Elevated Anecdote

Blogging is a fantastic way of recording and sharing personal anecdotes but it has struck me that this is only the case for those events that have happened during the era of blogging. And with that in mind I have decided that I want to draw some old anecdotes from my past and put them here. It will be something I only do from time-to-time but I will start with one particular incident in this entry. And - like this incident - I will try to limit my anecdotes to just those that are somehow distinctive and also to those that involve friends who have been important to me. So here we go...

Back when I was still at uni I spent a lot of weekends with a handful of friends who had met via this one event at the start of our uni lives - the United Nations Youth Associate (UNYA) Tertiary Youth Conference 1991. This story has nothing to do with that week-long con but it is how Us as we called ourselves got together. One of those involved was my longest-term friend to date - Guy - whom I had met at the start of secondary school. Anyway...

One day we were all getting together to go have a picnic by the Bay. And as we were all uni students we carpooled in one or two cars and drove from suburb to suburb collecting passengers. We had come to collect another friend - Sean - who at the time lived on the fourteenth floor of apartments on Nicholson Street in Carlton. So Guy and I took the elevator to go and collect him. As the lift rose we did something kinda stupid.

There was a song in the charts at the time by the teenaged hip-hop duo Kriss Kross called Jump Jump. It was pretty trashy and we knew it but nonetheless something possessed us both to "jump jump" in unison as the lift moved. How were we to know that two young men jumping was all it would take for an elevator to get stuck between floors?

And the only way of communicating with the outside world was via a buzzer button. Yep - these lifts were too primitive to have an intercom and we were living in the 90s baby - so who had a mobile phone back then? The buzzer seemed to attract the attention of one elderly resident - we knew that because she called to us via the walls and doors. I think from that we established that mechanics were on the way to look at the problem.

All we could do was sit. I had some paper in my backpack and - well - it may surprise you but in those days I was a bit imaginative and a tiny bit melodramatic. So I suggested that we may need to keep the paper to write farewell messages in case we never escaped. Guy - whose scientific knowledge and sarcasm far exceeds mine - assured me that we still had a hour or so of oxygen. He persuaded me to share the paper and play Noughts & Crosses with him.

A bit later the elderly resident called to us to ask "are you still there". Um - yes - yes we were.

Anyway eventually the elevator did move level with a floor and the doors opened. We ran all the way down the stairs to find the others who convinced us to come with them back into the other elevator to go fetch Sean. I think we spent 45 minutes in that lift. Till that time such an experience was just something from movies. In the end all I lost was some paper but I got a pretty good anecdote from the thing. And I think we enjoyed the picnic later that day too.

Note: I promise to use more commas rather than just all these dashes. I will try. This anecdote has been cross-posted here.

Supernatural Moral

I had lunch with a friend recently on the grounds of the Australian National University (ANU). Following lunch I walked past what looked like the start of a public debate. Posters close by told me it was a debate between the local skeptics and evangelical Christians. For a moment that part of my that enjoys arguments (a dwindling part in recent times) wanted to stay and watch the show but I quickly changed my mind and walked on. The topic was presumably over the existence of God which would inevitably have been yet another "coz I say so" kind of exchange. Even the likely tone put me off - skeptics who think they are so clever versus fundamentalists who feel they are so very right. I also think the debate itself is lop-sided.

The objective of the skeptics is to dismiss any and all things supernatural. In contrast the fundamentalists are only interested in asserting the existence of one supernatural thing - a monotheist god. I would rather see a program of two separate debates. In the first of such debates the skeptics would face a mixed panel of anyone who embraces the supernatural (say a Christian and a Hindu and a Shintoist). Seeing such groups interact would be interesting in itself. Only once the matter of the supernatural was debated would there then be a second debate in which the virtues of different religions were discussed.

What kind of decision-making processes are involved in choosing a religion if one thinks that there is such a thing as supernatural agents that expect us to have a relationship with them? For many religious practitioners I suspect context and circumstance direct the decision made. A person decides that monotheism makes sense to them and the society they live in has a predominantly Christian heritage so naturally they become Christian. There is still the matter of which denomination in which to participate but that may be affected by who one knows - family and friends go to a particular church and are happy to provide an invitation to the next gathering.

