Lynch's Spoiler Review: "The Outcast"
Timothy W. Lynch
offering "The Outcast". Those not wishing to have the material for them
spoiled in advance should keep clear from here on.
Damn. I really *wanted* to like this, but I couldn't.
The phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" has rarely been
more apt, in my opinion. I saw what they were trying to do, and I support it
completely; but they blew it on a great many levels. More on that after this
(probably quick) synopsis:
The Enterprise has teamed up with members of an androgynous race called the
J'naii, in a joint attempt to find and rescue the crew of a missing J'naii
shuttle. They quickly find that the shuttle has, in all probability, fallen
into a pocket of "null space", where their electromagnetic energy is slowly
being drained and signals cannot get out. Riker teams up with one of the
J'naii, Soren, to work on charting the pocket. Soren and Riker are each
puzzled and fascinated by the differences in each other's culture: the
concept of gender is so deeply ingrained to Riker, and so foreign to the
J'naii, that it's an incredibly confusing gulf. Nevertheless, the two
quickly become friends.
The charting mission is successful, and preparations ensue to modify the
shuttle in such a way that it can enter the pocket long enough to rescue the
crew. However, the night before the shuttle is to be launched, Soren
confesses to Riker that she finds him attractive. She tells him that this
can never be made public, however; the J'naii find the concept of gender
repugnant and deviant, and those who demonstrate tendencies toward one gender
or another are labeled deviant and "cured" through brainwashing. Soren, and
those like her, live lives filled with secrecy, pretense, and fear. Riker is
stunned.
The following morning, the two successfully rescue the crew of the J'naii
shuttle (just barely, and at the cost of their own shuttle). At the
reception on J'naii that evening to honor them, however, Riker and Soren slip
away to enjoy their rapidly growing love; and Soren's departure is noticed by
her former teacher, Krite.
The Enterprise remains in orbit to chart the pocket in detail. However,
Riker is shocked when, upon entering Soren's quarters, he finds Krite there
instead. Krite informs him that they know what he and Soren have been doing,
and that Soren is in custody to ensure it cannot happen again. Riker
immediately beams down to the surface and interrupts Soren's trial. He
claims that nothing happened, and that any attempts that were made were
entirely on his initiative. Soren, however, refuses to add another lie to
the proceedings, and boldly announces that she *is* female. She points out
how similar she and those like her are to "normal" J'naii: they laugh, cry,
complain, and so on. "What makes you think you can dictate to us how we love
one another?", she cries.
Regardless, the J'naii leader Noor is unmoved. She accepts Soren's
confession of her "perversion" and orders her taken away for treatment, over
Riker's protestations. Riker angrily tells Picard of all that has happened,
but Picard says that if Noor is so adamant, nothing can be done--and he
cautions Riker against taking matters into his own hands. However, Riker
beams down anyway (with Worf coming along to help his friend) and attempts to
rescue Soren. To his horror, however, he discovers he's too late; Soren now
believes her past actions were "sick", and claims to be much happier as a
"normal" J'naii. Heartsick and weary, Riker leaves with the Enterprise.
Well, that's it. Now that the preliminaries are out of the way, on to the
main event.
Sigh. It's probably no surprise that I'd like to be able to like all the
shows TNG produces. I imagine most fans would; after all, having good shows
every week is always to be striven for. I'd held out a lot of hope that this
show would be better than it was, precisely because of the subject matter: a
move like this needs quality and guts to make the effort worthwhile. And
unfortunately, it wasn't.
Little things first. The plot was so lightly drawn as to be downright
skeletal. Nothing beyond the straight Soren-oriented plot was done with any
intention but to contrive a particular meeting or discussion. The first
shuttle accident comes to mind: NOTHING came of it, except that it happened
to get Soren into sickbay to talk to Beverly. Having *Riker* work so
intimately on the *engineering* aspects of the mission without any training,
rather than Geordi or Data? Again, no reason except to keep him in as much
close contact with Soren as possible. Now, a few plot contrivances are not
necessarily a huge problem, if the contrived nature is at least hidden enough
to make it seem a little less contrived. These virtually boasted about being
such contrived scenes; and I simply can't swallow it.
Some other examples of those contrivances come to mind. Why did Riker and
Soren have to use the *same* shuttle they used on the mapping mission for the
rescue attempt (this necessitated the repair scene where Soren confesses her
interest)? There was nothing special about that shuttle so far as the rescue
attempt was concerned; so why did Riker (not an engineer) and Soren (not even
a Starfleet officer) end up fixing the shuttle rather than preparing for the
mission while less crucial people handled the repairs? Why did Riker, often
so casual about women [see "The Game", for example], suddenly fall in love so
deeply that fast? [I could swallow this one in isolation, but in combination
with everything else it doesn't work.] Why was the Enterprise needed to
remain in orbit and chart the nullspace pocket? Couldn't a science vessel
work equally well? (Again, in isolation I could buy this.) It's not even
that these things need explaining, although that would help; they need
full-fledged justification so far as I'm concerned. (Another, more trivial
one is Geordi's beard. Since the preview for "Cause and Effect" shows him
without it, the implication is that this was a temporary thing. And it just
happened to fall in the one show that discusses differences between men and
women, and makes all the major biological male characters except Picard
bearded. Right. That's not at all contrived. Really. Honest.)
Now for the titchier bits. (Be warned: I may end up pontificating a little
bit off topic here and there. I'll try to keep it to a minimum, but a little
context might be needed. If you respond, please be careful about which bits
you include; after all my exhortations about keeping tempers down, the last
thing I want to do is inflame them.)
First of all, there were a couple of MAJOR characterization gaffes, I think.
Worf is the most vivid, especially in the poker game. Since when has Worf
*ever* displayed the kind of sexist, women-are-weaker-beings attitude he
displayed here? Nonsense. He's often enough made statements about HUMANS
being so weak compared to Klingons, and had he dismissed Troi's choice of
wild cards with "Bah. A human game." or something, it would have rung
entirely true. But women? Worf? We've seen Klingon women; and one Klingon
woman in particular who'd probably have ripped Worf's throat out had he
suggested she were weak due to her gender. That made no sense at all; again,
it was a contrivance just to give a few characters air time. Bah.
Picard, toward the end, also seemed way out of character. I can understand
him cautioning Riker about the danger to his career; that's his job, and it's
more or less something Picard would do anyway, both to cover his own ass and
to ensure Riker really knows what he's up against. But the Picard I've seen
over the last 4 1/2 years would not be comfortable having to tell Riker that,
and might have said something at the end to make Riker realize that--or at
the very, very least, would have slumped a bit after Riker left and let his
frustration with the situation show. But not THIS Picard. Nope--he sat
supremely confident of what he said and of its rightness. It seemed so out
of character, and so outright callous, that I half expected Worf's appearance
in the next scene to be that of a watchdog Picard set on Riker. Not a good
thing; not at all.
