Quality 5.0 / 5.0 (highly recommended)
Gay Inclusive? Slightly – One mention of a minor gay character
Gay positive? Very – I love how the gay content is handled

Unusually, in this case I think the sequel outdoes the first book, though it’s close. The sheer creativity, wit and cleverness in this book combined with the engaging writing style make this a pleasure to read.

The novel is a mystery or crime drama, set in an alternate reality where Dodos have been re-created and people travel internationally by means of Gravitubes that go through the center of the earth. A branch of the government deals specifically in time-travel-related crimes.

And, most importantly, books have their own reality, and it’s possible for characters from, say, “Great Expectations” to enter the “real” world of the novel, and for the protagonist Thursday Next to travel into works like “Jane Eyre” or Poe’s “The Raven.” Hence Miss Havisham from “Great Expectations” is actually a major character in Fforde’s novel.

Someone is trying to kill protagonist Thursday Next by using coincidences. Yes, you read right. Death by coincidence. Fforde injects a lot of tongue-in-cheek humor into his work, and there are several laugh-out-loud moments along the way.

The main weakness to the novel is the pacing and plotting – what is ostensibly the main plot seems to take a backseat to the many subplots, so it sometimes feels like the story is just drifting. I enjoyed reading this novel, but I didn’t find myself reading it breakfast, lunch, and dinner as I do when a book is totally gripping. Still, this is a minor complaint on my part, given that the characters are likable, the humor agreeable, and the ideas engaging, and I award the novel high scores in the “Quality” category.

As to the gay stuff…. the author mentions once that the Thursday’s brother (named Joffy, a minister in the Global Standard Deity Church) is gay, including a reference to Joffy’s boyfriend. The scene is a delightful riff, as Joffy and his boyfriend must keep their relationship secret because the boyfriend’s employer looks down on its employees associating with… clergymen. This is the only gay content in the whole book (hence the very low rating in that category), but I love the way it’s handled, so I give it full marks on the positivity scale.

Overall Quality: 3.5 / 5.0 (inconsistent, but deep characterization, great acting, and interesting themes carry the show)

Gay Inclusive? Not really. Only one episode (”Bugs“) contains any gay content, and it’s minor – see my commentary on that episode for more information.

Click here to see my review and analysis of Season 3.

1.1 Pilot

Original Air Date. 13 September 2005.

Monster: Vengeful ghost
Summary: The pilot provides the most important backstory details about the Winchester family’s supernatural experiences. Dean (Jensen Ackles) comes to Stanford to recruit his brother Sam (Jared Padalecki) to help search for their father John (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), who has gone missing. In the course of the episode, they must vanquish a specific type of ghost called a Woman in White.

A nice little ghost story, haunting and engaging enough to get me to watch the next episode.

1.2 Wendigo

Original Air Date: 20 September 2005

Monster: Wendigo, a former human whose cannabilism turned it into a fearsome monster
Summary: Following leads from their father, Dean and Sam investigate the disappearance of several campers. They learn that a Wendigo (from Native American legend) is responsible.

The story was a bit dumb, but I enjoyed the change of pace from ghost story to action-adventure, which hints at a flexibility with storytelling that could help a show with a staid Monster-of-the-Week format stay fresh from week to week.

1.3 Dead in the Water

Original Air Date: 27 September 2005

Monster: Vengeful ghost
Summary: Still following their father’s leads and utilizing a notebook full of information about supernatural phenomena, the brothers travel to a town with a history of inexplicable drownings.

Great scenery. The show is filmed in British Columbia, and this typically yields a show with gorgeous backgrounds. Still, there’s a downside: the brothers are supposedly traveling all through the United States, but the scenery pretty much looks just the same in every episode. This is also the first episode where some below-the-surface characterization begins to emerge, foreshadowing one of the show’s strengths.

1.4 Phantom Traveler

Original Air Date: 4 October 2005

Monster: A demon
Summary: The monster creates death; five people escape its most recent attack, and it goes after them one by one. Sam and Dean intervene.

An engaging episode. I like how they show has introduced vulnerability to the characters (such as Dean’s fear of flying); it makes them more complex and nuanced.

I thought the idea of the Phantom Traveler was interesting, albeit vaguely reminiscent of the movie Final Destination. They haven’t quite gotten their creative muscles fully flexing. Of the first four shows, two are about the same thing (a ghost), and one is a rip on a movie that’s already been made.

1.5 Bloody Mary

Original Air Date: 11 October 2005

Monster: A vengeful ghost inspired by the legendary Bloody Mary
Summary: Looking into a mirror and repeating “Bloody Mary, Bloody Mary, Bloody Mary” summons a murderous spirit and sets into motion a series of horrific killings.

Scary. The pilot episode was atmospheric and creepy, but “Bloody Mary” is outright scary.

Okay, okay. Full disclosure: I scare easily.

I also love mirrors as a symbol. The best episode so far – the story gets under the viewer’s skin with a haunting, exciting storyline and great climax. In my opinion, “Bloody Mary” is the scariest ep in the entire season, and also one of the most mesmerizing.

1.6 Skin

Original Air Date: 18 October 2005

Monster: A shapeshifter
Summary: A college buddy of Sam’s is accused of a murder he says he didn’t commit; it turns out a shapeshifter is murdering people while taking other people’s forms. At one point, the shapeshifter takes the shape of Dean. When the creature does so, he’s able to access Dean’s thoughts and memories as well.

A so-so episode, although I liked the characterization of Dean that the unusual situation allowed, and the development of the relationship between the two brothers. I find Dean’s insecurities, which he conceals under the guise of bravado, to be endearing. His character would be irritating and arrogant otherwise.

A couple of great exchanges from the episode:

Dean: I really wish things could be different, you know, I wish you could just be Joe College.
Sam: Nah, that’s okay. You know, truth is, even at Stanford, deep down, I never really fit in.
Dean: Well, that’s cuz you’re a freak.
Samr: Yeah, thanks.
Dean: Well I’m a freak, too. I’m right there with you, all the way.