But what if the prospective religious person decided to make a conscious investigation of the alternatives. A debate between religions would be more focused on morality than on cosmology as different religions vie for adherents. And in introducing morality I am interested in the moral standing of the supernatural agents themselves. So much religion focuses on the actions of mortals but what of immortals?

Is it - for instance - right for a parental figure to allow its wayward children to be tortured forever if it can do anything at all to prevent it. Many parents the world over will have adult children who have done what they consider to be wrong and yet they will still love and accept those children and do anything they can for them. That is the nature of parental love. Should we expect more or less from a supernatural parent? I would think we would expect more. And yet the historical development of religions is such that we assess the conduct of gods on the basis of barbarian monarchs from times in which the concept of compassion lacked any kind of prestige.

An atheist will deny the existence of such monsters of the imagination. But as an agnostic I have to consider the possibility (however remote) that the assertions of the most hateful of fundamentalists may be right. And if they are right what should I do? The pragmatic thing would be to choose the most vengeful of religions and do what it says to the letter. But I have a hunch that resisting intimidation and abuse even if it has a supernatural form is the moral thing to do. It may be a difficult thing to do however once I am shown the instruments of torture.

And those instruments of torture are shown to us even in this day-and-age. There on that street corner on a busy shopping day is the intense stare and the stirring words of an evangelist who rants on-and-on about fire and brimstone and whose placard asks "where will you spend eternity". Such a person may be in a tiny minority compared with those Christians who interpret Hell as the much milder "absence of God". But such a person has the visibility and passion and for many of us is the face of Christianity (which I focus on because of the history of my culture even while I am aware that other world religions have similar problems).

I have sometimes considered asking one of those street corner advocates how they feel peddling terror. I think they may respond that they are warning us of the dangers of Satan rather than of God but for me a protection racket is still a form of assault. Ultimately we work under very different assumptions. For the evangelist goodness is whatever God says it is. For me however 'might is right' is a philosophy we need to consign to the history books.

Cross-posted here.

Grimm And The Blue Crown Owl

On the weekend I saw the 'gothic' opera Grimm And The Blue Crown Owl at Street Theatre. I saw it because it was performed by Australian National University (ANU) opera students of which Petra is one and I am happy I saw it because it was original and engaging.

The music and story were written by one of the opera students. It was refreshing to see something new in what I think of as an old-world art-form. It was also nice that it was sung in English which surely made the convoluted plot a bit more transparent. Mind you I expected to understand more of it but forgot that sung dialogue is more difficult to understand than spoken word (hence all those wonderful and amusing misunderstandings of pop music lyrics).

Still someone reminded me that convoluted and inane story is a part of the opera territory and one goes more for the music. And the music was awesome. I lack the terminology but the music was a 'modern' if still tuneful brand of orchestral music performed by a very together chamber orchestra and sung by the keen and talented opera students. They both sung and acted well and even those lacking key roles still put in some fantastic body acting of movement and gesture (gotta love scurrying like a rat).

I enjoyed the costumes which utilised a combination of purpose-made items and existing clothing in a very economical and effective way. A ruffled shirt would provide the chest of an anthropomorphic owl while a black leather jacket would do the same thing for the wings of a bat. The 'mad scientist' lab rats were almost Gigeresque with those exposed skulls and spines. The wise storks (of which Petra was one) were elegant in kimonos and waving wing-like fans.

The audience was packed, and I suspect this had something to do with the fact that the story had a contemporary setting, while still resonating with fairy tale themes. We got a mix of tragedy and romance with a smattering of comic moments and it was all good value. I also got to go to an after-party which is always a fun thing to do.

Cross-posted here.

Living Room Double Feature

Lately I have been watching a lot more videos (in disc format) than I have for a long time. It is partly the result of having fewer things to do overall here in Canberra and partly because home cooked dinner followed by a movie is a fun thing to do with ones live-in partner. Also this has got me thinking of a lot of the old movies I have seen and would love to see again. And it has got me thinking of the concept of the double feature.

