In which I am less articulate than I would like about Star Trek

[dragojustine]

Every day I think "I've been away from the flist forever! I should post!" and then I don't. Basically, a combination of a particularly bad bout of underemployment and a nostalgic trip back to some old computer games has left me doing that weird hours/sleeping way too much/can't quite manage to do anything/not quite depressed thing.

So. You know a meme I saw going around a few days ago? It was that ten things I assume you know about me meme.

1. I'm living in Dallas and I hate it. It turns out I'm firmly bi-coastal, so I'm heading back to Seattle post-haste.

2. I am fundamentally introverted.

3. My whole family is Mormon. I was raised that way, declared myself an atheist at 12, and fought with my parents nonstop for the next seven years. We've reached an uneasy truce on the subject of my godlessness. The separation of church and state is a hot-button emotional issue for me. Tell me this is a Christian nation. Go on. I dare you.

4. I am bisexual. And WAY too oversexed for celibacy. And far too introverted for casual sex. And way too baggage-ridden for a relationship. It's fun being me. There does seem to be something going on at a great physical distance with bdblack, though, and it's a very happy thing indeed.

5. I'm doing law school applications, because I really really really miss being in school. I'm told that just being in school shouldn't be a goal- one should be passionate about what one actually wants to do with the degree. This logic was why I didn't go to grad school way back when. But you know what? Screw that. If being in school is the thing I want most in the entire world to do with my life, I'm damn well going to go back to school.

6. I graduated with my BA at the age of nineteen. It's a little weird, to realize that nobody on lj actually knows this about me- there was a point in my life when it was the first thing anybody knew about me and I had to struggle to get people to see past it. Now I doubt anybody cares. When I start school again, I'll be even a tidge over the "normal" age for an incoming law student... which, considering I've been at least a year younger than everybody since I skipped third grade, is pretty astonishing to me.

7. That degree was in history, specifically ancient (which was as specialized as it got, in that program), but with extensive dabbling in the modern era and in classics, linguistics, and archaeology, and more minor dabbling in... everything. I geek out hard on ancient military history and on the late Roman Republic.

8. I still wish I'd taken more econ and poli sci. And more literature/rhetoric/composition. And more philosophy. And more anthropology and sociology. And a little more... It's truly astonishing that I ever graduated at all.

9. I tutor, mostly test-prep for entrance exams (AP tests, SAT, ACT, LSAT, GRE, GMAT, placement tests for local colleges...) It's livable money for eight months out of the year, but the other four'll kill ya.

10. I really really really dislike babies. I really really really like dogs. (Yup. Okay. Reaching on this last one)

You guys, my glee over the new movie knows no bounds. I can't even see it until the 30th (I am waiting for BD), but I am all a-twitter about it just in theory. I am spoiled all to hell and running around all over the internet reading about it. This is the best thing ever. This series deserves it. You guys. I have loved Kirk and Spock and Bones and Scotty and Uhura since before I can remember. I honestly cannot remember the first time I watched. It's always been there. It's the Ur-fandom. It's what all subsequent SF obsession was based on. Sure, TNG was more my show, if only because it was on sequentially in my formative period while I only got TOS in scattered reruns, but still. These characters. They are back and they are being treated right and I want to dance and sing and twirl with happiness.

Have a linkspam:

seperis posts about how this handling of an AU is different from any other handling of an AU she can think of, and how that is awesome. (This is interesting if only because we in fandom are so comfy with AUs that don't "fix" their timelines or be destroyed by or sacrificed for the "real" timeline that it's odd to realize how very unusual it is for actual shows to allow that)

This post is answered by this post in a fascinating debate over a point of philosophy. Basically, any AU setup that posits a radically different life for at least one character but then ends up with all the characters back in essentially their original configuration of personal relationships is going to rely on a huge amount of coincidence... which the readers will tolerate because they want these characters back together in this configuration. The end result is to give the impression that these characters are somehow destined or fated to be together, a conclusion that I am used to (and, okay, really really love) from SGA fandom. But, according to In Medias Res, that sits badly with the humanist and decidedly secular orientation of the verse. That second post is worth reading, though I do eventually disagree. The sensation of fate (meaning inevitability, "rightness") doesn't have to imply gods or causative supernatural powers, and anyway just because Star Trek is humanist and anti-mythological doesn't preclude us from reading our crew as heroic figures; our group can both be ordinary humans (er, let's go with "ordinary mortals") and still be pushed to be heroes by outside circumstances and even a quasi-supernatural causative agent in the form of Spock Prime without violating the basic secular humanism of the verse. The mortals of Trek can and do solve their problems without supernatural help... in fact, Spock Prime does/did/will do so. There is some logic flaw in any argument that asserts that Young Spock is "just like us" but then treats Spock Prime as a God for the purposes of argument, and then objects to the disconnect.

I suspect I was not very clear there. Basically I got my hackles up at the assertion that a humanist viewpoint precludes a heroic story. (I don't suppose anybody wants to read that link and explain what I'm missing? I fear I may be making an idiot of myself here)

And, to lighten it back up, here, plus the comments, is where you want to go for super geeky plot-point nitpicking, including great and necessary fic ideas.

And this one will go outside the cut: There is already K/S porn. It is smoking. In fact, there's a whole huge kink meme but I don't have time to sort through the dross right now. Read this. Read it now. I'll be in my bunk.

Comments

[desertport]

Tell me this is a Christian nation. Go on. I dare you.

THANK you. I hate that one.

Way to go on law school apps! It's so hard to make that decision to even apply. I bet you do great.