And as long as we're on the subject, why were Riker and Troi suddenly acting
as though their breakup were only a few months old rather than at least five
years? I mean, really; they've both fallen for people before without showing
such great concern for "what will this do to our friendship?"; why bother
now? This might have made sense early in TNG's run; but here it just seemed
out of place, particularly because I was *expecting* that scene to bring up
Soren's culture and its intolerant ways, not what we found. As it is, the
most interesting thing about that whole scene was seeing Deanna finally hold
a teddy bear; my friend Gina Goff's wishes have just been answered. :-)
And finally, some deep, deep problems. This was TNG's take on the gay rights
and homosexuality issue. We all know that. I, for one, think it's about
time. But when you're tackling an issue that delicate, even by analogy, you
have to be *incredibly* careful about what you say and what impressions you
give off; and it's here that things really crashed, in two ways.
First, the show, making the point that sexual identity is not such a
one-sided or carved-in-stone issue, beats us over the head with about a dozen
sexist stereotypes in a few short scenes. Women wear makeup to attract men.
Men are physically stronger and bigger than women (true in the average, but
stated to sound universal). Men have to lead while dancing. Men this.
Women that. What utter tripe. Can we be a bit MORE sweeping in our
statements next time? There are probably a few false generalizations you
missed. Bleah.
Second, for a show whose ultimate message is supposed to be "Homosexuality
is not wrong, and intolerance is" [a message with which I strongly agree],
I was seeing clear implications that there are *NO* gay people in the 24th
century. When Soren asks if all men like a particular type of woman, Riker's
answer was to talk about various kinds of women people can find attractive.
Would it have been so *hard* to throw in the single phrase "some are
attracted to men" in the middle there? Would it have required that much more
courage? You've already pissed off 90% of the Trek-watching homophobes by
"kowtowing to the gay activists" or some such nonsense by making this show in
the first place; to err in this one core area is a fatal, fatal bit of
carelessness. But no references, outright or subtle, to even a single gay
person on the Enterprise. And that smacks of hypocrisy.
(I find it ironic, by the way, that I saw this show literally an hour or two
after reading the most recent issue of Marvel's "Incredible Hulk" comic,
which contained letters about an AIDS-centered story. That particular story
had the guts to go ahead and say "it doesn't matter how this person got AIDS,
he still needs our help", and it took the rare piece of flak for it. TNG's
more popular and generally of higher quality than Marvel's line; it's
downright depressing to see this show fail in that regard.)
I realize that given the rather blatant analogies to the gay issue throughout
this show, to see me slamming it for NOT showing something is a little odd.
But to be honest, I think this needed to be shown. In any other context, I
could probably dismiss the absence of references to gay people with "oh,
well, it just wasn't all that important at the time". But not here; not when
the very point of "gays are forced to be invisible in this society", made so
crystal clear by analogy, is turned on its head by having gay people STILL
being invisible and not discussed in the society we are *supposed* to be
seeing as better than the J'naii. And my experience has shown me that if you
leave intolerance the slightest hole to slither through, it'll do so and
laugh at you on the way out.
(Another example of that last, BTW, would be Riker's lack of answer to Noor's
point about "those we cure are much happier than they were before." Of
course they are; because society isn't TELLING them they're sick and evil and
bad any more. That's the obvious answer, and the one Riker should have been
able to immediately shoot back with. As it is, people who support "curing"
homosexuals by brainwashing--and they do exist--will jump on that. Too many
holes.)
So this show was odd. It both went too far (in being so blatant about its
point that watching the plot got tedious) and didn't go far enough in pursuit
of its basic points. All in all, that adds up to a big mistake.
This is not to say there aren't a few things I liked about the show. I did
like a few things; just not many. Soren's speech during her trial was
superb (more than made up for the occasional badly-acted bits of her role),
and made the analogy absolutely crystal clear. You could take exactly the
same speech and use it in support of gay rights; just change "female" to
"gay" in her first line, and you're set. And having Riker's rescue come too
late, while on the one hand leaving the whole situation "resolved" [and I'll
bet good money that in even two shows from now, Riker will show no depression
or even any signs that Soren existed; after all, did Worf even LIMP in this,
the show right after "Ethics"? Nope.], which is too neat, did make for a
nicely depressing, and in some ways shocking, ending. I am a little bit
annoyed that the resolution will make it so easy to avoid later, but in the
context of this episode alone, Soren's "cure" made for a nicely grim close.
Frakes also did a reasonably good job, especially in the second half of the
show. In fact, it was really only in the second half of the show that
anybody did any good; the first half was going through the motions to get up
to the real point. But if you could take the depth of his feelings for her
(still not quite understandable to me, given the short timeframe) as given
and go on, then his scenes both in the courtroom and with Picard were very
well presented.
(Actually, I have to take that back. Riker's reaction to gender as
"primitive" was pure Will, and very good--and it was in the first half of the
show. Okay, so there's one scene. :-) )
Anyway, on to some shorter (and hopefully more lighthearted; this is a damned
grim article so far) thoughts:
--The Federation was founded in 2161? The date makes some vague sense to me
based on the dates we know about in the late 20th and early-to-mid 21st
century; was this just pulled out of the blue, or is there some non-"canon"
[bleargh, what an annoying concept] source that mentions this somewhere?
Anyway, I thought that was neat.
--The J'naii, almost surprisingly, actually looked fairly androgynous to me.
I mean, there are obvious limitations in the production, namely that they
have to be played by people who DO have a gender; but I thought they looked
really convincing.
--Split pea soup? Okay, I could deal with Riker stomaching Gagh, but now I
definitely have to believe he had his taste buds surgically removed at some
point in the past. :-)
--Sloppy writing alert: The line "so, are women considered more superior to
men" leaped out at me while I was watching. Eeeeeurgh. That's a sixth-grade
error, guys; where were the editors? I'm not always a stickler for grammar,
but this just jarred.
--I think the final set of commercials were poorly placed. Having Soren's
final speech *immediately* go into Noor's stony-faced condemnation would have
been much more powerful; instead, the commercials jarred the mood in a big
way.
--The music was more or less there. Chattaway's slipping; nothing was wrong
with this, but nothing stood out either.
--They discussed the problem of a gender-neutral pronoun. Lisa heartily
suggests that from now on, they can use the word "bowie". Don't ask. ;-)
Well, that ought to just about cover everything. I give them credit for
overwhelmingly good intentions; but damn, this show just wasn't what it
should have been.
So, then, the numbers:
Plot: 2.5. There was a plot? There were plot *contrivances* to get to the
one basic conflict, but a plot?
Plot Handling: 3. Too blatant AND too subtle; that's a tough trick.
Characterization: 2. Fairly reasonable Riker and Soren (both acted and
written), but the absolute blunders with Picard and Worf, and the
lack of anyone else interesting, bring it way down.
TOTAL: 3. I'm rounding up half a point for good intentions. Nice try,
guys, but I wish it hadn't turned out this way.
NEXT WEEK: (besides an on-time review for once :-) )
Time loops, amnesia, and collisions. This strikes me as a bad week to be a
new recruit. :-)
Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)
BITNET: tlynch@citjuliet
INTERNET: tly...@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.ca...@hamlet.caltech.edu
"What makes you think you can dictate how we love one another?"
--
Copyright 1992, Timothy W. Lynch. All rights reserved, but feel free to ask...
Liz Broadwell
> First, the show, making the point that sexual identity is not such a
> one-sided or carved-in-stone issue, beats us over the head with about a dozen
> sexist stereotypes in a few short scenes. Women wear makeup to attract men.