Petra and I have been watching movies by ourselves - usually one of an evening. But if I were to host a video night for guests (as I have done in the past) I would want to see more than one in a sitting. One leaves you wanting more. Three leaves most guests too tired. Two is the right number of movies to see. But then I also think that movies should be selected to compliment one another while also presenting some contrast. With that in mind I have put together the following list of double features. I have avoided the easy way of simply playing sequels (which in any case too often exceeds just two movies). So here they are. You will notice that some genres and eras are rather over-represented...


* The Wizard Of Oz (1939) with Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory (1971)

* Casablanca (1942) with The Third Man (1949)

* War Of The Worlds (1953) with The Time Machine (1960)

* Rear Window (1954) with North By North-West (1959)

* The Pink Panther (1963) with The Party (1968)

* Jason And The Argonauts (1963) with Clash Of The Titans (1981)

* Barbarella (1968) with Flash Gordon (1980)

* Cabaret (1972) with The Boys From Brazil (1978)

* Alien (1979) with Predator (1987)

* The Blues Brothers (1980) with The Commitments (1991)

* The Dark Crystal (1982) with Labyrinth (1986)

* Revenge Of The Nerds (1984) with Real Genius (1985)

* Ghostbusters (1984) with The Golden Child (1986)

* Terminator (1984) with RoboCop (1987)

* Lady Hawk (1985) with Highlander (1986)

* The Breakfast Club (1985) with Heathers (1988)

* Back To The Future (1985) with Bill And Ted's Excellent Adventure (1989)

* The Abyss (1989) with Contact (1997)

* Stargate (1994) with The Fifth Element (1997)

* City Of Lost Children (1995) with Dark City (1998)

* Sleepy Hollow (1999) with The Brothers Grimm (2005)

* Pitch Black (2000) with Serenity (2005)

* Bridget Jones's Diary (2001) with Down With Love (2003)

* Pirates Of The Caribbean (2003) with Stardust (2007)

* Deja Vu (2006) with The Prestige (2006)

Hopefully my pairings will make sense. Of course one could do all sorts of different combinations and I have only listed a fraction of the movies that would be worth seeing at a video night. I am sure other suggestions could be made...

Cross-posted here.

Birth Charts

I am one of those who regards Astrology with the same skepticism (hopefully no more nor less) that I do any supernatural propositions. We all know the objection - how can the perceived configuration of stars and planets far removed from this world have anything to do with who I am and what my life will be like?

The best explanation I have been given (one of those explanations that make perfect sense in the telling but one can somehow never convey to others effectively) is that in this complex and holistic universe a random method of sampling parts of the totality can tell one something of other parts of that totality. I think.

As long as nobody gets taken for a ride then I figure it is all just a bit of fun these days. But why stars and planets? What of other random things happening in the universe at the time of our birth. It is then - for the sake of fun you understand - that I propose here prediction of ones personality and fate via the popular song!

Check this site. It allows one to find the song that was Number 1 on any date in the past few decades. One can quickly discover the most popular song on the date of ones birth (or indeed on any and all of ones subsequent birthdays). Maybe Lean On Me tells me as much about who I am as does the constellation of Cancer. There is a lot of information in a recorded song from the words themselves to the way they are sung and the instruments and arrangements presented.

What does your birthdate popular tune say about you?

Cross-posted here.

Marriage Equality

I attended the Marriage Equality rally in Canberra on the weekend. It was small (numbering only a few hundred participants) and my nuclear disarmament days should have prepared me for a small crowd. But I expected more for this issue given that the majority of Australians polled now support same-sex marriage rights. I am thrilled that in other capitals the event was much bigger - five thousand for Melbourne a friend has told me. I suppose that our national capital is still just a small town.

The rally was worthwhile despite its size. The thing is that such events always serve many purposes. A big rally can garner public and government attention but even a small one can give a movement something at which its members bolster the commitment and morale of one another. This was definitely the case with our sunny Saturday afternoon in Civic. But one interesting thing I always notice is that a rally draws together many different and sometimes conflicting perspectives (my observation of peace marches has been that they attract "everything from anarchists to anglicans").

So I am far from convinced by the assertion of one speaker that capitalism is intrinsically homophobic. I suspect that the hospitality industry will welcome the profits arising from same-sex weddings with relish. Still it is the nature of such events that one accepts such statements with polite silence and farewells each speaker with some applause.