And yes, Star Trek was amazing. My sis and I continue to squee over it almost a week later.

[dragojustine.livejournal.com]

I hate that one.

And the whole package of arguments that goes with it. *shudder*

And YES! Consider your week-old squee enthusiastically joined by my pre-emptive squee.

[desertport]

Don't even get me started on the subject. It's like, "Here, be invisible for me. But let me invoke you every December in the "war on Christmas" meme." Makes me want to throw things.

Totally worth the preemptive squee. I really wasn't expecting it to rock so hard. :D

[princessofg.livejournal.com]

this is so cool!

i have a friend who has degrees in english, linguistics, law, and at least one more. he was in school for over a decade and then he didn't know what to do with himself so he joined the Peace Corps. Today he's a judge.

school is good. go to school. a career is a just a job that's gone on too long lol.

what you've been able to do in terms of constructing your own world view is nothing short of amazing. fighting back against the Mormon worldview is so hard. Good for you.

Hope you get to Seattle soon and hope you find time to write.

I am looking forward to enjoying the ST squee when I have more time, but I so appreciate links because I don't have time to immerse myself in a new fandom and so I love it when people whose taste I share point stuff out.

I was aware of trek and was a fan but was not a FAN. but this movie (which I've seen) also makes me want to reinvestigate the classic series again.

*MASSIVE HUGS*

hope you get laid soon. lol. keep in touch. I miss you.

[dragojustine.livejournal.com]

I was aware of trek and was a fan but was not a FAN. but this movie (which I've seen) also makes me want to reinvestigate the classic series again.

And that can only be to the good. Yaay!

i have a friend who has degrees in english, linguistics, law, and at least one more. he was in school for over a decade and then he didn't know what to do with himself so he joined the Peace Corps. Today he's a judge.

See, I think I want to be your friend. Thank you for that. Good story- I needed it.

*hugs*

[buaidhnobas.livejournal.com]

"Tell me this is a Christian nation. Go on. I dare you."

Heh. Hehehehehe. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The way that was phrased begs me to play devil's advocate. You know this right?

What I can say is that much in the way of laws and culture, especially up here in the new-england area, are very much one part "Fuck you England" and one part "Please don't smite us Lord."

This is why we have a dichotomy where our bill of rights preaches freedom of religion, however our laws also state things like "but only if marriage is limited to between one man and one woman who aren't currently involved in any other marriages." Why do you think our society is so paranoid about nudity - even to the point of having a hypocrisy where violence is ok but a frontal nudity shot constituted pornography?

Understand though... I'm not someone who sees this and thinks "everyone must conform." I'm someone who sees this and wants society to fix this and remove the legislated Christianity - leaving it for those who choose that path to, gee, I don't know... follow their religion and leave others out of it?

[dragojustine.livejournal.com]

The way that was phrased begs me to play devil's advocate. You know this right?

Of course it does! (and pardon me if this is more of an outline for an argument than an actual argument, but in any case I don't want to preach at you)

The first thing to establish is that there's a difference between what we historically have been culturally and what we were established as legally. If you want to tell me that this nation has been overwhelmingly culturally Christian since its founding, I won't argue very hard (though I will point out that it was never 100% and your understanding of history will be much richer if you remember that and that, even taking into account bumps in the Red Scare 50s and Moral Majority 80s-90s, this has been growing steadily less true over the country's entire history)

But was this legally a Christian nation? Not on your life. You point out examples of laws that now seem to indicate that the country is legally Christian, but I would say that it's not fair to say that eighteenth-century legislators had no concern with the separation of church and state just because they (for example) limited marriage to a man and a woman, any more than it's fair to say that they had no concern for personal liberty just because they (for example) failed to explicitly provide the kind of privacy protection that we now recognize is legally needed for liberty. The founding fathers allowed for personal liberty in ever way that was within the scope of political discussion at the time- quartering, habeas corpus, search and seizure. They did not explicitly provide for privacy for (say) our medical records and decisions or our library/online information consumption, because such things simply weren't part of the discussion, but it's still safe to say that "This country was founded on a principle of personal liberty."

In much the same way, the founding fathers provided for separation of church and state in every way that was within the scope of personal conversation at the time- no religious test, no establishment, etc. It's not fair to point to something like explicitly heterosexual marriage laws (for example) to try to claim that this isn't a legally non-religious country- rather, the correct response is to try to bring our laws into accord with what our new understanding of "legally secular country" dictates.

(and if you were speaking of state and local laws, that's a whole other ball of wax which I won't get into, save to point out that the federal government has been wildly superior to most state and local governments on most issues for most of our history)

Then the issue is the move from factual to normative. This country was culturally but not legally Christian- the problem is that all too many people believe that a culturally Christian nation should be a legally Christian one, or that a nation that was undeniably culturally Christian in the eighteenth century should remain so indefinitely. Moves from the factual to the normative are legally tricky, and both those arguments are invalid.

Basically, "This is a Christian nation!" is most often code for an argument that goes like this:

1. This was founded as a Christian nation! (a claim so lacking in nuance as to be useless as the foundation of an argument- see the above cultural/legal distinction)
2. That means we need to keep it a Christian nation! (Move from factual to normative does not follow)
3. That means we need to keep "under God in the pledge of alliance just like the founding fathers put it there! (Reveals abysmal historical idiocy as well as logical invalidity in the service of a knee-jerk xenophobic conservative argument. It's like a double-decker bus of fail!)

And yes, that really, really, really was the short version.