> Men are physically stronger and bigger than women (true in the average, but
> stated to sound universal). Men have to lead while dancing. Men this.
> Women that. What utter tripe. Can we be a bit MORE sweeping in our
> statements next time? There are probably a few false generalizations you
> missed. Bleah.
My problem with this stuff wasn't so much the rundown of the categories as the
fact that not once -- not *once* -- did anyone bring up the difficulties of
distinguishing "natural" differences from "cultural" differences. Nor were the
explicitly cultural differences (who leads on the dance floor and who wears the
makeup) marked as cultural. My suspicion here is that -- since Soren was so
adamant in her courtroom speech that her gender orientation is "natural" (she
mentions that she was "born with these feelings") against her culture's
insistence that it's not -- somebody didn't want to clutter up the issue by
suggesting, even by implication, another source for the shape of one's
identity. Bleah. Granted, they had to simplify matters somewhat in order to
tell a story rather than present a panel discussion ;-). But I'd've preferred
to see this bit o' clutter at least given a passing mention rather than
ignored.
* Liz Broadwell (broa...@penndrls.upenn.edu) * *
* Department of English * Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam *
* The University of Pennsylvania * *
Andrew Hackard
>offering "The Outcast". Those not wishing to have the material for them
>spoiled in advance should keep clear from here on.
>Damn. I really *wanted* to like this, but I couldn't.
That's about how I felt, too.
>Sigh. It's probably no surprise that I'd like to be able to like all the
>shows TNG produces.
The collective non-gasp from r.a.s at this point is nigh onto deafening... :)
>Little things first. The plot was so lightly drawn as to be downright
>skeletal.
Cartiligenous, even.
>Nothing beyond the straight Soren-oriented plot was done with any
>intention but to contrive a particular meeting or discussion.
Hmm. I hadn't noticed that, but you're right; that's probably why I ignored
the Standard Tacked-On Disaster Plot (STODP) in my review. On the other hand,
the folks who keep arguing for relating the two subplots ought to be VERY
happy... :)
>The first
>shuttle accident comes to mind: NOTHING came of it, except that it happened
>to get Soren into sickbay to talk to Beverly.
And now we know why Worf isn't feeling the aftereffects of "Ethics": Soren had
a concussion and was up and prancing about not half an hour later with no ill
effects. Sigh...
>Having *Riker* work so
>intimately on the *engineering* aspects of the mission without any training,
>rather than Geordi or Data? Again, no reason except to keep him in as much
>close contact with Soren as possible.
Actually, I got the impression at that point that Riker had the training, and
that what they were doing were relatively minor, but time-consuming,
modifications. No reason to waste your chief engineer or your second officer
on that. (The problem being, of course, that there's no reason to waste your
*first* officer on it, either, but since we've already seen TNG's aversion to
specialists in most cases, I'd at least want the shuttle pilot helping to
alter the shuttle he's going to use. Assuming he's qualified, anyway, which
I think this scene shows he is.)
>Some other examples of those contrivances come to mind. Why did Riker and
>Soren have to use the *same* shuttle they used on the mapping mission for the
>rescue attempt (this necessitated the repair scene where Soren confesses her
>interest)?
Money...they didn't want to use two different models. Just a guess.
>There was nothing special about that shuttle so far as the rescue
>attempt was concerned; so why did Riker (not an engineer) and Soren (not even
>a Starfleet officer) end up fixing the shuttle rather than preparing for the
>mission while less crucial people handled the repairs?
I agree...that's why you have a crew of n00 people on the ship. That was one
of the good things about (I think) "Pen Pals": Wes's planetary survey team
showed us that there ARE specialists on the big E, even if we almost never see
them.
>Why did Riker, often
>so casual about women [see "The Game", for example], suddenly fall in love so
>deeply that fast?
I was going to argue for the intrigue of the new, but then I realized he
didn't really fall for her until *after* the shuttle scene, so that doesn't
fly. Maybe he was just deceiving himself. (Oh no, that could *never* happen.
Not in a million years could a crew member be showing human faults...)
>Why was the Enterprise needed to
>remain in orbit and chart the nullspace pocket? Couldn't a science vessel
>work equally well?
Yes, but they were already there...why fly another ship in? This one I don't
have any trouble with.
>First of all, there were a couple of MAJOR characterization gaffes, I think.
>Worf is the most vivid, especially in the poker game. Since when has Worf
>*ever* displayed the kind of sexist, women-are-weaker-beings attitude he
>displayed here? Nonsense. He's often enough made statements about HUMANS
>being so weak compared to Klingons, and had he dismissed Troi's choice of
>wild cards with "Bah. A human game." or something, it would have rung
>entirely true. But women? Worf? We've seen Klingon women; and one Klingon
>woman in particular who'd probably have ripped Worf's throat out had he
>suggested she were weak due to her gender. That made no sense at all; again,
>it was a contrivance just to give a few characters air time. Bah.
Yes, but you DO have to admit that Kehleyr (damn, I wish I had the Guide with
me!) is unusual for a Klingon woman. Still, he's shown great respect to
women in the past (including Deanna, *just* *last* *episode*), and--while
it made for a good Deanna line--is out of character, IMO.
>...I half expected Worf's appearance
>in the next scene to be that of a watchdog Picard set on Riker.
That was, IMO, one of the few genuine plot twists in the episode, as I also
felt Picard had sent Worf down to keep Will in line. I was actually surprised
and pleased that they didn't do that, and in an episode where the only other
surprise was how bad it actually was, I'll take what I can get.
>First, the show, making the point that sexual identity is not such a
>one-sided or carved-in-stone issue, beats us over the head with about a dozen
>sexist stereotypes in a few short scenes. Women wear makeup to attract men.
>Men are physically stronger and bigger than women (true in the average, but
>stated to sound universal). Men have to lead while dancing. Men this.
>Women that. What utter tripe. Can we be a bit MORE sweeping in our
>statements next time? There are probably a few false generalizations you
>missed. Bleah.
Yep. Now, I could argue that Soren was merely generalizing what she had
observed, but I won't, since it is awfully dismaying. (Had she said *most*
women wear makeup, I'd've bought it.) I noticed the "men are stronger" line,
and was NOT impressed...apparently they haven't been back to Angel One
recently. And this man, for one, hates dancing in the first place and would
just assume not lead if he can't avoid dancing altogether. No argument
here at all.
>Second, for a show whose ultimate message is supposed to be "Homosexuality
>is not wrong, and intolerance is" [a message with which I strongly agree],
>I was seeing clear implications that there are *NO* gay people in the 24th
>century. When Soren asks if all men like a particular type of woman, Riker's
>answer was to talk about various kinds of women people can find attractive.
>Would it have been so *hard* to throw in the single phrase "some are
>attracted to men" in the middle there?
The only possible response to that (other than "Yep, Tim's pegged it.") I
can see is to say that Riker, being (presumably) het, didn't think to talk
about how some men prefer other men. Yes, it's weak, but it's truly all I
can think of. (Actually, that's not true: maybe he just didn't want to
confuse Soren any further about gender and sex. Again, though, that's
awfully, awfully weak.) I'm just as disgusted with Paramount as you seem
to be, Tim.
