Straight White Males as default: How it's wrong.

[The Truth and Light]

Were we literally just arguing about nothing just now?

Isn't that the point of NSG?

Ha. We certainly argue about things ad nauseum, and rarely switch sides.

[Nadkor]

Were we literally just arguing about nothing just now?

Arguing? Certainly not. Someone climbed up on their high horse for a moment, and somehow my ego came up a few times, but it certainly wasn't an argument.

In all seriousness, though, it must be really had to be you when everyone's out to get you all the time.

[Choronzon]

Arguing? Certainly not. Someone climbed up on their high horse for a moment, and somehow my ego came up a few times, but it certainly wasn't an argument.

In all seriousness, though, it must be really had to be you when everyone's out to get you all the time.

Jesus Christ.

[Choronzon]

Changing the topic of conversation from my ego (which just loves the attention, by the way) back to the topic at hand- one of my favorite things about A Song of Fire And Ice has been its treatment of female characters. Some of the strongest characters are female, and I like how the subject of female knighthood is treated. Brianne of Tarth is more of a traditional chivalric knight than almost any of her male counterparts.

[Orcoa]

Changing the topic of conversation from my ego (which just loves the attention, by the way) back to the topic at hand- one of my favorite things about A Song of Fire And Ice has been its treatment of female characters. Some of the strongest characters are female, and I like how the subject of female knighthood is treated. Brianne of Tarth is more of a traditional chivalric knight than almost any of her male counterparts.

She is a true warrior and probably my favorite character beside Ted and Jon Stark

[Antares XII]

Well yeah, I didn't mean literally eighty years, but they could have squeezed fifteen or twenty years out of it canonically speaking, and a solid ten seasons wouldn't have hurt... but enh, that's probably just me not wanting to let go of what happens to be my favourite ST series. It just seemed like they waited until the last second on several occasions to do the speeding-up bit. Almost like it was a result of plummeting ratings...

Stargate SG-1 made it 10 years and got cancelled in the middle of a storyline because the head honchos were assholes. It's entirely doable for modern sci-fi to last that long or longer with good writing. Unfortunately Voyager didn't have good writing. Oh it had it's high points but overall it was lackluster. The complete nerfing of the Borg, turning Q into a moron, the cliche storm that was Chakotay, Janeway's personality roulette, Neelix, Harry Kim being the most static character in the history of television, and honestly sticking Seven in a catsuit and having her learn "A lesson about Humanity™" repeatedly was really grating. It wasn't a problem of people writing what they didn't know, the worst Janeway episodes were written by Jeri Taylor (who seemed determined to recreate Wesley Crusher).

Voyager came close to killing the franchise, which is part of the reason they decided to jump back in time with Enterprise which did kill it.

You know, looking back now it's probably because of all the weird and/or outright stupid decisions in writing that the series got pushed into an early grave. Instead of trying to turn it around and fix what wasn't working, they kept stubbornly forcing those same square-shaped flaws into round holes. I didn't mind Janeway's personality myself - someone mentioned how she was never allowed to be questioned, to which I reply with this - but there was certainly room for improvement overall. Chakotay was unfortunately a walking mass of cliches that felt shoehorned in, the Borg being nerfed was something I feel was inevitable given enough time, Q was always kind of a moron anyway (honestly - he was a man-child with godlike powers), Neelix was... well, Neelix - no fixing that, Harry Kim was about as vanilla as you can get (which was okay I guess but left him woefully unexplored), and Seven... I was really pissed about Seven because I felt like they could have done so much more with her, but they tried to turn her more into Troi than Hugh (what is it with Star Trek and those stupid skintight 'uniforms'?). Then there was also Tom Paris, who left a bad taste in my mouth because my god, how many times has that been done before. *cough*newSTmovies*cough*provingthisthread'spoint*cough*

Although in fairness I disliked Paris and the new Kirk more because they were gung-ho macho men so full of themselves it's a wonder they didn't explode in a testosterone-laden hellstorm, and less because they were SWMs. All in all there was a lot of fantastic potential for Voyager but it was mostly squandered and as a result the series bombed, then instead of trying to fix it they took shortcuts to end it prematurely.

