Overall Quality 3.0 / 5.0 (a good story with a couple of serious weaknesses)
Gay Content 2.0 / 5.0 (important gay character)
Gay Positivity 4.5 / 5.0 (would have been ideal but for one major cliché)

Closely tied to the film Star Trek: First Contact, the story opens with a brief prologue following the events of the film. The book’s main story, however, takes place as a flashback set shortly after the Enterprise-E is commissioned. (The Enterprise-D was destroyed in the movie Star Trek: Generations ).

Chiaros, a lone planet located in a desolate and empty section of space called the Geminus Gulf, has applied for Federation membership. However, the Romulans are also vying for possession of the planet and the Gulf. Social instability in the Chiaran civilization gives the Romulans ample opportunity to manipulate local politics and create a dangerous situation for the Federation. And no one can understand why: as far as anyone can tell, the Geminus Gulf is an absolutely worthless territory.

In the meantime, the Federation’s secret spy organization, Section 31, is conspiring with the Romulan Tal Shiar to effectively cede the planet to the Romulans in exchange for some tactical information. As part of their effort, Section 31 contacts Lt. Sean Hawk (played by Neal McDonough in First Contact) to recruit the young and promising (and gay!) officer (1).

Section 31 was created in the Federation charter, and has the ability (largely due to a complete lack of oversight) to take extraordinary, and otherwise illegal and immoral, actions in order to protect Federation interests. Deep Space Nine introduced the organization in “Inquisition” (Season Six, Episode No. 142).

I’ve never particularly cared for Section 31 as a source of drama. In Rogue, I have a couple of issues with it that detract from the reading experience.

First, the raison d’être for the organization rings hollow to me. Michelle Erica Green, writing for TrekNation, states the dilemma well:

“Unfortunately, it’s difficult to make any character sound intelligent while parroting Sloan’s explanations of the reasons for the group’s existence — basically, the argument runs that the Federation can’t maintain its existence under its own peaceful charter, so it needs a top-secret division to break all its rules in the name of saving it, even if that division’s actions (ranging from assassinations to stopping proto-warp civilizations from traveling into space) violate everything the Federation represents” (2).

Second, the two men who work for Section 31 in the novel just seem dumb to me. I mean seriously, how naive can you be to think that the Romulans are going to hand over tactically important information in exchange for possession of what seems to be a worthless world? Have these people never heard of the “too good to be true” principle? Do you think they might be suspicious and try to do a little due diligence before breaking Federation law?

This particular criticism leads me to my mixed feelings on the plot itself. Fundamentally, it’s a pretty good story: multi-layered, suspenseful, exciting, and thought-provoking. It probably would have made a superior movie to either Insurrection or Nemesis.

Mangels and Martin do an amazing job with the established Enterprise crew as well. Each of the characters sound distinct and exactly like they do on the shows, and Mangels and Martin manage to throw in a number of references to the movies (especially First Contact, of course) and the television shows that were a lot of fun to identify.

But Section 31’s foolishness undercut the story’s tension and distracted me from fully engaging with the plot. Also, the story takes too damn long to get going. By 100 or so pages in, I was hooked. But it took 100 pages! I probably would have stopped reading if I hadn’t been so interested in the gay content that is so rare for Star Trek.

And Mangels, who is openly gay, and Martin handle the gay content extremely well. A major negative cliché does rear its head. If you’ve seen First Contact, you know what I’m talking about, an unfortunate stereotype that the authors inherit from the movie. I suspect they would have happily opted for a different outcome for the gay character if they could have.

Instead, this book almost serves as a love letter to a character who may be the sole good gay person in semi-official Star Trek canon. They are pitch perfect in their portrayal of Lt. Hawk. They don’t even really comment on his gayness; it’s just part of the fabric of the story and of the social milieu of the Federation. It’s a total non-issue, and they mention Hawk’s partner Keru Ranul as a natural part of Hawk’s life. The authors present Hawk himself as a prodigy, unusually bright and skilled, and clearly possessing a thoughtful and moral nature. He makes an excellent hero.

