Triaxiansilk.com

Rigil Kent wrote:You're misremembering. They did not establish that the nephew was in Ireland, merely that the letters in Breaking the Ice originated from Ireland. People have just linked the two since his nephew was in the fourth grade and the letters were from a fourth grade class. However, I only need to point to the constant repeats throughout the show (the name "Cyrus" showed up twice, as well as the job of architect showing up twice, not to mention the various episodes that were basically redos of previous show episodes.

Startrek.com says:

The bridge crew takes a little time out to record a message for Tucker's nephew's fourth-grade class in Ireland, answering the students' questions

As to the gay brother thing: my complaints revolve around the political correctness of it's inclusion, specifically the "husband" reference. It seemed, to me, to serve little purpose beyond saying "Look how advanced the future is! Much better than us savages!"

Thank you! Somewhere people were talking about how Picard talked down to 20th century humans, and that's what I feel like such a reference is here.

JadziaKathryn wrote:

Rigil Kent wrote:You're misremembering. They did not establish that the nephew was in Ireland, merely that the letters in Breaking the Ice originated from Ireland. People have just linked the two since his nephew was in the fourth grade and the letters were from a fourth grade class. However, I only need to point to the constant repeats throughout the show (the name "Cyrus" showed up twice, as well as the job of architect showing up twice, not to mention the various episodes that were basically redos of previous show episodes.

Startrek.com says:

The bridge crew takes a little time out to record a message for Tucker's nephew's fourth-grade class in Ireland, answering the students' questions

It's wrong. From the TRANSCRIPT:

From the Teaser:
TUCKER: (referring to child's drawing) Looks like we're going about warp four point five.
PHLOX: Human children have such fertile imaginations. Sub-commander.
TUCKER: These were sent by my nephew's fourth grade class. I thought the crew might like to see how excited folks at home are about our mission.

And then later,

TUCKER: (at Reed's station) You sure you want me here for this? I've got a lot of work to do.
ARCHER: Stay put, Commander. This is important. Start the recording. To the students of Ms Malvin's fourth grade class at the Worley Elementary School in Kenmare, County Kerry, Ireland.

If this was Trip's nephew's class, why would he be so interested in leaving? Further, there is no indication that it was his nephew's class. Yeah, it's a logical conclusion to draw, what with the two fourth grade references in the same episode, but there is nothing that firmly establishes it. Hence, it's fanon since it never actually states that they are one and the same.

Conceded.

Hm, interesting. I had always assumed that it was the class of Trip's nephew they recorded for, and thus that his brother had to be living in Ireland. Guess that's out now...

In TGTMD wasn't either the brother or the brother-in-law from Ireland? I'm almost sure they were trying to tie that in.

As for Rigil being insulted my the mention of the husband, I don't know what to say . . .

The author wrote it that way because that is HIS experience. HE has a same-sex partner. Many people do.

Also, of course the writers intended that they were recording a show for Trip's nephew's 4th grade class. Otherwise, what a coincidence! An equally plausible theory is that Trip's brother's children exist but weren't mentioned in The Good That Men Do.

I don't think Rigil was trying to claim a conspiracy. He was trying to say that including mention of a gay couple is almost obligatory in a politically correct book, and he, like myself, is belligerently politically incorrect. He also took pains to say that he had no problem with the issue of gay couples as such, merely that it seemed the inclusion gave him the impression that it was gratuitously inserted in order to make a political statement, rather than because it advanced the story. At least that was how I read his comment. I could be wrong.

^ that's how I read it. It's like when TOS inserted Lt. Uhura. Totally pointless. Today she represents "the secretary" cliche'

If they were to insert a gay character for real, I'd expect all the angst that comes with it. Otherwise, don't bother.

I knew I should have kept my damned mouth shut.

Just speaking from the instances I've seen, it really depends on how it's done. It was more subtle in the TNG book "Rogue", and in my opinion the more subtle the better, because otherwise it has a way of standing out and it really takes me out of the story. Making a point of saying that two guys are married does that.

Rigil Kent wrote:I knew I should have kept my damned mouth shut.

Aww no you shouldn't have. I think you have a lot of interesting stuff to say and many times I agree with you. I agree on this too because I don't like politically correctness. It's like in those commercials when they have one person from each ethnicity. Like what the frell, why can't people just be people? Why does IDIC have to be so forced and fake??

CX wrote:Just speaking from the instances I've seen, it really depends on how it's done. It was more subtle in the TNG book "Rogue", and in my opinion the more subtle the better, because otherwise it has a way of standing out and it really takes me out of the story. Making a point of saying that two guys are married does that.