Shapeshifter as Dean: He sure got issues with you. You got to go to college, he had to stay home. I mean, I had to stay home with Dad. You don’t think I had dreams of my own? But Dad needed me. Where the hell were you?
Sam: Where is my brother?
Shapeshifter: I’m your brother. See, deep down I’m just jealous. You got friends, you could have a life. Me? I know I’m a freak, and sooner or later everybody is going to leave me.
Sam: What are you talking about?
Shapeshifter: You left. Hell, I did everything Dad asked me to and he dissed me too. No explanation, nothing, just left me with your sorry ass.

1.7 Hookman

Original Air Date: 25 October 2005

Monster: The Hook Man
Summary: Sam and Dean must face an urban legend come to life.

Supernatural appears to take a dim view toward organized religion. This episode provides the first commentary toward it, although others will follow. In this episode, religion is painted as self-righteous and moralizing.

This raises an interesting question. What is the role of God and goodness in the world of Supernatural? Or is it truly just a dark and bleak world? What’s the point of the struggle if that’s the case? In the episode “Jus in Bello” in Season 3, Dean expresses the opinion that the world is going down, and he’d just prefer to go down fighting. But in Season 2’s “Houses of the Holy,” Sam states that he believes in God and prays every day.

This theme is only just touched on in occasional episodes, unfortunately.

1.8 Bugs

Original Air Date: 8 November 2005

Gay Inclusive? Slightly – Sam and Dean are mistaken for a gay couple twice.
Gay Positive? Very – no drama about it

Monster: A Native American curse taking the form of a plague of bugs
Summary: Sam and Dean investigate a series of insect-related deaths in a new housing development.

I found this episode to be quite entertaining, except for two elements. First, the ending was just plain dumb. I mean, seriously dumb. Second, I was disappointed how the Supernatural writers failed to plumb Native American tradition for a storyline of any depth or meaning, and instead utilized the standard Hollywood superficial interpretation of Native Americanism and wrote a loose riff on Poltergeist.

Outside of that, I enjoyed the exploration of the family theme. Larry (Andrew Airlie) has a troubled relationship with his son Matt (Tyler Johnston). The episode explores Sam’s and Dean’s relationship with their own father through the guest stars, and the two Winchester brothers have several revealing conversations. For example:

Dean: What? Dad never treated us like that.
Sam: Yeah, he never treated you like that. You were perfect. He was all over my case. You don’t remember this?
Dean: OK, maybe he had to raise his voice a few times, but sometimes you were out of line.
Sam: [sarcastic] Yeah, like when I said I wanted to play soccer instead of learning bow-hunting.
Dean: Bow-hunting’s an important skill!

Dean also makes an assertion that proves untrue.

Dean: Growing up in a place like this would freak me out.
Sam: Why?
Dean: The manicured lawns. ‘How was your day, Honey’. I’d blow my brains out!
Sam: There’s nothing wrong with normal.
Dean: I’d take our family over normal any day.

The real strength of the show, especially this first season, is the rich characterization of the two brothers. Both of them come to the screen with so many layers that after several seasons, they’re still unfolding. Dean claims he’d hate the “normal” kind of life portrayed in this episode, and yet that seems to be exactly what he craves in later episodes, like “What Is and Should Never Be” in Season 2 (when he’s thrilled to mow the lawn) or “Dream a Little Dream of Me” in Season 3 (when he dreams about having a simple, normal relationship).

This episode also introduces the show’s first, and recurring, gay element: at least a couple of times each season, Sam and Dean either pose as, or are mistaken for, a gay couple.

[Sam and Dean are posing as potential homeowners]
Lynda Bloome (Carrie Genzel): Well, let me just say that we accept homeowners of any race, religion, color or…
[looks at Sam and Dean]
Lynda Bloome: sexual orientation.
Dean: Hmm, right.
[to Sam]
Dean: I’m gonna go talk to Larry. Okay, honey?
[slaps Sam on the ass]

Both Sam and Dean just roll with it. There’s no drama or freakout over being mistaken for gay, which is refreshing. (And a bit at odds with later portrayals. They’re also mistaken for a couple in “Playthings” in Season 2, and Dean refers to it as being “troubling” and he doesn’t understand why.) But for this episode, the minor gay inclusion is a humorous element that’s handled well. Kudos!

The scene in question:

1.9 Home

Original Air Date: 15 November 2005

Monster: A poltergeist
Summary: Sam has prescient dreams of a young mother (Jenny, played by Kristin Richardson) and her children who have moved into Sam’s and Dean’s childhood home. It’s the same house where their mother, Mary Winchester (Samantha Smith) was killed. Jenny and her children are in danger, and Sam and Dean return to help. They discover their old home houses more than just the new family.

A great episode which reveals some family history and includes a nice little twist at the end. Loretta Devine as a psychic was stellar in the role. I hoped all season we would see more of her. Alas,
perhaps she will make an appearance in a future season. I particularly enjoyed her repartee with poor Dean. Some examples:

Missouri Moseley: You boys grew up handsome.
[She looks at Dean]
Missouri Moseley: And you were one goofy-lookin’ kid.

Missouri Moseley: Don’t you worry, Dean is going to clean this up.
[She looks at Dean]
Missouri Moseley: Well, don’t just stand there, boy, get a mop.
[She reads his mind]
Missouri Moseley: And don’t cuss at me!
[Dean walks away muttering under his breath]

1.10 Asylum

Original Air Date: 22 November 2005

Monster: A sadistic ghost
Summary: Dean and Sam investigate an abandoned sanitarium, after discovering recent visitors to the location go murderously insane.

Overall, a good episode, though solely for the atmospherics. Like the movie version of Silent Hill, this episode enjoyed a superb and haunting setting, but the story was predictable, the Monster-of-the-Week was a let-down, and the climax was just silly.