Mind you there sometimes are hecklers from within the crowd. So for instance the speaker for Amnesty International (AI) was jeered by someone because she specifically acknowledged the support of straight members of the crowd. This struck me as unusual but then I imagine a person may feel this way if (for instance) every significant straight person in their life had helped to make it a misery. This is why I think interacting with a larger and more diverse cross-section of society is an important thing for all of us. Familiarity breeds respect (contrary to the traditional saying).

I think the speaker from AI was the best in that she focused on both the positive and negative aspects of liberty. The freedom to marry whomever one will can very much enhance ones life. However freedom from abuse and intimidation is also vital and she shared two incidents with us.

One was a personal anecdote in which she and her (same-sex) partner had been sitting last Summer on a Melbourne beach holding hands - they were approached by some men who asked them if they would rather have men to be with and she felt threatened by this experience.

The other incident was that very recently a man kissed another man at Australian National University and was later followed in a menacing way back to his car by some strangers. The phrase "gay bashing" was never used at the rally but I am sure it was a shadow in our minds.

Now nobody in church or state may ever say it is okay to threaten and menace queers but by denying them the same rights as straights it gives just that tiny bit of legitimacy to those who think it is okay - if they deserve one form of deprivation then maybe they deserve other forms as well...

Rights are universal. They only work if everyone can exercise them. Furthermore extending a right to a hitherto excluded group still allows full enjoyment of that right by those who continue to possess it. The sense of this is something a growing majority are coming to understand.

Still there is opposition and it can come from interesting directions. The only argument I have had with anyone on this topic recently came from a somewhat radical friend who opposes the institution of marriage itself. Possibly - like many young adults - this friend has been put off by the short-comings of the marriages of parents. Or maybe the pressure of traditional culture on us to marry and reproduce has made the whole concept a bitter one.

My response to this was to say that it is for every adult (or set of consenting adults in this case) to decide for themselves what kind of life they wish to live rather than for this to be determined by any one perspective in society. The best decisions are the ones we make for ourselves.

There is government resistance to marriage equality and that is frustrating. My feeling however is that it is only a matter of time before Australia becomes part of a growing worldwide trend to let us decide for ourselves whom we marry. Continuing political activity (from attending marches to writing letters to papers or parliamentarians) will be a vital part of this process.

Cross-posted here

Twixt Snow And Spray

That subject line is inspired by the city of Hobart but could well cover everything I have done in the month of July. I have been to four capital cities and slept in twice as many beds. It has been a busy time and worth reporting on. And I will report on life in Canberra as well as my travels away from it.

Canberra

I have now settled into the bush capital pretty well. I find on a day-to-day and week-to-week basis life is pretty much the same here as back in Melbourne.

I live in suburbia and can walk in semi-bushland. I ride a bus and have been working in an office. I go to dinners and movies and gigs. I wander shopping centres and perv at the latest Transformers on shelf there.

I have done a few things to ‘put down roots’ such as join the local library (with its excellent views across Lake Tuggeranong) and the Dendy Cinemas Club for cut-price movies in Civic. Having work helped me keep busy in a new setting (that temp role ended and I am hopeful of finding more soon).

What is different is who I spend time with. I am lucky that I have friends here both old and new and almost every weekend has had some kind of fun thing. I have even had visitors from Melbourne. One weekend old friends Sean & Olivia stayed with us (they were in town for a live Impro event) and one day we took a lovely drive to Cooma and Jindabyne. But I do miss lots of Melburnians and the kinds of things that happen because of having lots of friends and acquaintances – like big house parties.

I am feeling very at home here with Petra and we are managing remarkably well in this small place. I have discovered that, for me, privacy is more about the freedom to do ones own thing, more than it is having ones own exclusive space.

Sydney

I went with Petra to Sydney for a few days. We stayed at the home of her parents. We did some very suburban things like walking the family dog to the local milkbar. But we were there for something more glitzy. Sydney always makes an impression. I know that Melbourne has the tallest Australian skyscrapers and yet everything in the Sydney city seems taller. Maybe it is the number of skyscrapers and the narrowness of the streets. Whatever it is it definitely gets me ooing and ahing. Our excuse to visit Sydney was to see French And Saunders live and it was a hoot. Those comediens still have it (and the way Petra responded to the show was a bit of a side-show in itself).