[Choronzon]

Of all my issues with Voyager, Janeway was definitely at the bottom of the list. It was more the writing and the direction they took certain universe elements (as was mentioned, the nerfing of the Borg is a great example).

Janeway was hardly my favorite captain, but she was decent enough.

I'll take Voyager over Deep Space Nine.

[Khadgar]

Of all my issues with Voyager, Janeway was definitely at the bottom of the list. It was more the writing and the direction they took certain universe elements (as was mentioned, the nerfing of the Borg is a great example).

Janeway was hardly my favorite captain, but she was decent enough.

I'll take Voyager over Deep Space Nine.

Blasphemy!

DS9 had characters, lots of them, story lines an actual plot.

[Antares XII]

Of all my issues with Voyager, Janeway was definitely at the bottom of the list. It was more the writing and the direction they took certain universe elements (as was mentioned, the nerfing of the Borg is a great example).

Janeway was hardly my favorite captain, but she was decent enough.

I'll take Voyager over Deep Space Nine.

Blasphemy!

DS9 had characters, lots of them, story lines an actual plot.

But it was set (for the most part) on a space station. That goes contrary to everything that Star Trek stands for.

That being said, it certainly focused more on the characters than anything else, and was a fairly good example of breaking the SWM default mold.

[Frisivisia]

Blasphemy!

DS9 had characters, lots of them, story lines an actual plot.

But it was set (for the most part) on a space station. That goes contrary to everything that Star Trek stands for.

That being said, it certainly focused more on the characters than anything else, and was a fairly good example of breaking the SWM default mold.

I think the idea is that it was less like Oregon Trail IN SPACE and more like Fort Bridger IN SPACE.

[Choronzon]

Of all my issues with Voyager, Janeway was definitely at the bottom of the list. It was more the writing and the direction they took certain universe elements (as was mentioned, the nerfing of the Borg is a great example).

Janeway was hardly my favorite captain, but she was decent enough.

I'll take Voyager over Deep Space Nine.

Blasphemy!

DS9 had characters, lots of them, story lines an actual plot.

But DS9's characters were awful! Sisco's relationship with his son was fucking creepy, Kira was contemptible, and Odo was a thug. Quark was the only character I ever rooted for. Speaking of Quark, lets not forget the way the writers decided to "develop" the Ferengi. They started to become something out of 1930s German Propaganda. Plus, at no point does any aspect of Voyager get as terrible and hackneyed as the Kira/Odo love story.

I'll admit the plot itself (the wormhole, the Dominion) was decent, but at times the "message" hit you over the head like a sack of bricks (later era Next Gen had this problem too, but it at least had the writing and acting talent to make up for it). I also liked that, for a while anyway, it was the only Star Trek to take place entirely on a space station. It was made for a really cool take on the space western theme, because you got to look at it from the perspective of a town.

EDIT:

Blasphemy!

DS9 had characters, lots of them, story lines an actual plot.

But it was set (for the most part) on a space station. That goes contrary to everything that Star Trek stands for.

That being said, it certainly focused more on the characters than anything else, and was a fairly good example of breaking the SWM default mold.

But thats the only aspect I liked! It was an interesting take on the space western.

But it was set (for the most part) on a space station. That goes contrary to everything that Star Trek stands for.

That being said, it certainly focused more on the characters than anything else, and was a fairly good example of breaking the SWM default mold.

I think the idea is that it was less like Oregon Trail IN SPACE and more like Fort Bridger IN SPACE.

Exactly.

[Antares XII]

Due to the OT nature of the trend this discussion is following, I made a new thread. Don't want to threadjack this topic, as it is an important one, so hop on over if you wish.

[Dakini]

If people have a problem with the characters authors use in their stories, they should write their own. We need more female and minority fantasy and sci fi writers too.

Because writing and getting books published is the easiest thing in the world to do and everyone has enough free time and talent to do it.

[Antares XII]

If people have a problem with the characters authors use in their stories, they should write their own. We need more female and minority fantasy and sci fi writers too.