3.14 Long-Distance Call
Original Air Date. 1 May 2008

Overall Quality 2.5 / 5.0
No Gay Content

Monster: Crocotta
Summary: People are receiving phone calls from deceased loved ones, who then ask them to do terrible things. Dean (Jensen Ackles) receives a call from his father and then walks into a trap when the voice promises to help Dean out of his demon contract.

Not one of my favorite episodes. It just didn’t catch fire. I thought the villain was kind of dumb, and the plot felt forced.

I wonder how the writer’s strike affected this show, not to mention the conclusion of the season. I know they lost at least six episodes to round out the character arcs.

Surprisingly, I don’t think Dean’s character arc lost out the most, though. It’s Sam (Jared Padalecki). Early in the season, Ruby (Katie Cassidy) had Sam investigate the systematic destruction of everyone who knew his mother. That’s a really compelling plot point, and it suggests yet more material to unearth about Sam’s connection to the Yellow-Eyed Demon, and Sam’s ultimate destiny. But it’s barely ever mentioned again after that.

All in all, “Long-Distance Call” felt like it was hastily thrown together. It reminds me of the first season, which offered entertaining monster-of-the-week shows, but lacked the gestalt effect of deep characterization, clever writing, and deep plot threads.

3.15 Time Is On My Side
Original Air Date. 8 May 2008

Overall Quality 2.0 / 5.0
No Gay Content

Monster: Murderous, immortal doctor
Summary: A doctor has discovered the secret to everlasting life: harvesting healthy organs from others. Sam hopes to use the technique to keep Dean from going to hell; Dean can’t believe Sam would even consider it.

A so-so episode, one of the weaker of the season. Like the previous ep, it felt forced and hasty, another throwback to a time in the show when they lacked the depth of character and plot.

3.16 No Rest For the Wicked
Original Air Date. 15 May 2008

Overall Quality 4.5 / 5.0
No Gay Content

Monster: Demons
Summary: Dean’s soul has come due, and the Winchester boys track down Lilith to destroy her and save Dean.

Thank goodness: back on track! A powerful episode with a fantastic cliffhanger ending for both boys. I’m especially intrigued about the ending for Sam: his smackdown with Lilith (Sierra McCormick, then Katie Cassidy) did not go at all as expected – for either Lilith or Sam – and I can’t wait to find out why. What happened???

Supernatural does a great job with season endings, and this tops the previous two. I can’t wait to find out how Dean comes back, who helped him, and what happened between Sam and Lilith? Exciting stuff!

The episode also included a great fight sequence between Ruby, Sam, and Dean.

Overall for Season Three

A very strong season. The show has hit its stride, and the rapport between the principal actors is spot on. I hope they get paid well: it’s Jensen and Jared – on the strength of their acting, and their on-screen chemistry as brothers – that creates the gestalt effect for the show.

In fact, considering the writer’s strike, it’s a surprisingly good season. They lost at least six episodes – that’s a huge amount of screen time to explore the mythology behind Sam’s mysterious powers and his role in the upcoming demon war, and Dean’s contract with the demon. The fact that it still came together so smoothly, with so many great episodes, is a testimony to series creator’s Eric Kripke’s vision, and the writers’ talent.

Still, this season was not as thematically rich as the previous two. The theme of family gets full service, and the idea that “fear is the path to the dark side” gets explored too. Those themes began with the very first season, and while they’re not old, I would have expected the show to introduce some more thematic elements. For example, the ideas bounced around in “Sin City” about how humans are complicit in the demons’ work. From what I’ve heard of the fourth season, it sounds like that idea might get a little more consideration, but the third season let it drop.

The show also still has a ways to go in its portrayal of gay and minority characters. The most descriptive word that comes to mind is “thoughtlessness.” I don’t think the portrayals result from outright homophobia or racism, but they really need to step back and take a look at the big picture. Just because prejudice is unintentional, doesn’t make it less prejudicial.

Overall Quality 3.5 / 5.0 (recommended)
Gay Content 1.0 / 5.0
Gay Positivity 2.0 / 5.0

I enjoyed this novel, but it is not Simmons’ best work. That said, he is one of my favorite authors. If you are new to his books, start with “Hyperion” (if you like Sci-Fi) or “Summer of Night” (if you’re a horror fan).

“Ilium” stands as one of the most unusual Sci-Fi reads I’ve enjoyed in a long time. The narrative follows three overlapping threads. First, on Mars we find the Greek gods enacting or re-enacting the Trojan War (explicitly, “The Iliad” as written by Homer). These gods seem suspiciously high-tech. Unfortunately for them, thanks to our intrepid scholar-protagonist Thomas Hockenberry, events don’t go quite as planned. Second, the reader follows a group of sentient robots from Jupiter, who travel to Mars because of dangerous quantum distortions emanating from the planet. Finally, human civilization on Earth has seemingly returned to the semi-dark ages, and a group of old-style humans are trying to re-discover the universe.

The three storylines dovetail nicely with each other, and I liked the skillful juxtaposition of history, literature, philosophy, and Sci-Fi. Welcome to science fiction for college professors!

Simmons has mastered the art of raising intriguing questions while offering just enough tantalizing answers to keep the reader hooked. Who are the post-humans? Are the Greek gods post-humans, or something else? What happened to the old-style humans? What are the mysterious voynix? How is Odysseus apparently existing in two places at once? How and why can the old-style humans on Earth “watch” the re-enactment of the Trojan War? Simmons tends to end each chapter with the reader hanging on some important question or dramatic plot point; it can be hard to put this novel down.

On the other hand, I found myself skimming quite a bit. A lot of the conversations (which I assume he intended to be thought-provoking or literary) are prosaic and off-putting. I also felt strung along at times: there’s a fine line between withholding information to create tension and doing so to drag the story out. Simmons also occasionally gets lost in the minutia, for example, when the Jovian robots navigate the Martian seas.

Note that the novel ends with a cliffhanger. The story concludes in “Olympos.”

