(no subject)
Apr. 7th, 2009 01:50 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
commotiocordisReading through Memory Alpha. Started to look up a distinction about Klingon hearts for my RPG (they're referred to in canon both as having two hearts and having an 8-chambered one, the latter tending to be by characters who would be expected to be knowledgeable, but I wanted to make sure), went to fixing the article about the DS9 episode "Babel" (they had the kind of aphasia they experienced totally wrong; it's Wernicke's, not global), and somehow managed upon the article on Sexuality. It's a good article, actually, talking a lot about the issue of homosexuality in Star Trek (at first I was all "Erm, I'm probably the wrong person to point this out considering how every ST character who's ever been in a room with another of the same sex is sleeping with that person in my universe, but there's such a thing as heterosexuality too," but that's really all covered via canon examples of different species' courtships and mating and such in more specified articles). My initial dislike for it, I realized while beginning to write this up to get to the quote I'll present in a minute, was really because of what they were reporting and the fact that there are no gay people in Star Trek unless they're Mirror Universe and thus somewhat evil. Which is how they're perceived, as well, as shown by my having to edit up the Wikipedia article on MU characters because somebody decided that MU!Ezri and MU!Leeta were bisexual (it's suggested that Ezri is a lesbian and Leeta we only see for a few seconds and have no way of knowing) and thereby "promiscuous" (we see Ezri with Kira whom she decides is morally corrupt and dumps for Leeta, and Leeta just with Ezri. Not promiscuous in my book, especially if you consider that in the novels, the pair got married).
This is another example of what I thought was my dislike for the article and have decided upon further reading is just my dislike for the situation/producers.
"The production team over the years has stated that they do not want to create a "token" homosexual character for the express purpose of the issue, anymore than they want to create a black character purely to address racial issues."
Was his acting really that bad that no one remembers, idk, SISKO? That was entirely his point. And even if it wasn't his initial point of being there, Avery Brooks turned it into the point with his requisite, twice a season episodes talking about how bad racism is. I mean, it's bad, but I'm watching Star Trek, kthx, and though social commentary is important, I think not only did we get it the first time, society as a whole has pretty much moved past the whole separate drinking fountains thing, I'd hope. Instead of talking about how the past sucked, talk about how we can move forward and love each other, etc. etc.
This is another example of what I thought was my dislike for the article and have decided upon further reading is just my dislike for the situation/producers.
"The production team over the years has stated that they do not want to create a "token" homosexual character for the express purpose of the issue, anymore than they want to create a black character purely to address racial issues."
Was his acting really that bad that no one remembers, idk, SISKO? That was entirely his point. And even if it wasn't his initial point of being there, Avery Brooks turned it into the point with his requisite, twice a season episodes talking about how bad racism is. I mean, it's bad, but I'm watching Star Trek, kthx, and though social commentary is important, I think not only did we get it the first time, society as a whole has pretty much moved past the whole separate drinking fountains thing, I'd hope. Instead of talking about how the past sucked, talk about how we can move forward and love each other, etc. etc.