Melbourne

My big adventure recently was to attend the 2009 Australian Intervarsity Choral Festival in Hobart but on the way there and back I spent a bit of time in Melbourne. Melbourne has always been the fixed reference of normality for me and yet this time I noticed its size and age and complexity as something different – even just three months in a new city has done this. Still it was fantastic to spend some time there.

I stayed one night at the home of Sean in Brunswick (so as to be close to the airport for a flight at a godforsaken hour). I also stayed with former housemates Polly & Olav in Mount Waverley. Even small things about my visit here are nice – like the way the local milk bar operator remembered me and wanted to know how long I was staying.

Hobart IV

Petra and I arrived half-way into IV proceedings. We had a hire car from the airport and drove to campsite in Lauderdale (which is in the Greater Hobart street directory but looks like a distant coastal township). We got there to discover most choristers were in the City for a publicity sing. And also that some had been taken to hospital to be screened for H1N1 Influenza. What had we driven into?

It was okay in the end. All IVs are marred by some sickness as infections from across Australia are concentrated into a small space and time. This was more marked but we all survived and the final concert still happened (including a mix of new stuff by the likes of Matthew Orlovich and old stuff like the 1812 Overture by Tchaikovsky). Still it did affect proceedings and this included the re-arranging of dorms into sick and healthy rooms. This was a way of forcing me to interact with choristers I may have overlooked otherwise. This also accounts for two of the four beds I stayed in while in Hobart (as we were moved from a mixed health room to a supposedly ‘healthy’ room).

An IV is an exercise in logistics and I think we were the victims of both too much and too little organisation on our first night. We had made an informal arrangement to sleep in the dorm of some friends who definitely had spare bunks. However we were then formally instructed to go to another dorm at an auxiliary campsite (in part because we had our own transport). This is the “too much organisation” aspect in which working informal arrangements are over-ridden. On getting to this other site we never managed to find our room and even woke a total stranger in the process. This is the “too little organisation” arising from a lack of campsite-specfic maps and an absence of organiser phone numbers to call for help. In the end we stayed on the living room floor of a dorm we did have phone numbers for (accounting for one of our four Hobart beds).

The last few days of IV were spend at billets and personally-arranged accommodation in Hobart proper. We got our own room (the fourth bed in Hobart) in serviced apartments along with several other choristers (mostly MonUCS). Hobart is a beautiful city to stay in with its harbour and its mountains and with everything close together. Here is the view from our front door! I had visited once before so was somewhat relaxed by the prospect of missing much of this city due to rehearsal commitments. Still we got to see a lot of cool stuff including the top of Mount Wellington and the Salamanca Place markets. There was also plenty of IV-specific fun like the Academic Dinner (my first). And a group of us even got to see the latest Harry Potter on opening night (there were crowds but nothing like what they would have got on the mainland).

I have looked back over my writings on the last IV and am reflecting on the differences. Frankly I was pampered by the last one what with its university halls-of-residence setting that allowed one to have a room to escape to. This IV was more what one should expect and I did need more alone-time than I got (also solitary walks are so much more attractive in warmer conditions than we had). I faced the new challenge of attending an IV both as me and as part of a relationship. I made some errors of judgement in terms of just how much I could represent the needs and preferences of both Petra and I. But we muddled along and got better at that.

Overall it was fantastic to see old friends and make new ones. I was particularly interested to observe changes over time as I (for instance) saw more confidence in someone I had last seen eighteen months previously. I was also happy to discover I still felt at home with Melburnians despite the small changes that have happened in my absence. And now once more I am back in Canberra feeling sated from the recent visits.

Cross-posted here.

Lego Is All Wright

That is a shocking title. I must be tired.

One of the things I have noticed with flying is that in-flight magazines are pretty bloody boring. They are full of stuff like 'Top Ten Best Destinations For Your Next Work Conference' or 'Electronic Gadgets For the Executive With Everything'. What shit. But every so often there is something interesting. Last time I flew I read an article about how it was the fiftieth anniversary of the death of the American architect Frank Lloyd Wright.