I mention that Lt. Hawk may be the only good gay character in semi-official Star Trek canon, but I must emphasize the “may be.” It’s not exactly clear cut. For one thing, Star Trek novels do not count as “canon.” Paramount Pictures expects them to adhere as closely as possible to established Star Trek material, and Paramount must approve any Star Trek book project. The vetting process suggests that the books have at least semi-official status, particularly if nothing in the Star Trek canon (the movies and television series) directly contradicts them.

However, Andy Mangels

“admits there were some problems with the Paramount licensing and [he] worried the character’s sexuality might be edited. He goes on to say, ‘Paramount licensing was very quiet about the book’s contents, and made sure that Rick Berman and Brannon Braga (the Trek TV producers) did not see it before it went to press. There was some concern that the gay elements would be forcefully removed if Berman and Braga saw it. Once it was at the printer, it was given to their office. I never heard if there was fallout or not, but the book got publicity all around the world’” (3).

It’s worth noting that Rick Berman, who produced First Contact, released a statement in conjunction with the film specifying that Lt. Hawk is heterosexual (4).

Hawk’s sexuality is not even slightly ambiguous in Section 31: Rogue. He’s gay, happily partnered, and positively portrayed. Yay! Albeit with one pretty serious negative item. I scored a little higher on the Gay Positivity scale than I normally would given that negative issue, but I was so happy with the rest of the portrayal I decided to be a little more relaxed with the score.

Overall, it would probably take a pretty serious Star Trek fan to really get into this story. If that’s you, or if you’re interested in meeting a gay character in the Star Trek universe, I definitely recommend Section 31: Rogue.

—————————-

For more posts on all things gay in the Star Trek universe, check out my Gay Star Trek Main Page.

—————————-

(1) Does the story sound vaguely familiar? In fact, it’s loosely similar to “The Mind’s Eye,” Episode No. 91 of Star Trek: The Next Generation. In that episode, the Romulans supply forged Federation weaponry to the citizens of Krios in order to destabilize the Federation’s relationship with the Klingon Empire.

(2) Michelle Erica Green, “Section 31: Rogue and Shadow,” TrekNation.com, 19 May 2001, http://www.treknation.com/reviews/books/section_31_rogue_shadow.shtml (retrieved 5 May 2008)

(3) Michael Ricci, “Forbidden Gay Frontier: Where Star Trek Hasn’t Boldly Gone,” AfterElton.com, 20 April 2006, http://www.afterelton.com/archive/elton/TV/2006/4/startrek3.html (retrieved 30 May 2008).

(4) “Gay Trek Rumor Light Years Ahead of Reality,” GLAAD Alert (Archive), 23 August 1996, http://www.glaad.org/publications/archive_year.php?year=1996 (retrieved 5 May 2008).

This novel aimed at gay adolescents recalls 1984’s excellent “The Boys on the Rock” by John Fox, another high school coming out tale. “Rainbow Boys” is a blander, shallower telling, but nevertheless remains an engaging read.

The three protagonists – Kyle, Nelson, and Jason – represent different points along the spectrum of sexuality, personality, and outness. Nelson and Jason are painted in fairly broad strokes – he’s the flamboyant queeny guy, while Jason is a jock struggling with feelings he doesn’t understand or want. And yet both are humanized, completely sympathetic, because Sanchez treats us to all their contradictions. The movie theater scene between Kyle and Jason is a delight of stream-of-consciousness adolescent angst. If Jason as popular high school athlete is removed from my personal experience, I powerfully connect to his fears, hope, uncertainties, and desires revealed in that scene.

Kyle, meanwhile, is the most “normal” of the group (we know this because the author keeps telling us so), and indeed he is the most individualized character in the novel. That is, he is not a “type,” nor is he a cardboard cutout. The same cannot be said of the secondary characters; the parents, friends, and school personalities are all one-dimensional archetypes present in the book primarily to spout dialogue to which the main trio can respond. In other words, they’re more scenery than characters.

A quote on the back cover suggests “Rainbow Boys” is for high school students what “Heather Has Two Mommies” is for the toddler set, and I agree. The book never tries to be more than what it is – a simple tale of three guys all struggling to find their way in a confusing and unfair world. That’s everyone story, but it’s wonderful and affirming to find it told from a pink perspective. Ultimately, don’t read this if you want a thought-provoking story or an in-depth character study, but do pick it up if you’d like to enjoy a quick, easy, and charming read clearly aimed at younger readers.

