> At the risk of sounding horribly Freudian, I think it has more to do
> with our culture's collective fear that no one's dick is as big,
> powerful, or omnipotent as it is supposed to be.
Indeed. I onced heard, 3rd hand or so, of Playboy or Hustler or other such extremely
non-scientific poll which supposedly showed that most men thot that the average
size of a man's organ was 10 inches. If this is trus then a lot of men have *serious*
inferiority complexes. But then, this could explain a lot: the rise in the popularity of
"male enhancement" drugs, the continued popularity of SUVs, our current
government...
I could go on and on.
T. Dancinghands
Julianna
--- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, "Farfalla" <blueberrysnail@y...>
wrote:
> The supposed "AIDS" episode of Enterprise was so wacked up. The B-
plot was promoting
> casual wife-swapping, but the A plot was supposed to be about
AIDS?
Gosh, I don't remember that ENT ep, but I remember the one on TNG
where whole boatloads of infected people (many of them whole
families) were pushed out into space where no one would allow them
safe haven. Many of these ships were destroyed as an "act of
mercy." That reflected the late 80's perfectly. HIV/AIDS victims
were the lepers of modern society, and isolationism was the cure
back then. I don't sense that as much today. Am I right?
Peace!
Julianna
Farfalla
--- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, Odosgirl <odosgirl@g...> wrote:
> Okay, there you've got me. I had actually forgotten about that
> storyline. Now that you've brought it to mind, I do recall finding it
> pretty amusing when it aired. OTOH, didn't one or both of the guys find
> the charade more than a little disturbing? That would seem to reinforce
> a "we're not *really* gay" sentiment.
I don't remember it closely enough, but Hypatia would. *waits for Hy's response.*
> I found it hard to believe that Ivanova
> would even look twice at Talia Winters, but what do I know?
Yeah, me too.
> It is extremely annoying the way that the modern Treks seem to pat
> themselves on the back for supposed "taboo-busting" when in fact a lot
> of what they do just re-inscribes those stereotypes.
The supposed "AIDS" episode of Enterprise was so wacked up. The B-plot was promoting
casual wife-swapping, but the A plot was supposed to be about AIDS? The feck?
> I very much doubt that the episode where
> Kirk kissed Uhura was ever promoted as "a very special Star Trek."
HAAHAHAHA a very good point.
Odosgirl
Farfalla wrote:
>
> --- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, Odosgirl <odosgirl@g...> wrote:
>
>>Farfalla wrote:
>>
>>
>>>B5 did it and the sky didn't fall down. Did anybody outside of sci-fi even notice?
>>
>>I assume that you mean the widely presumed love affair between Susan
>>Ivanova and Talia Winters. I've heard many fans, mostly at conventions,
>>praising that relationship as "openly gay," a designation that always
>>mystifies me.
>
>
> Forget the babes. How about the fact that Franklin and [Marcus?] were on an undercover
> mission to go rescue Garibaldi, and in order to *not attract attention*, they were posing as
> a same-sex couple on a honeymoon?? In order to not attract attention means this is
> standard in that era.
Okay, there you've got me. I had actually forgotten about that
storyline. Now that you've brought it to mind, I do recall finding it
pretty amusing when it aired. OTOH, didn't one or both of the guys find
the charade more than a little disturbing? That would seem to reinforce
a "we're not *really* gay" sentiment.
> I hear ya about the Ivanova thing, but i still think it's better than Trek. (And I hate Talia
> anyway and would never be an I/W fangirl b/c the whole idea of Ivanova having feelings
> for a telepath squicks me.)
I had a strong dislike for Talia as well. I think the actress who played
her wasn't terribly expressive. I found it hard to believe that Ivanova
would even look twice at Talia Winters, but what do I know?
> Hy pointed out to me another example anyway and I already forgot the name of the TV
> show where there WAS an open lesbian couple and it wasn't more subtext like Xena. The
> point is that I don't think the religious right would leap all over Star Trek if they had a gay
> character because first off, it's not "for kids" like Spongebob, and second, it's so fringe
> that they might not even notice, *provided Star Trek didn't make a big deal about it in
> publicity first*.
It is extremely annoying the way that the modern Treks seem to pat
themselves on the back for supposed "taboo-busting" when in fact a lot
of what they do just re-inscribes those stereotypes. I think that by the
time TNG was made, a lot of the counter-culture ethos had been
domesticated and pressed into the service of marketing, so rather than
actually breaking new ground on TV, the newer Treks did a lot of
pretending to be radical, trumpeting "issues" shows to prove their
liberal credentials--whereas classic Trek actually had to sneak things
past would-be network censors. I very much doubt that the episode where
Kirk kissed Uhura was ever promoted as "a very special Star Trek."