>(I find it ironic, by the way, that I saw this show literally an hour or two
>after reading the most recent issue of Marvel's "Incredible Hulk" comic,
>which contained letters about an AIDS-centered story. That particular story
>had the guts to go ahead and say "it doesn't matter how this person got AIDS,
>he still needs our help", and it took the rare piece of flak for it. TNG's
>more popular and generally of higher quality than Marvel's line; it's
>downright depressing to see this show fail in that regard.)
Was this one of Peter David's stories, or not? Kudos to the author in any
event.
>This is not to say there aren't a few things I liked about the show. I did
>like a few things; just not many. Soren's speech during her trial was
>superb (more than made up for the occasional badly-acted bits of her role),
>and made the analogy absolutely crystal clear. You could take exactly the
>same speech and use it in support of gay rights; just change "female" to
>"gay" in her first line, and you're set.
Actually, after having the entire show be allegorical, this speech seemed
too jarring for my taste. The very thing you praise was its biggest turn-off
for me, and between this and the shuttle scene I have to agree with Atsushi:
this was sure a talky episode. Even my non-r.a.s reading friend picked up
on this one, and he was not amused. (He's no homophobe, but he didn't think
it fit in the context of the episode either.)
>[and I'll
>bet good money that in even two shows from now, Riker will show no depression
>or even any signs that Soren existed; after all, did Worf even LIMP in this,
>the show right after "Ethics"? Nope.]
500 quatloos says not even next episode.
>Frakes also did a reasonably good job, especially in the second half of the
>show. In fact, it was really only in the second half of the show that
>anybody did any good; the first half was going through the motions to get up
>to the real point. But if you could take the depth of his feelings for her
>(still not quite understandable to me, given the short timeframe) as given
>and go on, then his scenes both in the courtroom and with Picard were very
>well presented.
But not in the grove...I still can't swallow that final "I love you" as
even remotely genuine. If someone said that to me in that tone, they'd
probably get "I'm sorry" back as well. :)
>(Actually, I have to take that back. Riker's reaction to gender as
>"primitive" was pure Will, and very good--and it was in the first half of the
>show. Okay, so there's one scene. :-) )
That's true...he had some good facial expressions in this one.
>--The J'naii, almost surprisingly, actually looked fairly androgynous to me.
>I mean, there are obvious limitations in the production, namely that they
>have to be played by people who DO have a gender; but I thought they looked
>really convincing.
I was impressed, and even more so that they used a balance of male and female
actors; I was afraid they were going to stick with only one gender. Every
time I started doubting the diversity possible in a genderless society, they'd
cut to the planet and shoot me down.
>--I think the final set of commercials were poorly placed. Having Soren's
>final speech *immediately* go into Noor's stony-faced condemnation would have
>been much more powerful; instead, the commercials jarred the mood in a big
>way.
So it *wasn't* just me...good. (Well, not good precisely, but...hell, you
know what I mean.) I can't think of a worse place for those commercials,
actually.
>Well, that ought to just about cover everything. I give them credit for
>overwhelmingly good intentions; but damn, this show just wasn't what it
>should have been.
I'm not even sure I'd do that; I think it was more like finally caving in to
pressure. If they'd really wanted to do it, it would've been done right.
>So, then, the numbers:
>
>TOTAL: 3. I'm rounding up half a point for good intentions. Nice try,
>guys, but I wish it hadn't turned out this way.
And after all this I gave it a higher grade. I feel so generous.
--
--Andrew Hackard Disclaimer: As usual, I wasn't consulted.
an...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
Hackard's First Law of Mathematical Problem Solving:
"If you can't do it--screw it."
Gina Goff
>the most interesting thing about that whole scene was seeing Deanna
>finally hold a teddy bear; my friend Gina Goff's wishes have just been
>answered. :-)
The incomprehensible sentence above is an allusion to one of Tim and Lisa's
wedding presents. (It was a strange wedding, so I guess you'd expect the
presents to be a bit unusual, too.) A friend of mine made them a pair of
rather alien-looking teddy bears, and I told Tim that Deanna Troi had made
them and that Riker had teased her about their rather odd appearance. I
don't have a picture of said bears. I do, however, have a picture of Tim
wearing some pajamas with teddy bears on them. Seems to me a few of you
were interested in seeing a gif of Tim...
Seriously, I didn't find this episode to be as clumsy as Tim thinks it was,
but I, too, was put off by Picard's callousness (not his position, just the
way he stated it). I was also more than a little irritated by the "women
have longer hair and are weaker" sorts of statements. These "facts" are
not universal; attitudes about male/female dress are highly cultural and
temporal, and Beverly knows of at least one planet (Angel One) where the
women are considered to be the larger, stronger sex. Why couldn't she have
at least said that she was making general statements about the past of her
own particular culture, and that there were many different cultures?
Gina
Gina Goff
>the most interesting thing about that whole scene was seeing Deanna
>finally hold a teddy bear; my friend Gina Goff's wishes have just been
>answered. :-)
The incomprehensible sentence above is an allusion to one of Tim and Lisa's
Kyle Jones
tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
> Why did Riker, often so casual about women [see "The Game",
> for example], suddenly fall in love so deeply that fast? [I
> could swallow this one in isolation, but in combination with
> everything else it doesn't work.]
Why not? Hard to believe this is coming from a married man.
Sometimes it really clicks, and you know your days of just
messing around with women are over. Nothing hard to believe
about that. I'm disinclined to believe that it was just puppy
love, as Riker isn't a teenager, nor is he inexperienced or
unused to attention from women.
> First of all, there were a couple of MAJOR characterization
> gaffes, I think. Worf is the most vivid, especially in the
> poker game. Since when has Worf *ever* displayed the kind of
> sexist, women-are-weaker-beings attitude he displayed here?
> Nonsense. He's often enough made statements about HUMANS
> being so weak compared to Klingons, and had he dismissed
> Troi's choice of wild cards with "Bah. A human game." or
> something, it would have rung entirely true. But women?
> Worf? We've seen Klingon women; and one Klingon woman in
> particular who'd probably have ripped Worf's throat out had he
> suggested she were weak due to her gender.
C'mon, give Worf a break. He was playing with _human_ females to
start with. Further, there's no arguing that women on average
are physically weaker than men, and this seems to be the case for
Klingons as well. The Klingon society is more of a patriarchy
than ours so why would you expect his thinking to be any
different than what was portrayed?
I agree with you about the callous Picard characterization.
> And as long as we're on the subject, why were Riker and Troi
> suddenly acting as though their breakup were only a few months
> old rather than at least five years? I mean, really; they've
> both fallen for people before without showing such great
> concern for "what will this do to our friendship?"; why bother
> now?
I don't think Riker had fallen for anyone to the extreme that he
had fallen for Soren. Also it seems that the only reason Riker
and Troi aren't together now is that it would be improper for
some reason, or career conflicts. Dalliances and flings don't
count, but serious affairs might deserve more consideration.
Depends on your relationship with past loves.
> First, the show, making the point that sexual identity is not such a
> one-sided or carved-in-stone issue, beats us over the head with about a dozen
> sexist stereotypes in a few short scenes. Women wear makeup to attract men.
> Men are physically stronger and bigger than women (true in the average, but
> stated to sound universal). Men have to lead while dancing. Men this.