On the whole, “Ilium” presents an unusual and well-written read. I would recommend it for science fiction devotees, or fans of Homer’s “The Iliad” who are open to Sci-Fi. If you like this novel, definitely try Simmons’ stellar “Hyperion” series as well.

Regarding gay content, to my surprise the author makes several explicit references to homosexuality. Nevertheless, most of the mentions are brief: no characters are clearly gay, and there doesn’t appear to be any gay subtext in the novel, so I rated the Content Scale very low. Similarly, while Simmons never crosses the line into blatant homophobia, his comments hardly qualify as positive.

His novel involves several historical persons who are known or rumored to be gay, such as Shakespeare, Proust, and Achilles/Patroclus. In most cases, Simmons dismisses the theory. In fact, in one sequence one of the robot characters speaks with Shakespeare (don’t ask; it’s science fiction) and explicitly asks the Bard, who reacts violently. In the case of Achilles/Patroclus, the author allows some homoeroticism to exist between them but clearly (through sex acts) establishes them as heterosexual.

The overarching vibe of these mentions is that straight somehow trumps gay. His dismissive and lowbrow use of gay references disappoints me.

Original air date: 20 November 1996

Overall 4.0 / 5.0 (entertaining; great Kes episode)
Gay Content 1.0 / 5.0 (some odd gender-bending situations)

Voyager comes across a damaged ship and rescues its three occupants; one of them dies, but not before transferring his consciousness into Kes (Jennifer Lien). Turns out that fellow, Tieran (played by both Lien and Leigh J. McCloskey), is a warlord hell-bent on re-conquering a world from which he was exiled 200 years before.

Like most Star Trek episodes with any content of gay interest, “Warlord” dances around the issue. It’s another case of “fake-gay” arising from the story playing around with gender.

Tieran is male and clearly heterosexual, as he’s married to a female (Nori, played by Galyn Gorg). But when he takes possession of Kes’s body, he finds himself in a female form.

First, we have the odd interplay between Tieran-as-Kes and Nori. Nori, understandably, expresses concerns about what this means for their relationship. Tieran doesn’t seem to see any problems; in fact, in one scene they nearly kiss.

Then, it gets even more complicated! Tieran apparently decides to take advantage of the situation. He arranges a wedding with a male in order to consolidate power; remember, Tieran is in a female body. I doubt he would have made that move if he’d remained in the male body.

Also while occupying Kes, he kisses Tuvok. It’s a physically heterosexual kiss, but it’s a male personality doing the kissing.

The episode might have offered an interesting commentary on gender identity. Is gender intrinsic to one’s consciousness/personality, transcending the physical form? If I were transferred into a female body, would I still identify as male? Does this situation make Tieran/Kes into a transgender person? Unfortunately, “Warlord” doesn’t explore any of that; the story is about the possession and attempted coup, and the writers just milk the gender element for more drama.

Meanwhile, the gay element exists only peripherally and as an abstract.

Star Trek: Voyager is probably the least gay inclusive of all the TV iterations, and an episode like this just highlights the exclusion.

—————————-

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

—————————-

(Please click for Part One of my review and analysis of “The Outcast.”

Thank You, Star Trek…

Let me start with the singular, but important, positive attribute of the show: It brought the issue of sexual bigotry into millions of homes, and made a plea for tolerance.

So before I launch into my criticisms, let me first say: thank you, Star Trek, for making this episode. I have a lot of problems with it, and I think the show could have done more, and better. But at the same time, I appreciate the episode being made at all.

Having said that, I must qualify my appreciation.

…For Stale Crumbs

Defamation by Invisibility

In Part One of this article, I noted other examples of gay content on TV around the time “The Outcast” was aired. I criticized the nature of the content in hindsight, but also recognized any mainstream representation was an improvement during that time period. In the same spirit, I appreciate The Next Generation making any kind of effort for the gay community.

But I have to stress, this show offers no gay content. It is pure allegory. Even when discussing romantic relationships, Riker and Dr. Crusher frame their comments in the context of heterosexual romance – how men and women deal with each other regarding attraction, sex roles, and sexuality. When discussing what men find attractive, Riker doesn’t offer a single phrase to the effect of, “And then some men are attracted to other men instead of women.”

Without some demonstration of inclusiveness, the episode isn’t inclusive at all. Instead, it suggests that gay people don’t exist in the 24th Century, at least not in Starfleet. They preach tolerance for diversity, but fail to demonstrate that value in practice.

Author Henry Jenkins writes:

”If allegory depends upon the readers’ abilities to fill its silences with their own voices, to complete the statements the text has left unfinished, the fans saw only the gaps and the evasions. Nowhere do any of the characters make explicit reference to the possibility of homosexuality nor do they directly confront homophobia. Homosexuality remains a connotative ghost, still that form of sexual desire that dares not speak its name [emphasis mine]…. What made this episode particularly dangerous was its insubstantiability [sic], its refusal to state directly and explicitly what its message was intended to be (6).”

It’s Just a Phase / Not Real / A Mental Illness

And then, the show posits that “deviant” sexuality can be cured, a stance taken by anti-gay activists. Even after Soren’s eloquent and moving plea for tolerance at her trial, the court still finds her guilty and sentences her to psychotectic therapy, which is successful. Riker tries to “rescue” her, but Soren rejects his advances and apologizes for creating such an unpleasant situation.

In effect (if not intent), the episode endorses the idea that sexual “deviants” can be “straightened out,” which will make them happier and more productive members of society. Both the American Psychological Association (8) and American Medical Association (9) take the position that reparative or conversion therapy may be harmful to the individual.

Furthermore, it implicitly supports the view of gay people as sexual predators who seek to convert others into “deviant” behavior. Yes, it’s supposed to a reverse allegory, which could be interpreted as heterosexual society demanding that gay people be “cured.” Probably, the viewer is supposed to leave the show thinking, “Wow, that’s awful what they did to poor Soren; we shouldn’t do stuff like that.”