Wright is possibly the most influential architect of last century and I have been aware of him since my family saw a television documentary on him ages ago (as a result my brother Lukas got a 'pop-up' book of Frank Lloyd Wright architecture). Wright was totally innovative but drew on both tradition and natural forms (as opposed to the Bauhaus take on architecture which was purely functional in nature). Also I recently discovered that one of his apprentices was none other than Walter Burly Griffin (designer of Canberra).

Once you know the Frank Lloyd Wright look you can see hints of it in all sorts of things and it resonates with a lot of things I loved as a kid (yes once more I am reminiscing on last century). Falling Water looks like something that International Rescue (aka The Thunderbirds) would have been at home in. And I reckon you could film Star Fleet Headquarters at the New York Guggenheim and get away with it.

Now Lego (themselves an icon of last century) have produced sets of both Falling Water and the Guggenheim. Legoland Space was one of the three kinds of toy I collected (the others were Star Wars figures and of course Transformers). I would consider reviving my interest in Lego just for these things.

Cross-posted here.

Movie von Alien

I saw Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen a few night back and it reminded me how popular the thesis of Eric von Daniken has become within the context of science fiction specifically. Eric von Daniken - a Swiss author - published Chariots Of The Gods (1968) (which got television documentary treatment in the 70s and 80s). It it he argues that space-faring extra-terrestrials have visited Earth and influenced the development of human civilisation. The arguments depends on a very blinkered interpretation in which facts are cherry-picked to allow for only one possibility - that the author is right. The attraction of Chariots Of The Gods comes from a desire for the wonderous to still be a part of our lives in this age of skepticism and rationality. It also comes from a lack of appreciation for human ingenuity. "How could our ancestors possibly have made the Pyramids?" asks Von Daniken. "They were too stupid to and had to be helped by aliens" is the answer given (which to my mind shows a lack of wonder).

As science Chariots Of The Gods is dodgy. However as an inspiration for science fiction it is fantastic and there are a growing number of movies and programs that utilise the concept of alien visitation inspiring ancient humans. I first encountered the concept in the original Battlestar Galactica (1978-1980). In this back-story humans were the aliens that had colonised Earth long ago. The Cylons are designed to be reminiscent of Roman centurions while the human pilots have helmets modeled on the head-dress of Ancient Egyptian pharaohs. It looks hokey now but it was lots of fun then.

The 80s seemed relatively free of the Von Daniken thesis in science fiction but then along came the movie of Stargate (1994) which has done more to popularise the concept than any other show. Since then other SF movies to incorporate alien impact on ancient ancestors include The Fifth Element (1997), Alien Versus Predator (2004), Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull (2008) and now Transformers: Roll On The Floor (2009). They vary in quality and plausibility but they are all fun and the Von Daniken concept gives them a wonder they may otherwise have lacked.

I think we love bringing together the things we love and the sharp contrast makes it all the more thrilling. We love the pop-culture interpretation of ancient civilisations. We love technologically advanced aliens. Bringing them together is an evocative and enthralling thing to do. It makes us contemplate both the long ago and the far away.

And Another Thing

I saw the Land Of The Lost movie recently. I had to even if I expected it to be crappy. It was a kind of 'brand loyalty' thing. Land Of The Lost (1974-76) was a show I loved as a kid. It had claymation dinosaurs! But rather than living in some secret valley they were preserved within a pocket dimension into which the flotsam and jetsam of the universe got stuck. Talk about bringing together things I loved. There were hominids (The Pakuni) and reptilian aliens (The Sleestak). There were ancient ruins. There were also the Pylons (small pyramid-like structures) inside of which were control panels consisting of crystals - arrange them correctly and you could open a portal back home. This was amazing stuff for a child that totally drove the imagination. Why did they have to make it into a low-brow comedy spoof? Still it did remind me of the original show and that is worthwhile in itself.

Cross-posted here

Future Progress

The new Star Trek movie has awakened my long-standing interest in that fictional universe. I started seeing re-runs of the original series on Sunday afternoons and was taken by its exploration of “new life and new civilisations” and its charming 60s aesthetic. Then, with the introduction of Star Trek: The Next Generation, there was the excitement of exploring the same fictional universe from more than one juncture in its invented history. Another attraction was its effects of differing levels of effectiveness (I will have to discuss star ship design at some other time). And yet another was the diverse crews depicted who seemed to live in a world that was both non-racist and non-racialist (in the sense that the concept of race itself was absent from human discourse – hardly surprising in a galaxy filled with alien species).