Because writing and getting books published is the easiest thing in the world to do and everyone has enough free time and talent to do it.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say that with the amount of writing I see on here, that's not really a fair defense, especially considering one can find proofreaders, or even just use a spellchecker. Although, you do have a good point when it comes to publishing and free time.

[Dakini]

Because writing and getting books published is the easiest thing in the world to do and everyone has enough free time and talent to do it.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say that with the amount of writing I see on here, that's not really a fair defense, especially considering one can find proofreaders, or even just use a spellchecker. Although, you do have a good point when it comes to publishing and free time.

Writing fiction is a totally different set of skills than shooting the shit.

Hell, I'm a passable scientific writer, that doesn't mean I'm any good at creative writing.

[Costa Alegria]

If people have a problem with the characters authors use in their stories, they should write their own. We need more female and minority fantasy and sci fi writers too.

Because writing and getting books published is the easiest thing in the world to do and everyone has enough free time and talent to do it.

I'm sensing sarcasm.

[Cannot think of a name]

Brianne of Tarth is more of a traditional chivalric knight than almost any of her male counterparts.

I kind of like the casting of that role. When the 'tough chick' is usually cast it's usually the 'aerobics model' type, which, fair enough, could probably kick my ass still, but they're still that type when the character is a 'strong and not just 'for a chick' strong,' and in this case they cast a tank. Not that she is 'unattractive' or 'unwomanly,' but that she is huge. Now, I only remember seeing her in armor so I don't know if she's actually 'yoked' in the parlance, but when she lays a beat down in the fights I don't feel like I'm watching 'magic strength' but rather a big strong person hitting someone really hard.

[Dakini]

Because writing and getting books published is the easiest thing in the world to do and everyone has enough free time and talent to do it.

I'm sensing sarcasm.

Really? I'm so shocked that you'd think I was sarcastic!

[Antares XII]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say that with the amount of writing I see on here, that's not really a fair defense, especially considering one can find proofreaders, or even just use a spellchecker. Although, you do have a good point when it comes to publishing and free time.

Writing fiction is a totally different set of skills than shooting the shit.

Hell, I'm a passable scientific writer, that doesn't mean I'm any good at creative writing.

Depends. There's creative talent, sure, but that isn't the end-all, be-all of fictional writing. There are quite a few fictional writers that heavyhand the scientific stuff, and it sells. What do you think analytical people like to read?

Of course, that's only a fraction of the total market, so you wouldn't be making a tremendously huge dent in the SWM default mold... I guess what I'm saying is, don't sell yourself short just because you think you're not that good at the traditional style of creative writing. Isn't that a default mold mindset in and of itself? To write a certain way, or not at all? Anyone can write a book, and odds are regardless of what style you use, someone, somewhere, will read it and like it. It really boils down to how badly you want to write it. And that, I think, is one of the only really important 'rules' of writing - if it doesn't meet some minimal threshold for gratification or satisfaction on the author's part, it isn't worth writing.

[Dakini]

Writing fiction is a totally different set of skills than shooting the shit.

Hell, I'm a passable scientific writer, that doesn't mean I'm any good at creative writing.

Depends. There's creative talent, sure, but that isn't the end-all, be-all of fictional writing. There are quite a few fictional writers that heavyhand the scientific stuff, and it sells. What do you think analytical people like to read?

...I don't mean that I'm good at telling a story that's embellished with scientific terminology. I mean that I'm good at writing scientific papers.

This involves some creative thinking sometimes (otherwise how do you figure out what your spectra and results really mean), but it is entirely different from creative writing. I mean, I enjoy reading scientific papers in a field where I'm familiar with the terminology and where the results are interesting, but this isn't fiction and it's not something you publish in book form (apart from theses and textbooks).

Of course, that's only a fraction of the total market, so you wouldn't be making a tremendously huge dent in the SWM default mold... I guess what I'm saying is, don't sell yourself short just because you think you're not that good at the traditional style of creative writing. Isn't that a default mold mindset in and of itself? To write a certain way, or not at all? Anyone can write a book, and odds are regardless of what style you use, someone, somewhere, will read it and like it. It really boils down to how badly you want to write it. And that, I think, is one of the only really important 'rules' of writing - if it doesn't meet some minimal threshold for gratification or satisfaction on the author's part, it isn't worth writing.