Chris
Farfalla
--- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, Odosgirl <odosgirl@g...> wrote:
> Farfalla wrote:
>
> > B5 did it and the sky didn't fall down. Did anybody outside of sci-fi even notice?
>
> I assume that you mean the widely presumed love affair between Susan
> Ivanova and Talia Winters. I've heard many fans, mostly at conventions,
> praising that relationship as "openly gay," a designation that always
> mystifies me.
Forget the babes. How about the fact that Franklin and [Marcus?] were on an undercover
mission to go rescue Garibaldi, and in order to *not attract attention*, they were posing as
a same-sex couple on a honeymoon?? In order to not attract attention means this is
standard in that era.
I hear ya about the Ivanova thing, but i still think it's better than Trek. (And I hate Talia
anyway and would never be an I/W fangirl b/c the whole idea of Ivanova having feelings
for a telepath squicks me.)
Hy pointed out to me another example anyway and I already forgot the name of the TV
show where there WAS an open lesbian couple and it wasn't more subtext like Xena. The
point is that I don't think the religious right would leap all over Star Trek if they had a gay
character because first off, it's not "for kids" like Spongebob, and second, it's so fringe
that they might not even notice, *provided Star Trek didn't make a big deal about it in
publicity first*.
~Farfalla
Alara Rogers
--- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, "Hypatia Kosh" <berli@m...> wrote:
> I'm all for lesbian chic, but why is is okay for 7of9 to be gay in
the
> fucking MIRROR UNIVERSE and not on the frigging show? Everyone who
> watched that fucking show--from slobbering fanboys (hey, they're
> cool), to lesbians, to the indifferent--thought she was gay. Her
> relationship with Janeway had obvious homoerotic undertones. But
> noooooo, never mind that DS9 had flirted with it, nevermind that
> Northern Exposure had had gay characters years before, and B5 had a
> main character admitting to a bisexual love affair, no Star Trek
main
> character could POSSIBLY be a ... gay. We don't have gays in the
> future. Nosiree.
See, that sorely pissed me off too. But... the books are not made by
the people who run the series. (For one thing, the books are willing
to establish that minor or original male characters are gay, which
does not appear in the series at all.) The people who run the series
are cowardly motherfuckers, and the people who write the books are
trying to get away with as much as they can get away with. And it
turns out, all they can get away with is mirror universe lesbians.
> You know what, it's totally fine for you, as a heterosexual
consumer
> of slash to go "oh, cool, some femmeslash for my consumption"
I'm bi. Not het. Yes, I happen to be married to a man, which makes
me look het to the rest of the world, but I'm pretty frank about
being bi.
> Because I am FUCKING sick of this patronizing
> SHIT from so-called progressives who think that the lavender
menace is
> getting in the way of their agenda.
>
> If the agenda is truly humanistic, you don't get there by
trampling on
> 5% of the population.
Star Trek isn't liberal progressive. It's a money-making machine.
You must understand that there is a conflict within Trek between the
people who *want* the thing to be liberal/progressive, because it
was when it was created, and the people who want the thing to make
money and rock no boats.
Star Trek is still the only space show that has ever had a female
lead or a black lead. I, too, am infuriated over the lack of gays,
but it's because Rick Berman is a homophobe -- it's not even a
Paramount decision so much as it is that Rick Berman is unwilling to
make the slightest compromise, even so much as admitting that a
redshirt who's gonna die later on in the movie was created to be
gay. Pocket Books tries to get away with what it can (including
establishing that Andorians have four sexes, which obviously Berman,
Braga et al are not interested in running with), but Berman has
final veto power (despite the fact that the books aren't canon and
Berman isn't bound to do what they have established).
> Sure, I'm talking from a position of self-interest, but who else
will?
> I'm in a teeny-tiny minority. And most of the time, guess what? I
> don't have to care about it. But sometimes I do. I've been angry
about
> this book for a good two years about this, and I guess I still am.
And I say that you cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
You're not mad that there were lesbians in the MU, you're mad that
there are *not* lesbians in the regular universe, and that there are
not gays in either the regular or the MU. Well, that doesn't have
anything to do with lesbians in the MU. Having lesbians in the MU is
a tiny crack in the armor of homophobia surrounding Trek, not a spit
in the face of homosexuals and bisexuals.
tdancinghands
--- In ASC...@yahoogroups.com, "Alara Rogers" <alara@m...> wrote:
> ...but it's because Rick Berman is a homophobe --
Not that I need any more encouragement in loathing B & B, but I 'm courious to know:
Has he ever made any specific remarks or written anything to substantiate this, or is
it merely a matter of "By their works ye shall know them."?
T. Dancinghands