I wonder why I noticed this last element. My own schoolyard and neighbourhood had plenty of diversity. Possibly it was only once I started discussing things with friends in FOME that I became conscious of the new ground Star Trek has broken in terms of its depiction of the acceptance of diversity. Or possibly I did notice it while still in school. Despite personal experience, I might still have noticed the relative homogeneity of characters in many television shows.

Particularly for its time, the Original Series is impressive. I can only think of Hawaii Five-0 (1968-1980) as rivalling it, but its setting demands a diverse cast of characters. In contrast Star Trek, with its setting of future space exploration, did much more than was expected of it. Consider, for instance, the crew of the space ship in Forbidden Planet (1956) which directly inspired Star Trek, and one could be forgiven for thinking they were a bunch of clones.

In discussing the depiction of diversity in the various incarnations of Star Trek I will work under a few self-set limitations. I will devote most attention to those shows with which I have the greatest familiarity (The Original Series and The Next Generation). I will focus more on the identity of characters than of actors (so for instance I am more interested in the Vulcan nature of Spock than I am in the Jewish heritage of Leonard Nimoy). I will try to only discuss ‘firsts’. And the only fan speculation I will present is my own (rather than the huge body of non-canonical fan fiction).

The Cage (1965)

The Cage was the pilot for Star Trek that was rejected by television executives as “too cerebral” but was released on video in the late 80s. It is an impressive bit of SF for its day and far more interesting and well-paced than the aforementioned Forbidden Planet. It presented Christopher Pike (a new imagining of whom we see in the movie currently in cinemas) as captain of the Enterprise. More interestingly it included the character ‘Number One’ who was the Executive Officer under Captain Pike and (unusually for its time) a woman. Number One comes across as an aloof and emotionally repressed careerist, which I interpreted as sexist at the time I saw it. Apparently this depiction was more an SF thing of showing the elevation of reason over emotion in future society – a characteristic that was transferred to Spock later on (interestingly Spock is an incidental character in the Cage and can be seen smiling). Following the rejection of The Cage, the crew was re-gigged and Number One was gone. It would be a very long time indeed before a woman was elevated to such an important rank within a Star Trek storyline.

Star Trek: The Original Series (1966-1969) and associated movies (1979-1991 and 2009)

Including Spock was something of a daring move. Some executives were concerned that the extra-terrestrial would scare children with his demonic eye-brows and pointed ears. This astounds me but then I am a child of the Star Wars era. Back in the 50s and 60s most aliens were just humans in silver clothes who behaved strangely and came to kidnap our women. Spock looks kinda different from us and thinks very differently from us. He was born on another planet – the imaginary Vulcan - and has a completely alien hormonal cycle. And yet he is a Star Fleet officer and the best friend of our hero James Kirk. Nothing can be more inclusive to my mind than this (except that sometimes an imaginary ‘other’ can be much safer to contemplate than someone different who is actually one of us).

The other thing with Spock is that he is the product of a Vulcan-Terran mating. This back-story asserts that hitherto massive differences can be overcome by love. It also acknowledges a very important human experience – that of the person of mixed heritage who finds themselves at odds with ‘pure-bloods’ of both groups.

Uhura has been significant as a prominent television character played by African-Americans. The character has a Swahili name and is of Bantu ethnicity. Originally she is described as a citizen of the United States Of Africa (as well as a citizen of a United Earth). Uhura was presented to the world at a time in which African-Americans were both demanding the full rights due to them as contemporary US citizens and exploring their own rich and diverse heritages. The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior told actress Nichelle Nichols that she was making an important contribution to civil rights just by playing Uhura.

The other significance of Uhura is her gender. She is one of very few women depicted in original Star Trek as anything other than a love-cum-lust object for Jim Kirk (she was this but she was more than this). Nurse Chapel was only ever an incidental character (possibly we are past the ‘playing doctors and nurses’ take on gender roles and relations) but Uhura became one of the seven key adventuring crew members of the Enterprise. It has been noted that she was basically a glorified telephone exchange operator, but she was operating the phones for the Starship Enterprise, and that is something.