Exactly. Forcing a "point" on the reader/viewer makes it like totally fake. Like when there's like an interracial couple so the whole frelling plot could revolve around their racial issue. Groan. I haven't read TGTMD because the library doesn't have it yet (and might not even get it at all ) so I have no idea how it's done there. But I think the best way is to make like an "anti-point". Because the whole point is that there's no point at all.

I think it depends on what the story is about. Like everything else, I think it should be done by writers who understand their subject matter and an handle it competently.

I've skimmed TGTMD (naughty me, I've had it since it came out and haven't taken the time yet) and from what I've read, it seems completely pointless. It doesn't add anything to the story- and it does take away from it because of the reasons Rigel stated.

T'Poptarts wrote:It's like in those commercials when they have one person from each ethnicity. Like what the frell, why can't people just be people? Why does IDIC have to be so forced and fake??

I hate to break it to you, but some of us LOVE the commercials with the interracial couples. It's more common in real life than on commercials, so when we see it, we go FINALLY, someone NOTICED WE'RE HERE!

Same for Star Trek. Total lack of homosexuality to this point! Finally we get some homosexulaity in Star Trek. Great, because it reflects real life.

Also I edited my comment above, but it was too late. I don't want to instigate trouble. But your objection to the word "husband" in this context really . . . well I have to tone down my immediate response.

I will repeat a point from above that I put in the edited section. OF COURSE the recording was for Trip's nephew's fourth grade class. Otherwise, what a coincidence! It would be at least equally plausible to just say the children of the brother and brother-in-law exist, but weren't mentioned in TGTMD.

Is it really enough to have it just so they can have it though? I guess from what I know, that isn't how gay people want it done either. Like T'Poptarts said, the entire point is that it isn't supposed to be a point. Trek has this horrible habit of making issues out of stuff like that, and that's the wrong kind of attention. I don't know quite else how to put it I guess.

I am in fair agreement with Rigil and BnB. I also am not much for political correctness. In fact I tend to view it as the stalinism of ideas.

The current crop of executives and writers in the "entertainment" industry are much alike in thier views and most of what issues forth is pablumized to the point of unpalatibility.

Homosexuality is both a political and social issue. Shoving it your face is seen by some as the preferred mechanism to force acceptance. Unfortunately that approach tends to engender the opposite reaction.

A writer injecting homosexuality into a story as a political or social point is not necessarily a bad thing. Unfortunately it usually is.

When you are reading along and come to a "where did that come from?" item inserted into a work you know it really does not belong there. The writer is abusing the audience and that that is inappropriate.

I am not saying those that write slash should be silenced or denied their right to express their opinions. Not at all. I do not seek it out and should be able to avoid it just as those that desire such material should be able to access it.

Bottom line is, does it add to the story or detract?

HtH

I can understand the authors of TGTMD wanting to include a reference to gays, since one of the authors is himself gay. It is only natural that a writer expresses themselves about their own viewpoint. Just like I write in a conservative, somewhat confrontational voice. I just wish that if a writer is going to include something like that they would go ahead and include it in such as way that it flows into the story naturally. Was there any story related reason for including the mention of Trip's brother's sexual orientation? If he had been heterosexual, would the author have felt obligated to make a point of mentioning that?

What I mean is, if you have a homosexual character, why not introduce them in the story and casually introduce their same sex partner as part of the storyline? that way you let the reader know that they are gay without rubbing anyone's nose in it or sounding preachy. I re-introduced one of my OCs, Trip and T'Pol's grandson George, and I never bothered to mention his sexual orientation because it wasn't relevant to my story. I mentioned in his previous appearance during my first story that he was married with children, but I did not specify the sex of his spouse. It just has no connection to the story, so why bring it up?

If all you are doing is bringing up the sexual orientation of a peripheral character simply for the purpose of notifying the reader that the character is gay, and for no other reason, then the writer is doing nothing more than preaching a political agenda. If it has no narrative function, and does nothing to advance the story, why mention it at all?

I have tried to make a point in my stories of citing multi-ethnic origins of some of my OCs, like using cross-cultural names. Matilda Wu for instance. Things like that. I do this as a way to try to give the reader the impression that the character is of mixed ethnic heritage without going into preacher mode. But even if the reader doesn't pick up on that, so what? It really doesn't make any difference ot the story itself does it?

That's what we are trying to say I think. At least, that is what I am trying to say. Badly I guess.