> Women that. What utter tripe. Can we be a bit MORE sweeping in our
> statements next time? There are probably a few false generalizations you
> missed. Bleah.
Most generalization are false. We use them anyway becasue we
don't have enough brain power to keep track of all the
exceptions, and because the generalizations are correct enough to
be useful. Things only get ugly when you try to change the world
to fit your generalizations. That's what this episdoe was about.
> Second, for a show whose ultimate message is supposed to be "Homosexuality
> is not wrong, and intolerance is" [a message with which I strongly agree],
> I was seeing clear implications that there are *NO* gay people in the 24th
> century. When Soren asks if all men like a particular type of woman, Riker's
> answer was to talk about various kinds of women people can find attractive.
> Would it have been so *hard* to throw in the single phrase "some are
> attracted to men" in the middle there? Would it have required that much more
> courage? You've already pissed off 90% of the Trek-watching homophobes by
> "kowtowing to the gay activists" or some such nonsense by making this show in
> the first place; to err in this one core area is a fatal, fatal bit of
> carelessness. But no references, outright or subtle, to even a single gay
> person on the Enterprise. And that smacks of hypocrisy.
I don't think the message was "Homosexuality is not wrong, and
intolerance is." I think the message was "Live and let live." I
don't think this episode took a stand on homosexuality. I think
it took a stand on messing with homosexuals just because they're
homosexuals. Different message altogether.
Michael Rawdon
In <1992Mar25.0...@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>This is not to say there aren't a few things I liked about the show. I did
>like a few things; just not many. Soren's speech during her trial was
>superb (more than made up for the occasional badly-acted bits of her role),
>and made the analogy absolutely crystal clear.
Uggh; I *hated* that speech. I found it to be precisely as well-executed as
Kirk's "We The People" speech in "The Omega Glory", that is to say, heavy-
handed, obvious, trite and dull. Of course, one could argue that it's
something that "needed to be said" both socially and in the context of the
story. As for the former, I don't think it needed to be said to *me*, and
as for the latter, the plot and 'message' were so contrived and pedantic
anyway that this is just another symbol of things going badly wrong in the
construction of this story.
(I wonder if this episode went through many script revisions? It certainly
'felt' like it did.)
> You could take exactly the
>same speech and use it in support of gay rights; just change "female" to
>"gay" in her first line, and you're set.
This argument HAS been used many times before on the subject, which probably
explains why I found it so inane; it's old news to me. (One of the people
I watched the episode with was calling out lines in the episode - accurately -
before they were spoken. It was pretty funny that the script was so
obvious.)
>Frakes also did a reasonably good job, especially in the second half of the
>show. In fact, it was really only in the second half of the show that
>anybody did any good; the first half was going through the motions to get up
>to the real point.
I agree that things seemed a little less awkward in the second half of the
episode. But even so, it often seemed to me like the actors just felt
uncomfortable with the whole episode. Which is not to say that it's the
subject matter that made them so; the script was banal enough to disconcert
anyone, I think!
>--The J'naii, almost surprisingly, actually looked fairly androgynous to me.
>I mean, there are obvious limitations in the production, namely that they
>have to be played by people who DO have a gender; but I thought they looked
>really convincing.
I thought they made an okay effort, but I found it to be child's play to
figure out who was male and who was female. I think it would have been more
effective had they shamelessly lifted the approach they used in "The Cage":
Have one gender play the bodies, and the other gender do voiceovers for the
script.
As several people pointed out while we were watching it, it would have been
even MORE interesting to have had Soren played by a male.
>--Split pea soup? Okay, I could deal with Riker stomaching Gagh, but now I
>definitely have to believe he had his taste buds surgically removed at some
>point in the past. :-)
Hey! Split pea soup is GREAT! :-)
>--The music was more or less there. Chattaway's slipping; nothing was wrong
>with this, but nothing stood out either.
ObResponse: Eh. :-)
>--They discussed the problem of a gender-neutral pronoun. Lisa heartily
>suggests that from now on, they can use the word "bowie". Don't ask. ;-)
How about "Fred"? (That's a small CS in-joke. :-)
>Well, that ought to just about cover everything. I give them credit for
>overwhelmingly good intentions; but damn, this show just wasn't what it
>should have been.
As I commented before, "The Host" dealt with this subject better in a short
tangential sense than the whole episode of "The Outcast" did. (I have also
heard that the episode has been blasted on soc.motss, which doesn't surprise
me as the gay friends I watched the episode with gave it a unanimous thumbs-
down. One even [jokingly, I think] considered never watching TNG again.)
>NEXT WEEK: (besides an on-time review for once :-) )
>Time loops, amnesia, and collisions. This strikes me as a bad week to be a
>new recruit. :-)
Anyone know if this is what became of the rumored episode with the Trek
Classic-era starship being stuck in a time-loop? Or maybe that plot
element is still on. I'd rather like to see such a thing, just for the
novelty of seeing them recreate Trek Classic uniforms.
--
Michael Rawdon
raw...@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI
"It is a fool's prerogative to utter truths that no one else will speak."
- Dream, "A Midsummer Night's Dream"
Matt Hucke
>>NEXT WEEK: (besides an on-time review for once :-) )
>>Time loops, amnesia, and collisions. This strikes me as a bad week to be a
>>new recruit. :-)
>
>Anyone know if this is what became of the rumored episode with the Trek
>Classic-era starship being stuck in a time-loop? Or maybe that plot
>element is still on. I'd rather like to see such a thing, just for the
>novelty of seeing them recreate Trek Classic uniforms.
This is the one, CAUSE AND EFFECT, with Captain Frazier Crane in a time-loop
for 80 years. They used a Soyuz-class ship, which is similar to
Miranda/Avenger (Reliant). I'd much rather have seen a Constitution-class
vessel.
--
Real Programmers Don't Eat Quiche.
hu...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Gene Roddenberry 1921-1991
Dave Spensley
[...]
>Worf is the most vivid, especially in the poker game. Since when has Worf
>*ever* displayed the kind of sexist, women-are-weaker-beings attitude he
>displayed here? Nonsense. He's often enough made statements about HUMANS
Yes, his attitude seemed out of character, but did you notice his facial
expressions? He appeared to be smiling, jovial, and in an all-around good
mood! I thought this was a pleasant change from his usually grim demeanor.
(Let's hope that wasn't his "sexist face"! :-)
Dave Spensley
dav...@ecs.comm.mot.com
r...@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov
>--They discussed the problem of a gender-neutral pronoun. Lisa heartily
>suggests that from now on, they can use the word "bowie". Don't ask. ;-)
Could that be "Bowie" as in David? ;^)
Later!
Ray Balister
Andrew Hackard
I'm afraid the first one got bitbucketed.]
tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>WARNING: The following post contains spoilers regarding the recent TNG
>offering "The Outcast". Those not wishing to have the material for them
>spoiled in advance should keep clear from here on.
>Damn. I really *wanted* to like this, but I couldn't.
Sounds familiar.
>Sigh. It's probably no surprise that I'd like to be able to like all the
>shows TNG produces.
The collective non-gasp from r.a.s.* is nigh onto deafening... :)
>Having *Riker* work so
>intimately on the *engineering* aspects of the mission without any training,
>rather than Geordi or Data? Again, no reason except to keep him in as much
>close contact with Soren as possible.