It’s problematic, however, because J’naii society is used as an allegorical stand-in for both mainstream society and the gay community, and it is they who insist on the reparative therapy.

The Gay Villain

Atara Stein, an associate professor at Cal State University, Fullerton, writes:

“This episode could be read, of course, as a reverse allegory of discrimination against gays and lesbians, but the fact that it is reversed (the character’s rebellion consists of affirming heterosexuality) testifies to how careful Star Trek’s creators are to maintain a level of deniability. In addition, the androgynous species, presumably representative of gays and lesbians, turn out to be the bad guys, enforcing their ‘deviant’ sexuality by means of brainwashing [emphasis mine] (7).”

This aspect of the episode astounds me. The producers have gone on record offering this show as their token gesture to the gay community (even though there’s no actual gay content). But the society supposedly standing in for the gay community turns out to be villainous!

Once again, I wonder how much the final script varied from the original. A lot of people have input into the scripts (other writers and producers, studio approval, etc), and perhaps what was originally a fine story incrementally broke down into a series of mixed messages in order to appease a large group of less progressive people.

“Do As I Say, Not As I Do”

So the episode “The Outcast” makes a plea for tolerance of sexual diversity, while the show refuses to include any openly gay characters.

Worse, when they make an episode intended to placate their gay audience, not only is homosexuality omitted, it is also maligned through the subtext.

As Franklin Hummel, a member of the gay science-fiction group Gaylaxians, says:

“The depiction of Soren’s society seemed to be something taken right from Rush Limbaugh’s show or Pat Buchanan’s campaign literature. [They talk] about how the feminist and homosexual political agendas want to destroy the traditional family and make society into a sexless, genderless collection of politically correct clones, and if you don’t toe the line, you’ll be censored. Soren’s society was a depiction of those people’s worst nightmares. It seems to me that if you were of that mindset to begin with, this show did nothing but confirm those unfounded fears, and nothing to challenge them” (10).

I have tried to seek out its positive aspects (mostly that an episode recognizing gay concerns peripherally was even made). And I want to make one last point in this vein: while I criticize the producers for a homophobic episode, I also have to recognize that they’re creating a product to sell, and they have to appeal to their demographic.

Which means, the demographic itself shoulders some responsibility for the homophobic content of the show. I suspect if the fan base had responded with overwhelming outrage (or even just disdain) at the poor representation, future episodes would have been much more gay friendly.

I complain that this show sends a mixed message to its audience; I also suspect the producers receive mixed messages from the viewers in response to gay content as well. So if I’m going to accuse people of homophobia, with whom should I start?

—————————

Soren’s argument against discrimination after she has been accused of being gendered:

“I am female. I was born that way. I have had those feelings, those longings, all of my life. It is not unnatural. I am not sick because I feel this way. I do not need to be helped. I do not need to be cured. What I need, and what all of those who are like me need, is your understanding. And your compassion. We have not injured you in any way. And yet we are scorned and attacked. And all because we are different. What we do is no different from what you do. We talk and laugh. We complain about work. And we wonder about growing old. We talk about our families and we worry about the future. And we cry with each other when things seem hopeless. All of the loving things that you do with each other – that is what we do. And for that we are called misfits, and deviants and criminals. What right do you have to punish us? What right do you have to change us? What makes you think you can dictate how people love each other?”

—————————-

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

—————————-

(6) John Tulloch and Henry Jenkins, Science Fiction Audiences: Watching Doctor Who and Star Trek, Routledge: 1995.

(7) Atara Stein, “Minding One’s P’s and Q’s: Homoeroticism in Star Trek: The Next Generation,” Genders Journal, Volume 27, 1998. The text of the article can be read here: http://www.genders.org/g27/g27_st.txt

(8) “APA Discredits ‘Ex-Gay’ Movement,” 365gay.com, 11 August 2006, http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/08/081106apa.htm (retrieved 20 June 2008).

(9) “AMA Policy Regarding Sexual Orientation,” American Medical Association, last updated 24 April 2008, http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/14754.html (retrieved 20 June 2008).

(10) Henry Jenkins, Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers, New York University Press: 2006 (pp. 106-7).

Original air date: 16 March 1992

Overall Quality 2.5 / 5.0 (not one of their finer efforts)
Gay Content 2.0 / 5.0 (it’s the closest they come to a gay episode, but it’s all allegory)
Gay Positivity 2. 0 / 5.0 (decidedly mixed, leaning towards negative)

“The Outcast” is one of the most important episodes in the Star Trek universe regarding the inclusion of gay content, and certainly the most important in The Next Generation. Note, however, that the episode includes no gay characters nor any gay relationships. The episode does not reference same-sex inclinations or pairings at all.

Plot Summary

The Enterprise is assisting the J’naii, a completely androgynous race, to track down a shuttle that’s gone missing. Commander Riker (Jonathan Frakes) works closely with a J’naii named Soren (Melinda Culea) to locate the shuttle, and Soren reveals that she is one of a minority of J’naii who was born with a gender identity…female, in her case. They begin a relationship, but J’naii society considers gender identity a sickness, and those who “suffer” from it are subject to psychotectic (i.e., reparative) therapy.

Jeri Taylor, who worked as a producer on the series, wrote the episode. Taylor is probably the most gay-friendly of all the producers associated with the Star Trek franchise (1).

The Strengths & Weaknesses

Commenting solely on the quality of episode, it’s a mixed bag. I found the exploration of an androgynous race to be thought-provoking. It seems unlikely that all alien species would reproduce through sexual dimorphism, and some form of asexual reproduction strikes me as a likely alternative.

But after Soren reveals she’s part of a persecuted minority, the episode changes tone into an issue-driven storyline.

The good part: she makes an intelligent, impassioned, and articulate argument against prejudice, and it’s easy to make the jump from the issue being gender identity to sexual orientation. I have included the full text of her argument at the end of Part Two of this article.