Addendum:

The similarities and differences between “The Boys on the Rock” and “Rainbow Boys” intrigue me. The latter book was published nearly 20 years after the former, and indeed the story reveals some important shifts in social attitudes. Specifically, Nelson and Kyle more easily accept their gay-ness, and they have resources available to them (such as a gay youth support group) that would have seemed unthinkable to the protagonist of Fox’s novel. And yet, it is dismaying how little the basic plot has strayed over nearly two decades. It’s still such a struggle for many gay youth to accept themselves, and gay people still face so much hate and violence. But both books are powerful tools to help gay kids by showing them that they are not alone or abnormal.

Summary

Long, long ago in a galaxy far away – oh, wait, wrong story. Actually in an alternate universe, or in the future, humanity lives in a galactic milieu shared with various sentient species. One of those species has introduced humans to a metaphysical experience called the Dream, a sort of collective telepathic experience. Those who can access the Dream are called the Silent; and in many parts of the politically splintered universe, the Silent are slaves and property.

Our erstwhile hero Kendi was a Silent slave himself, until he was able to join the Children of Irfan, a quasi-religious sect that seek out other Silent. And in this novel, they have a very specific target: a rogue Silent with powers never before seen. Several different parties desperately seek the rogue Silent, many hoping to use his powers to their own advantage. Will the (mostly) selfless Children reach him first?

And of course, the poor fellow comes from a family of many secrets, some of which threaten to tear the Dream apart, literally.

Quality

Dreamer benefits from a very strong, vivid opening sequence. But gradually following that, the story loses steam and focus. The novel has two basic acts: first, find the ultra-powerful rogue Silent; second, save the Universe. The first act is considerably more interesting than the second because it’s more character-driven. In fact, the focus shifts from Kendi in the first half to various secondary characters in the second. Meanwhile, a handful of minor characters introduce potentially interesting or meaningful subplots, which never go anywhere. In other words, the book starts with a razor sharp story and involving characters, but then the storylines get sloppy. I enjoyed some of the twists, for example, events on the home world of the Children of Irfan took me by surprise. But ultimately, the story winds down to a relatively weak ending.

Gay Content

For me, the most compelling reason to keep reading was Kendi, an engaging and gay protagonist. One of the subplots centered on his strained relationship with a former boyfriend, Ben. I really wanted to know how it would work out for them.

And Harper handled the gay components of his novel quite deftly, particularly considering he’s straight. I found the lack of gay angst in this novel quite refreshing! I grow tired of authors (or filmmakers, or TV producers) who say they’ll include gay characters only when it’s appropriate to the story. Kendi and Ben are gay, and it’s just who they are, the same way I’m gay, and it’s just who I am.

At the same time, Harper doesn’t treat their gayness as an artifact, i.e., pointing out at the beginning of novel, “Look at me, I’m innovative, I have a gay protagonist!” and then never mentioning it again. No, in fact, as author and blogger Brent Hartinger observes, “The series goes into great detail about his childhood, his feelings of being “different,” and his stormy relationship with another man. It’s integral to the story, not mere window-dressing” (1).

Harper and his editor clearly have a pleasantly low-key attitude about including gay content. In an interview with StrangeHorizons.com, Harper describes how he approached his editor Laurie Anne Gilman:

“Will Steven Harper become known as ‘that gay SF writer’?” I asked [Gilman]. “The label doesn’t bother me, but I’m worried about sales.”

“Gay characters don’t hurt sales these days,” she said. “Do what you like” (2).

Overall

On the whole, it’s a decent story. I mildly recommend it on its own. But if you’re hungry for a science fiction tale with gay characters handled very positively, definitely pick it up.

————————————

(1) Brent Hartinger, “Book Review: Dreamer by Steven Harper,” AfterElton.com, 24 January 2007, http://www.afterelton.com/blog/2007/01/25/book-review-dreamer-by-steven-harper (20 July 2007). By the way, I love the AfterElton website; I highly recommend you check it out.

(2) Mahesh Raj Mohan, “Interview: Steven Piziks,” StrangeHorizons.com, 6 October 2003, http://www.strangehorizons.com/2003/20031006/piziks.shtml (20 July 2007). Note that “Steven Harper” is a pseudonym.