Actually, I can see the point on this one. If I were piloting a shuttle into
a potentially VERY dangerous place, I'd want to be damn sure the modifications
to that shuttle were done properly. Besides, we've seen all the way back to
"The Naked Now" that Riker works closely with the engineering personnel, so
I'm willing to grant this scene.
>Some other examples of those contrivances come to mind. Why did Riker and
>Soren have to use the *same* shuttle they used on the mapping mission for the
>rescue attempt (this necessitated the repair scene where Soren confesses her
>interest)?
Cuz it looked cool. :)
>There was nothing special about that shuttle so far as the rescue
>attempt was concerned; so why did Riker (not an engineer) and Soren (not even
>a Starfleet officer) end up fixing the shuttle rather than preparing for the
>mission while less crucial people handled the repairs?
See above.
>Why did Riker, often
>so casual about women [see "The Game", for example], suddenly fall in love so
>deeply that fast? [I could swallow this one in isolation, but in combination
>with everything else it doesn't work.]
The allure of the new, I guess. I thought it was pretty sudden as well.
>Why was the Enterprise needed to
>remain in orbit and chart the nullspace pocket? Couldn't a science vessel
>work equally well? (Again, in isolation I could buy this.)
But they were already there; why fly in an entirely different ship when you've
got one that'll do the job just as well?
>First of all, there were a couple of MAJOR characterization gaffes, I think.
>Worf is the most vivid, especially in the poker game. Since when has Worf
>*ever* displayed the kind of sexist, women-are-weaker-beings attitude he
>displayed here? Nonsense. He's often enough made statements about HUMANS
>being so weak compared to Klingons, and had he dismissed Troi's choice of
>wild cards with "Bah. A human game." or something, it would have rung
>entirely true. But women? Worf? We've seen Klingon women; and one Klingon
>woman in particular who'd probably have ripped Worf's throat out had he
>suggested she were weak due to her gender. That made no sense at all; again,
>it was a contrivance just to give a few characters air time. Bah.
But Kehleyr is a special case; she's certainly not like any Klingon woman
we;ve seen before or since. I'm not arguing that Worf is right, though--
I for one find his attitude childish.
OTOH, he'd be unlikely to call "Federation Day" a *human* game. Hasn't he
shown respect before for Riker's skills at the game?
>First, the show, making the point that sexual identity is not such a
>one-sided or carved-in-stone issue, beats us over the head with about a dozen
>sexist stereotypes in a few short scenes. Women wear makeup to attract men.
Based on the people Soren had come into contact with, she might very well
conclude that all human women wear makeup, and Bev may have not thought that
not all do. (She does, after all.) Or maybe she didn't want to confuse Soren
so soon after a severe head-bopping.
>Men are physically stronger and bigger than women (true in the average, but
>stated to sound universal).
I noticed this, too, and it really bugged me. I guess the big E hasn't been
round to Angel One lately. :)
>Second, for a show whose ultimate message is supposed to be "Homosexuality
>is not wrong, and intolerance is" [a message with which I strongly agree],
Me too. (Further 'me three', 'me four', ... , 'me n' posts will be roundly
flamed. ;) )
>I was seeing clear implications that there are *NO* gay people in the 24th
>century. When Soren asks if all men like a particular type of woman, Riker's
>answer was to talk about various kinds of women people can find attractive.
>Would it have been so *hard* to throw in the single phrase "some are
>attracted to men" in the middle there? Would it have required that much more
>courage?
Again, Riker may simply not have thought of it, since he's already shown
marked attraction to women and only women. Or, again, he may not have wanted
to confuse Soren any further. I'm rationalizing, as I think a throwaway line
would've been easy to add in, but I can also see how it wasn't.
>(I find it ironic, by the way, that I saw this show literally an hour or two
>after reading the most recent issue of Marvel's "Incredible Hulk" comic,
>which contained letters about an AIDS-centered story. That particular story
>had the guts to go ahead and say "it doesn't matter how this person got AIDS,
>he still needs our help", and it took the rare piece of flak for it. TNG's
>more popular and generally of higher quality than Marvel's line; it's
>downright depressing to see this show fail in that regard.)
Peter David, or no?
>This is not to say there aren't a few things I liked about the show. I did
>like a few things; just not many. Soren's speech during her trial was
>superb (more than made up for the occasional badly-acted bits of her role),
>and made the analogy absolutely crystal clear. You could take exactly the
>same speech and use it in support of gay rights; just change "female" to
>"gay" in her first line, and you're set.
This is my one problem with your review, Tim. For me, this speech, even more
than the one in the shuttle, ruined the show. They'd spent the whole episode
building up this allegory for the gay rights debate, then ruined the effect
of the allegory by scraping the varnish off for this one scene. If they wanted
a show about the debate, they should've done one; since it's obvious they
didn't (at least not blatantly), this speech was entirely out of place.
>[and I'll
>bet good money that in even two shows from now, Riker will show no depression
>or even any signs that Soren existed; after all, did Worf even LIMP in this,
>the show right after "Ethics"? Nope.]
500 quatloos says not even next week.
Also (long as we're on the subject), TNG has just set a new record for
neglecting medical problems. Worf is healed, but Soren went walking around
with a concussion for half the episode with no ill effects whatsoever.
Not even a, "What a headache." Blech...
>Frakes also did a reasonably good job, especially in the second half of the
>show. In fact, it was really only in the second half of the show that
>anybody did any good; the first half was going through the motions to get up
>to the real point. But if you could take the depth of his feelings for her
>(still not quite understandable to me, given the short timeframe) as given
>and go on, then his scenes both in the courtroom and with Picard were very
>well presented.
Although I have to take issue with the final "I love you!"--the more I think
about it the less I like it. It just rang completely false for me.
>--The J'naii, almost surprisingly, actually looked fairly androgynous to me.
>I mean, there are obvious limitations in the production, namely that they
>have to be played by people who DO have a gender; but I thought they looked
>really convincing.
I was pretty impressed with the makeup. I thought they were going to weasel
and use only one gender of actor, so when they had both I was pleasantly
surprised.
>--I think the final set of commercials were poorly placed. Having Soren's
>final speech *immediately* go into Noor's stony-faced condemnation would have
>been much more powerful; instead, the commercials jarred the mood in a big
>way.
Good, it wasn't just me. I thought they were horrendously placed, though
I'm hard put to find a better place. (With Riker back aboard the ship, I
guess; that's the only obvious dramatic shift.)
I'm still irritated, BTW, that Soren had this female leaning. I think it
would've made for a far better show to have Riker involved with a truly
androgynous being, though I don't know how it would be resolved. Making
her "feel" female just perpetuates the stereotype that this episode was
supposed to alleviate. Diatribe over.
>So, then, the numbers:
>
>TOTAL: 3. I'm rounding up half a point for good intentions. Nice try,
>guys, but I wish it hadn't turned out this way.
Wow...you liked it even less than I did. Impressive...
Timothy W. Lynch
he...@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM ) writes:
>In article <1992Mar25.0...@cco.caltech.edu>, tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes...
>Tim, I usually agree completely with your reviews and I'm sorry but this
>time I think you couldn't be more wrong.