The bad part: delving into an issue-of-the-week story introduces an artificial feel to the plot, and forces the characters to become mouthpieces. That in turn alienates the viewer from the story, and the viewer becomes aware of the episode as a narrative with an agenda. It feels heavy-handed and forced, and it’s just less engrossing and enjoyable.

I wonder how much the final product diverged from Taylor’s original script. Taylor has proven herself a talented writer at other points, and I question whether the same or a similar message could have been conveyed through a more organic and engaging story.

It doesn’t help that the plot contains a series of contrivances. Why is Riker working on the project, and piloting the shuttle, instead of Geordi or Data? Because he needs to be working closely with Soren to develop feelings for her; screw the chain of command! Why would Worf make a blatantly sexist comment, and neither Doctor Crusher nor Counselor Troi get in his face about it? That’s out of character for all three. It’s because the script needs to make a point about gender and sexism, and they are the tools through which it’s done. But it’s jarring, and once again forces the viewer out of the story.

The Gay Content

Let’s place this episode in context. The year is 1992 (over 15 years ago from the date of this writing). In 1991, the sitcom Roseanne introduced a regular gay character, Leon (played by Martin Mull), which was extremely progressive at the time. Also in 1991, the red ribbon made its debt as a symbol of the campaign to stop AIDS.

Ellen wouldn’t come out until 1997, and Will & Grace wouldn’t premiere until 1998. Philadelphia, Brokeback Mountain’s spiritual precursor, wouldn’t open until 1993.

The major shows with gay characters or content in 1992 included: Roseanne, Northern Exposure, The Simpsons, One Life to Live, The Real World New York (the premiere season), and Melrose Place.

All of these shows were cutting-edge in their inclusion of gay characters or stories, and many fell far short of ideal. For example, Matt (Doug Savant) on Melrose Place was basically a genital-less Ken doll. Billy Douglas (Ryan Philippe) on One Life to Live was a troubled teen struggling with his sexuality in a homophobic environment.

Still, they all occurred at a time when any kind of representation on network TV was a step up from invisibility. And I think it’s important to remember that when considering “The Outcast.”
Expectations and Disappointment

Star Trek: The Next Generation’s two major mistakes were (A) trying to be inclusive by making homosexuality itself the story, and (B) including homosexuality only through allegory. The episode, on a literal level, isn’t gay inclusive at all.

Rick Berman says in Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion,

“We thought we had made a very positive statement about sexual prejudice in a distinctively Star Trek way, but we still got letters from those who thought it was just our way of ‘washing our hands’ of the homosexual situation” (2).

I suspect the producers thought that gay people wanted a “gay episode.” In the early days of gay inclusion on TV, that’s about the most we could hope for: that one episode that might revolve around gay themes, such as the gay wedding on Northern Exposure.

But that’s not really what gay and gay-friendly Star Trek viewers desired. Rather, they wanted full-throttle inclusion in the Star Trek universe. They wanted to see themselves portrayed within Starfleet, not necessarily as objects about which a story is told, but as part of the social milieu in which the stories are told. Gene Roddenberry’s 1991 comment only fueled the desire:

“My attitude toward homosexuality has changed. I came to the conclusion that I was wrong. I was never someone who hunted down ‘fags’ as we used to call them on the street. I would, sometimes, say something anti-homosexual off the top of my head because it was thought, in those days, to be funny. I never really deeply believed those comments, but I gave the impression of being thoughtless in these areas. I have, over many years, changed my attitude about gay men and women” (3).

Note that Roddenberry also told The Advocate that the fifth season of The Next Generation would include gay crew members (4). His comments raised hopes and expectations for gay inclusion, but I suspect a comment made by Ronald Moore in 1997 summarized the prevailing attitude in 1991:

“We have no plans to [include gay characters], chiefly because dealing with one’s sexual orientation in Gene’s 24th century is kinda simple: ‘Hey, Captain, I think I might be gay.’ ‘Okay. Now get back to fixing those transtators.’ It’s not really an issue to these people, so ‘exploring’ it doesn’t hold much promise” (5).

In other words, if a character’s sexual orientation is not explicitly and specifically germane to the plot, why bother addressing it at all? This homophobia is unintentional, the product of missing the point; but it still renders the gay person an outcast from the Star Trek universe. What an ironic title for this episode then.

But I digress from the show itself.

Please click for Part Two of my analysis of “The Outcast.”

————————-

————————-

(1) It is said that Taylor suggested that Seven of Nine (Jeri Ryan) on Star Trek: Voyager should be a lesbian, although this idea was discarded. She also wrote a couple of important Star Trek: Voyager novels, including Pathways, which included secondary gay characters.

(2) Larry Nemecek, Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion, Pocket Books: 1992.

(3) David Alexander, “Interview with Gene Roddenberry: Writer, Producer, Philosopher, Humanist,” The Humanist, March/April 1991. The text can be read here: http://67.104.146.36/english/STAR_TREK/humanistinterview/humanist.html (retrieved 11 June 2008).

(4) Joe Clark, “Star Trek: The Next Generation – Queer Characters Join the Enterprise Crew,” The Advocate, 27 August 1991. The text of the article can be read here: http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/advocate.html (retrieved 11 June 2008).

(5) “Answers,” Star Trek News, 16 July 1997, http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/6952/ron41.txt (retrieved 11 June 2008).

Overall Quality 5.0 / 5.0 (excellent)
Gay Content 1.0 / 5.0 (nothing explicit in the movie, but possibly one gay crewmember)
Gay Positivity 1.5 / 5.0

Following an abysmal Star Trek movie (Generations) and succeeded by two more not-so-great ones (Insurrection and Nemesis), First Contact stands out as one of the highlights of the Star Trek film franchise, and the singular best effort by the Next Generation crew.

Inevitably, considering their success as arch-villains, the Borg make their big screen debut. A Borg cube is heading toward the Earth with the intent of assimilating humanity into the Borg collective consciousness and subjecting our species to an eternity of chafing under cybernetic implants. A Starfleet armada, under the command of Captain Picard (Patrick Stewart), manages to destroy the cube.