No, I mean I do not write creatively. Perhaps I could develop the skill, but I'm not very good at coming up with story ideas. That's why I like reading what other people write when they're good at it.

[Maurepas]

Well, to be fair, Tolkien was very religious, IIRC, and that was part of the point of Lord of the Rings.

Though, that said, I agree that the prevalence of SWM in fiction compared to other genders/races/orientations is something that needs to change.

[Antares XII]

Depends. There's creative talent, sure, but that isn't the end-all, be-all of fictional writing. There are quite a few fictional writers that heavyhand the scientific stuff, and it sells. What do you think analytical people like to read?

...I don't mean that I'm good at telling a story that's embellished with scientific terminology. I mean that I'm good at writing scientific papers.

This involves some creative thinking sometimes (otherwise how do you figure out what your spectra and results really mean), but it is entirely different from creative writing. I mean, I enjoy reading scientific papers in a field where I'm familiar with the terminology and where the results are interesting, but this isn't fiction and it's not something you publish in book form (apart from theses and textbooks).

Of course, that's only a fraction of the total market, so you wouldn't be making a tremendously huge dent in the SWM default mold... I guess what I'm saying is, don't sell yourself short just because you think you're not that good at the traditional style of creative writing. Isn't that a default mold mindset in and of itself? To write a certain way, or not at all? Anyone can write a book, and odds are regardless of what style you use, someone, somewhere, will read it and like it. It really boils down to how badly you want to write it. And that, I think, is one of the only really important 'rules' of writing - if it doesn't meet some minimal threshold for gratification or satisfaction on the author's part, it isn't worth writing.

No, I mean I do not write creatively. Perhaps I could develop the skill, but I'm not very good at coming up with story ideas. That's why I like reading what other people write when they're good at it.

It really isn't difficult at all to come up with story ideas, though. "X does Y, which results in Z." That's a basic story formula. Fill in X with a character of your choosing (I'm assuming a non-SWM), fill in Y with an action, and fill in Z with a result. It's not all that different from scientific experimentation.

Take your own life, for example. Replace yourself with 'X', replace some of the things you do or have done with 'Y', and replace the results with 'Z'. Embellish it with virtually any fictional setting of your choice - a pre-existing setting, a setting of your own that is a hodgepodge of other fictional settings, or even a "real life" setting with a few slight modifications. Harry Turtledove has done some - a setting where the South won the American Civil War, for example. The best part about fiction has been stated several times in this thread already - since it's fictional, it doesn't have to be realistic. You have every right to modify anything in any manner.

That being said, I'm not telling you that you have to go out there and write a book. You don't, and I shouldn't have to tell you that, but I feel like maybe I'm pushing the issue a bit so I'll just shut up now.

[Mikland]

Ok, honestly, how do you really expect any of the straight white males on here to give a fuck? If your kind of people, doesnt matter who you are, be you a gay female minority, held the power of media influence, would you give a shit how other people suffered for it? Would you so willingly trade places with them? And please think before answering, as of course you only say you would to look like a morally better person than any straight white male.

[Costa Alegria]

Really? I'm so shocked that you'd think I was sarcastic!

Now you're just being facetious. So if you don't think that any form of creative writing is something that any old yokel with access to a pen and paper or a computer and an ample amount of time can do, why did you originally claim that writers were too lazy to go out and experiment with characters that don't fit an apparently well established status quo?

[Olthar]

Ok, honestly, how do you really expect any of the straight white males on here to give a fuck? If your kind of people, doesnt matter who you are, be you a gay female minority, held the power of media influence, would you give a shit how other people suffered for it? Would you so willingly trade places with them? And please think before answering, as of course you only say you would to look like a morally better person than any straight white male.

In fact, people do care about others from time to time. That's why white people helped hide escaped slaves and set up the Underground Railroad. That's why Germans helped shelter Jewish fugitives in WWII. That's why straight people today are campaigning for equal rights for gays. It's called empathy. Perhaps you should look it up sometime.