>1) Every plot and character mistake you point out is trivial.
I don't think so. A major change in Worf's entire demeanor is not trivial.
Plots being contrived out of whole cloth *solely* to engineer us closer to
the main point is not trivial. (Yes, Geordi's beard is trivial; it's also
a vanishingly small part of the problems I had with the show.) Preaching
inclusiveness while failing to SHOW that inclusiveness is absolutely anything
but trivial.
>Picard not showing frustration after
>his discussion with Riker - give the actors some latitude.
Latitude to screw up? I'm concerned about the CHARACTERS here; and both
Stewart and Frakes are capable of a subtle job when they put their minds
to it. Hell, for Stewart it seems as easy as breathing
>Worf's
>attitude toward women - illogical sure, but since when are prejudices
>logical?
I wasn't asking for logic. I was asking for consistent attitudes. Worf's
free to be illogical about his attitudes--but when they show up out of the
blue, that's not illogical, that's forced.
>I just think you're way to sensitive to these things.
Suit yourself.
>The people who are
>going to *most* effected by this show are ones who are not
>anti-anti-gay. (A triple negative? Translation: people who are not
>against people who are against gays.
I hope you're right. I realize they were preaching to the choir with me
(and w/ most of r.a.s.*, it seems; glad to see it), but I saw too many holes
for bigotry to seep through. If you're going to be blunt and preach, take
no prisoners.
Tim Lynch
Atsushi Kanamori
>tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>WARNING: The following post contains spoilers regarding the recent TNG
>>offering "The Outcast". Those not wishing to have the material for them
>>spoiled in advance should keep clear from here on.
>>Damn. I really *wanted* to like this, but I couldn't.
>
>That's about how I felt, too.
>>Sigh. It's probably no surprise that I'd like to be able to like all the
>>shows TNG produces.
>
>The collective non-gasp from r.a.s at this point is nigh onto deafening... :)
>
[rest of Drew's response deleted]
How did I know you were going to say that? I just had this feeling.
Somehow, it seems I've read this exchange before. Is anyone else
getting a sense of deja-vu? Of repetition?
. . . . .
: : : :. : : :.. .: : . ::.: . ..: : .. : ..
::::::::::.: :::::::.:::::::::::.:::::: ::::::::..::::.:.
------------ -------------------------- --------------------------
TNG Lifelines: From "Yesterday's Enterprise" To "The Outcast" --
"All hands abandon ship!" -- Capt. Picard in CAUSE & EFFECT preview
John Piscitello
|>
|> >Tim, I usually agree completely with your reviews and I'm sorry but this
|> >time I think you couldn't be more wrong.
|>
|> >1) Every plot and character mistake you point out is trivial.
|>
|> I don't think so. A major change in Worf's entire demeanor is not trivial.
|>
Why do you people think this is a major change in Worf's character?
He was obviously talking about human women. He thinks humans are weak
enough, women even more so.
Besides, this was thrown in because the story centered around sexuality
and gender roles. That's a plot device I think you should have no problem
accepting.
As for all the other "inconsistencies" you may have found, I say:
"Why don't YOU try to write 100 hour-long episodes and be
consistent 100% of the time!"
/****************************************************************************
Johnny Tello * Postal Worker: "What's your first name, Mr. Burns?"
504 Beacon St, Apt#23. * Homer: "I don't know..."
Boston, MA 02215 *
****************************************************************************/
Michael Rawdon
>|> >In article <1992Mar25.0...@cco.caltech.edu>, tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes...
>|> I don't think so. A major change in Worf's entire demeanor is not trivial.
> Why do you people think this is a major change in Worf's character?
> He was obviously talking about human women. He thinks humans are weak
>enough, women even more so.
I don't see it. He's shown substantial respect for MANY humans in the past
(Riker, Picard and Tasha Yar - a woman - for starters). K'Ehleyr was half-
human (and female), and he hardly believed her to be weak. The only weakness
we've seen him admit of his parents is that they are old and have trouble
keeping up with Alexander; otherwise he seems to have the utmost respect
for them (after all, they raised HIM!).
I see it as a very deep change - aberration is a better term - in his
character.
> Besides, this was thrown in because the story centered around sexuality
>and gender roles. That's a plot device I think you should have no problem
>accepting.
It would be acceptable if it had been uttered by someone whom we could
believe actually felt that way.
> As for all the other "inconsistencies" you may have found, I say:
> "Why don't YOU try to write 100 hour-long episodes and be
>consistent 100% of the time!"
Ah, so you expect us to sit here and act like good little sycophants even
when we find an episode poor? "Gee, that was a pretty bad episode, but
we don't really have any right to say so, so we'll just have to fabricate
some praises to post to r.a.s..." Riiiight.
Timothy W. Lynch
joh...@athena.mit.edu (John Piscitello) writes:
[on Worf's "a woman's game", "women are weak" attitude in "The Outcast"]
> Why do you people think this is a major change in Worf's character?
Because it is? Gee, I dunno.
> He was obviously talking about human women. He thinks humans are weak
>enough, women even more so.
Ah. Yes, he thinks humans are weak. That is established and entirely
fitting. But there's never been ANYTHING to suggest the "women even more
so" part--and in fact, his respect for some women, human or otherwise
(mostly half-human, given Troi and K'Ehleyr), is evidence against. That's
the part that presents the problem.
> Besides, this was thrown in because the story centered around sexuality
>and gender roles.
Precisely. "Thrown in." Not because it made sense, not because it was sound
characterization, but to drive home a point that was already clear. That's
precisely what I disagree with.
> As for all the other "inconsistencies" you may have found, I say:
> "Why don't YOU try to write 100 hour-long episodes and be
>consistent 100% of the time!"
What sort of "inconsistencies" that I've found do you consider trivial? I
couldn't care less if they get a ship class wrong; hell, I probably wouldn't
even notice. But I do care if the characters behave in nonsensical ways, or
if the plot is skeletal. And that's what I objected to in "The Outcast".
Tim Lynch
David D Kilzer
>Again, followups set to r.a.s.current.
>
>joh...@athena.mit.edu (John Piscitello) writes:
>
>[on Worf's "a woman's game", "women are weak" attitude in "The Outcast"]
>
>> Why do you people think this is a major change in Worf's character?
>
>Because it is? Gee, I dunno.
>
>> He was obviously talking about human women. He thinks humans are weak
>>enough, women even more so.
>
>Ah. Yes, he thinks humans are weak. That is established and entirely
>fitting. But there's never been ANYTHING to suggest the "women even more
>so" part--and in fact, his respect for some women, human or otherwise
>(mostly half-human, given Troi and K'Ehleyr), is evidence against. That's
>the part that presents the problem.
Wait, though. The J'naii are a HUMANOID species, NOT HUMAN. Unless you
use "human" to mean the same thing, this may make a difference in Worf's
opinion. Also, they are an asexual race with some "misfits" of their
society having male or female tendencies; ALL of the humanoid races encountered
previously on TNG have had two sexes, male and female. Maybe Worf is just
prejudiced to asexual humanoids having female tendencies. (Not too likely
in the 24th century, but possible nonetheless. You may forget that on some
of the backworlds of the Federation or galaxy for that matter, the inhabitants
(denizens if you will) are not as clean and pure of mind as the Enterprise
crew. And no, I'm not calling the Klingon homeworld a backwater planet! :)
>> Besides, this was thrown in because the story centered around sexuality
>>and gender roles.