Unfortunately, a Borg sphere escapes from within the cube and travels back in time to prevent first contact (when humanity meets an alien race for the first time, following humanity’s first successful warp flight). The Enterprise follows, only to find itself boarded by the Borg.

The situation forces Captain Picard to confront his own hatred and fear of the Borg from the time when the Borg assimilated him (”The Best of Both Worlds, Parts I and II” on the TV series).

Who knew Star Trek could find inspiration in Moby Dick? Picard and guest star Lily (Alfre Woodard) have amazing chemistry, and together provide an emotional core to the story. Lily is the no-nonsense assistant to Zefram Cochrane (James Cromwell), the architect of humanity’s first warp flight, but she ends up with Picard aboard the Enterprise. She also enjoys some of the movie’s best one-liners. My favorite: “Borg? Sounds Swedish.”

In truth, it’s a dark story. There’s a reason the Borg are so successful as villains, and they kill or assimilate (which amounts to the same thing) a lot of people. But frequent moments of humor, plus the more hopeful subplot of humanity’s first warp flight, offset the grim events aboard the Enterprise.

A great script keeps the pace moving along and never gets mired in too much technobabble or exposition. In fact, the story and script are so accessible and engaging, this film would probably make a good “point of entry” into the Star Trek universe for newbies.

Although I take issue with the direction of the Star Trek franchise under the leadership of Brannon Braga, Rick Berman, and Ron Moore, they hit the mark with this one. Kudos!

Well, with one exception.

While still in production, a rumor arose that a crewman named Lieutenant Hawk (Neal McDonough) would be gay in the film. Apparently an early draft of the screenplay did portray Lt. Hawk as gay, but the decision was changed for later drafts.[1]. In fact, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, based on information from Producer Rick Berman, released an Alert clarifying the issue: “According to Producer Rick Berman, there are actually no gay characters in a new film, or, for that matter, on any of the Star Trek shows scheduled to begin new seasons this fall”[2].

As an aside, it’s interesting to note that Rick Berman, who “inherited” the Star Trek franchise in part after Gene Roddenberry’s passing, felt compelled to specify that the film contained no gay characters. Any reference to Lt. Hawk’s sexuality was definitely omitted from the feature; the minor character had no scenes or dialogue to indicate his sexual orientation one way or the other. By default, most audiences would read the character as heterosexual. Those who read him as gay would probably fall into the category of “wishful thinking.” But if that’s what they want, why would Rick Berman feel the need to deprive them?

Especially considering that Lt. Hawk is gay in the Star Trek novel Section 31: Rogue, written by openly gay author Andy Mangels and gay-friendly co-author Michael Martin. Star Trek fiction is not considered canon (i.e., official). Nevertheless, all book projects must be vetted by Paramount. The Simon & Schuster website explains,

“All material is subject to the approval of Paramount Pictures, which owns all copyright to Star Trek in its various incarnations and is very concerned about maintaining the integrity of the characters and the Star Trek universe. To that end, we make a serious effort to see that the books line up with the episodes and films, though we recognize that absolute consistency is a practical impossibility. We do, however, expect every aspiring Star Trek author to approach the material with a thorough understanding of the Star Trek mythos, its characters, and its history. The best reference, of course, are the Star Trek episodes and films”[3].

As a result, in the absence of contradictory information in the canon source material, the book offers semi-official confirmation of Lt. Hawk’s gayness.

Please read my review of Section 31: Rogue for my information about that book’s gay content.

Returning to my comments on the film, even in the absence of any clear gay content, I decided under the circumstances to score the movie for its Gay Positivity. I take the fact that an ambiguous character’s sexuality was consciously and explicitly whitewashed as a smear against the gay community. I do not know why Mr. Berman felt compelled to categorically state that Lt. Hawk is heterosexual, especially since he’s portrayed as gay elsewhere in the Star Trek universe, but I find myself reminded of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s 2007 comment, “In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals”[4].

*** Minor spoiler warning *** To further explain the Gay Positivity Score, I spoil one aspect of the movie. If you don’t want to know, please stop reading. For more posts on all things gay in the Star Trek universe, check out my Gay Star Trek Main Page.

I also note that, alas, things don’t turn out so well for poor Lt. Hawk (which actually makes Section 31: Rogue a rather bittersweet read). Unfortunately, from a Gay Positivity perspective, this film can’t win. Either Lt. Hawk is gay, and the portrayal contributes to the stereotype that things end badly for gay people. Or he’s not gay, and the Star Trek franchise is communicating that heterosexuality is superior to (rather than just different from) the alternative, and gay is not good enough for Starfleet.

Either way, the Gay Positivity score reflects the poor handling of the (possible) gay content.

————————

[1] “Trivia for Star Trek: First Contact,” imdb.com,http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117731/trivia (retrieved 9 June 2008).

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

[3] “Star Trek Novel Submission Guidelines,” SimonSays.com, the website of Simon & Schuster, Inc., December 2004, http://www.simonsays.com/content/feature.cfm?feature_id=439&tab=24 (retrieved 5 May 2008).

[4] The Associated Press, “Iran sites omit leader’s homosexuality remark,” MSNBC.com, 26 September 2007, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20999705/ (retrieved 5 May 2008).

Overall Quality 3.5 / 5.0
No gay content

In some ways, Trekkies 2 covers the same territory as the first movie. It explores Star Trek as a cultural phenomenon and addresses fans’ appreciation for its positive message. “When people see Star Trek, that is how society should be,” one interviewee notes. “People [coming] together no matter what creed … color … sexual orientation … no matter what race.”

However, Trekkies 2 diverges in a couple of ways. First, it explores the Star Trek phenomenon internationally. (They probably could have subtitled the film: Trekkies 2: Trekkies with a Budget!) Host Denise Crosby visits Australia, Brazil, Italy, England, France, Germany, and even Serbia to discover just how much impact Star Trek has on the global community. And it’s quite fun to see, despite disparate cultures, just how similar the Star Trek fans all look and sound. In fact, I’d say it reflects the ideal presented by Star Trek: diversity existing in harmony.