>
>Precisely. "Thrown in." Not because it made sense, not because it was sound
>characterization, but to drive home a point that was already clear. That's
>precisely what I disagree with.
>
>Tim Lynch
>The Davemeister<
--
[ >The Davemeister< ][ __The_Borg_on_College__ ][ __Star_Trek_IV__ ]
[ ddki...@iastate.edu ][ "Studying is futile." ][ Kirk: "No, I'm from ]
[ David "Dave" Kilzer ][ "Homework is irrelevant." ][ Iowa. I only WORK in ]
[ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ][ "Partying _IS_ relevant." ][ outer space." ]
91F9774
>
>
>
>Seriously, I didn't find this episode to be as clumsy as Tim thinks it was,
>but I, too, was put off by Picard's callousness (not his position, just the
>way he stated it). I was also more than a little irritated by the "women
>have longer hair and are weaker" sorts of statements. These "facts" are
>not universal; attitudes about male/female dress are highly cultural and
>temporal, and Beverly knows of at least one planet (Angel One) where the
>women are considered to be the larger, stronger sex. Why couldn't she have
>at least said that she was making general statements about the past of her
>own particular culture, and that there were many different cultures?
>
>Gina
The main reason are not in good shape here is that they don't try. I'm in good
shape: I can bench about 180 pounds. I'm a little over 250 pounds of lean
rippling muscle under a protective sheath ( :) ) but I am *NO* comparison to
"ICE" or "ZAP" or many of the female contenders on American Gladiators. I've
never watched the show before tonight (I'm on spring break. Yea!) but I was
astounded. These ladies were hanging from rings, occasionally with only one
hand, and swinging around kicking at each other for close to 40 seconds.
I recently got into a conversation with a couple of army guys and they both
mentioned the "monkey bar walk" (with your hands) as the toughest part of some
kind of exit physical.
If we can ever get out of programming our females to be weak then I imagine
the "average" female strength would double in a generation.
---
Stephen McLeod
The Eternal Student
Jose Gonzalez
>
>joh...@athena.mit.edu (John Piscitello) writes:
>
>[on Worf's "a woman's game", "women are weak" attitude in "The Outcast"]
>
>> Why do you people think this is a major change in Worf's character?
>
>Because it is? Gee, I dunno.
>
>> He was obviously talking about human women. He thinks humans are weak
>>enough, women even more so.
>
>Ah. Yes, he thinks humans are weak. That is established and entirely
>fitting. But there's never been ANYTHING to suggest the "women even more
>so" part--and in fact, his respect for some women, human or otherwise
>(mostly half-human, given Troi and K'Ehleyr), is evidence against. That's
>the part that presents the problem.
>
characteristic at least once, so there is precedence. Remember "Legacy?"
Worf, just before they're about to beam down to the planet:
Worf: Sir, we can anticipate a violent response to our presence, perhaps
the *doctor* should wait here until we signal.
Beverly: I appreciate your concern, I think it's exaggerated.
Worf: The colony is completely lawless, Lt. Yar spoke of rape gangs...
Beverly: Mr. Worf, I can handle myself.
Riker: She's coming, the Arco's crewmen may need immediate medical attention.
(Disgruntled looks from Worf.)
You can't explain this away, Worf was concerned for his safety *soley* because
she was a woman. He didn't say, "Perhaps you and the Doctor should remain
behind," he singled out the doctor because she was a woman. Plain and simple.
--
Jose Gonzalez
Spock- "In your own way, you are as stubborn as another
captain of the Enterprise I once knew."
Picard-"Then I'm in good company, sir."
Timothy W. Lynch
>In article <1992Mar29.0...@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>joh...@athena.mit.edu (John Piscitello) writes:
>>
>>[on Worf's "a woman's game", "women are weak" attitude in "The Outcast"]
>>> He was obviously talking about human women. He thinks humans are weak
>>>enough, women even more so.
>>
>>Ah. Yes, he thinks humans are weak. That is established and entirely
>>fitting. But there's never been ANYTHING to suggest the "women even more
>>so" part--and in fact, his respect for some women, human or otherwise
>>(mostly half-human, given Troi and K'Ehleyr), is evidence against. That's
>>the part that presents the problem.
>>
>Tsk tsk tsk....How soon they forget. Worf actually has shown this
>characteristic at least once, so there is precedence. Remember "Legacy?"
[quotes deleted]
Ooch. You have a point. I blew it. Of course, that's one of the worst
shows of its season, so I'd tend to weight it a lot less strongly. :-)
Tim Lynch
Jose Gonzalez
>wom...@eng.umd.edu (Jose Gonzalez) writes:
>>>>enough, women even more so.
>>>
>>>Ah. Yes, he thinks humans are weak. That is established and entirely
>>>fitting. But there's never been ANYTHING to suggest the "women even more
>>>so" part--and in fact, his respect for some women, human or otherwise
>>>(mostly half-human, given Troi and K'Ehleyr), is evidence against. That's
>>>the part that presents the problem.
>>>
>>Tsk tsk tsk....How soon they forget. Worf actually has shown this
>>characteristic at least once, so there is precedence. Remember "Legacy?"
>
>[quotes deleted]
>
>Ooch. You have a point. I blew it. Of course, that's one of the worst
>shows of its season, so I'd tend to weight it a lot less strongly. :-)
>
"Skin of Evil" wasn't exactly masterpiece theatre, but I still consider
Tasha dead. (Well, *one* of her, anyway. (-:)
Atsushi Kanamori
>In article <1992Mar30.0...@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>wom...@eng.umd.edu (Jose Gonzalez) writes:
>>>>>enough, women even more so.
>>>>
>>>>Ah. Yes, he thinks humans are weak. That is established and entirely
>>>>fitting. But there's never been ANYTHING to suggest the "women even more
>>>>so" part--and in fact, his respect for some women, human or otherwise
>>>>(mostly half-human, given Troi and K'Ehleyr), is evidence against. That's
>>>>the part that presents the problem.
>>>>
>>>Tsk tsk tsk....How soon they forget. Worf actually has shown this
>>>characteristic at least once, so there is precedence. Remember "Legacy?"
>>
>>[quotes deleted]
>>
>>Ooch. You have a point. I blew it. Of course, that's one of the worst
>>shows of its season, so I'd tend to weight it a lot less strongly. :-)
>>
>
>"Skin of Evil" wasn't exactly masterpiece theatre, but I still consider
>Tasha dead. (Well, *one* of her, anyway. (-:)
Now, Jose, you're not getting into the spirit of it. Being a "canon-bucker"
is truly liberating -- you just don't know how until you are one.
Try it! You'll like it!
:-)
. . . . .
: : : :. : : :....: : . ::.: . ..: : .. : .. .
::::::::::.: :::::::.:::::::::::.:::::: ::::::::..::::.:.:
------------ -------------------------- --------------------------
TNG Lifelines: From "Yesterday's Enterprise" To "Cause & Effect" --
"Captain, we are getting unusual readings 20,000 km off the
starboard bow." -- Worf, Worf, Worf and Ensign Ro.