Second, Trekkies 2 delves a little further into people who take Star Trek to an extreme. In fact, the documentary includes a segment specifically entitled, “Extreme Fans.” And it portrays some people who are undoubtedly quite devoted. On the whole, the film still portrays Star Trek fans in a positive light. As actress Tracey Scoggins describes in the film, women in Neiman Marcus who’ve undergone significant plastic surgery are maybe going too far, but “sci-fi fans? No, they’re fine.”

Actor Phillips Morris defines “too far” as: “If you lose yourself, your sense of identity, as a result of this, that’s a problem. If it enhances your sense of identity, your sense of self, it’s beneficial.” The documentary clearly involves both types but is heavily weighted toward the latter.

I think a member of a Klingon metal band called Stovokor said it best: “When reality stops being so lame, we’ll stop doing this.” (Author’s note: Amen!)

Material of specific interest to gay fans is curiously lacking, especially considering the gay-friendliness of the original. I am particularly disappointed in a segment included in the bonus features on the DVD called “Fan Pon Farr.” (The bonus features actually include enough additional material to nearly warrant the title Trekkies 3.) “Fan Pon Farr” discusses romantic relationships that develop between fans who bond over Star Trek or at Star Trek conventions. But it does not include a single gay couple … with the possible exception of two girls who might be lesbian, but are never identified as such. In fact, the bit includes a montage of kisses, entirely heterosexual.

I am also startled by another exclusion. Trekkies 2 dips briefly into the world of Star Trek fan-films (and in one fun case, fan-theater). In fact, it shows clips from half a dozen different fan-films. But Hidden Frontier, one of the most successful and prolific Star Trek fan-made productions, is curiously absent, even though it was already into Season 5 by 2004. Go figure.

Overall, I noted something else. There’s a sweetness that was present in Trekkies that’s not as noticeable here. Kate Mulgrew criticized the first one as a “kind of an indictment of [fans’] love for the show” (1); I disagree. But if she had said that about the sequel, I probably wouldn’t argue the point so much.

At the same time, fandom is what it is. The documentary’s goal isn’t to portray the most impressive fans, but rather those most interesting and most devoted. And it succeeds in that goal.

Trekkies 2 also revisits some of the individuals introduced in Trekkies, such as Gabriel Koerner and Barbara Adams in some entertaining and engaging segments.

I recommended the first Trekkies even for casual fans, but like its more extreme subjects, Trekkies 2 will likely hold greater appeal for more devoted fans of the franchise.

Click to visit the Trekkies 2 website.

————————-

(1) Andy Scahill, “A Brand New Voyage,” Out in America, 8 August 2002, http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/Out%20in%20America-mulgrew%20interview.htm (retrieved on 12 May 2008).

Original airdate: 13 May 1991

Overall 3.0 / 5.0 (mildly engaging)
Gay Content 1.0 / 5.0 (a female invites a relationship with Dr. Crusher)

Beverly Crusher (Gates McFadden) enjoys a fledgling romance with a Trill ambassador named Odan (Franc Luz). At this point in the Star Trek franchise, the Federation knows little about the Trill. A medical emergency involving Odan creates a crisis both for his relationship with Beverly and the peace negotiations he is mediating.

The Trill are a species that play host to a symbiotic organism. The symbiote is quite long-lived and is typically transplanted into a new host when the former host dies. In this episode, the original host for Odan, with whom Beverly falls in love, suffers fatal injuries in an attack. As an emergency procedure, Beverly implants Odan (the symbiote) into Will Riker (Jonathan Frakes) until the Trill can send a permanent host. Odan tries to continue their relationship, but Beverly experiences understandable difficulty. After much soul-searching, she and Odan continue their relationship, even in Riker’s body. However, when the permanent host arrives, it turns out to be a female (Nicole Orth-Pallavicini), and Beverly ends their relationship.

I am disappointed that the Star Trek franchise comes so close to actual gay content but then skirts away. Again. It seems to be typical Trek with regard to gay issues: talk around the issue but always keep it at arm’s length.

Remember, though, this is not a gay episode. The gay content is minor and confined solely to the last couple of minutes. In fact, when the episode is considered on its own, it’s a fairly positive portrayal. For example, the female Trill is clearly open to a lesbian relationship with Beverly; she actively invites it. That’s great!

Beverly ends the relationship after explaining that she can’t handle a partner who changes bodies like that. She says, “Perhaps, one day, our ability to love won’t be so limited.”

Some viewers interpret this statement to mean, “Perhaps one day our ability to love won’t be limited by gender.” For my part, I disagree with this interpretation, because everything Beverly says leading up to the statement is about the Trill constantly changing hosts, creating uncertainty and instability for a human partner. It’s positive that Beverly doesn’t use gender as the reason, although I do question whether she would have ended the relationship if the new host had been male: she is visibly disappointed when she discovers the new host to be female.

But even if Beverly were explicitly addressing the fact that Odan is now the same sex as her, I don’t think it’s gay-negative that she refuses the relationship. I would probably make the same choice (in an analogous situation appropriate to my own sexual orientation).

But that’s considering “The Host” on its own. This episode isn’t isolated. When weighed with the other instances of gay content in the Star Trek franchise, it’s more disappointing because there’s no balance. It always works out this way, or somehow similar: the storyline that could have produced some substantive and positive gay content instead leaves us with mixed messages and no gay characters or relationships. The sum total adds up to the exclusion of gay people from the vision of Star Trek.

To tell you the truth, that this episode contains any gay content at all is probably incidental, more an artifact of Beverly’s tragic love story than an attempt to be gay-inclusive. But I have to give them props: the episode at least intimates that same-sex relationships do occur (somewhere) in the Star Trek universe (off-screen), and that is a step in the right direction. Not much of a step, but still.

—————————-

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