The Japanese-Filipino Sulu was also a significant character as pilot of the Enterprise, and later captain of the experimental Excelsior. What I find refreshing is that Sulu, like other characters in Star Trek, is depicted as his own person with his own characteristics, rather than some card-paper reproduction of the stereotyped Asian. Sulu is an expert at the Occidental martial art of fencing, whereas one would have expected a 60s show to present him as a black-belt in Karate.

Many would think that the minority-inclusive characteristics of the original crew end with Spock, Uhura and Sulu. But I think we forget how restrictive the concept of WASP (‘White Anglo-Saxon Protestant’) has been. The old New England establishment only truly accepted you if you were of English descent and of particular Christian denomination (as well as of particular affluence). The fact that President Kennedy was a Roman Catholic of Celtic descent was a controversial matter for some. In that same era Star Trek gave us a Celtic engineer (Scotty) and ‘poor-white-trash’ made good (Bones). And then there was Chekov.

The greatest and most maligned kind of person is ones enemy whomever that may be at the time. Apparently Star Trek was criticised by the Soviets for its implication that the future Earth was basically America. In response the Russian Chekov was introduced. The show was silent as to exactly how the Cold War ended but end it must have and to say that we had moved on from this during the Cold War was a pretty impressive statement.

The only central character in Star Trek that is a standard hero is that of James Kirk and yet he happily commands a diverse crew on the Enterprise and champions an ever more inclusive United Federation of Planets.

Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987-1994) and associated movies (1994-2002)

In this world the most powerful tend to be mature-aged. However in fictional action and adventure the most celebrated characters are younger. The decision to have Jean-Luc Piccard as captain of the Galaxy-Class Enterprise (commissioned several decades after the Constitution-Class Enterprise) is an interesting one and the character contrasts markedly with Captain Kirk. Piccard is past his prime. He is cultured. He has a British accent. I think this befits the nature of the new mission as a diplomatic ‘flagship’ for the Federation rather than as an intrepid explorer but still it was an interesting decision for an American program.

I suppose that is why William Riker is there as ‘Number One’ – Riker can do all the dumb and dangerous things audiences expect of heroes. Over time Riker proved to be more than that but for a while it seemed to me that he was a kind of ‘Clayton’s Kirk’ (complete with the sluttiness). The full potential of the character was never realised however. In the two-part story Best Of Both Worlds (1990) the Starfleet strategist Shelby is gunning for his job while he is offered his own command. If that had happened then we would have finally had a woman serving as Executive Officer of the Enterprise, and in Riker a useful recurring character commanding another star ship.

Women did have a greater role in Next Gen than in The Original Series, but were generally limited to ‘caring’ or ‘nurturing’ roles – doctor… councillor… bar-tender... (except for the martial Tasha Yar who was killed in the first season in manner lacking the 'honour' warriors crave). Dr Beverly Crusher was an important figure with the same kind of influence over her captain as Bones had had over Kirk. Councillor Deanna Troi is there to be pretty and exotic or as a love-interest for the more virile men of the command crew. The incidental character of Guinan (played by Star Trek fan Whoopi Goldberg) is fantastic but detracts from the professional role of Troi (why go to a shrink if you can chat with your bar-keep).

The value of a cosmopolitan society is expressed in Next Gen more via alien species than human ethic diversity. Troi has mixed Terran and Betazed ancestry, but only so that she could possess the supernatural power of Empathy, and any exploration of her heritage is done more for comic value as Terran mores are tested in contrast with those of Betazed. Guinan looks human but is very alien and can even perceive alternate timelines (and advise as to which one is ‘right’). Her homeworld El Auria was destroyed so Guinan represents the often overlooked experience of diaspora cultures. Then there is Worf.

Worf is wholly Klingon. For the first time a Klingon is presented as an heroic character (and at the same time that they are still depicted as villains in the Star Trek movies of the late 80s). With Chekov we saw that human conflicts can be overcome, so too with Worf we see the same can happen at an inter-stellar level. Worf is also an orphan with Terran foster parents and via this the issue of isolation from ones own heritage is explored.

Geordi La Forge is disabled. What we see is a future in which shortcomings are overcome rather than one in which they are eliminated from the gene-pool. La Forge was born blind but future technology comes to the rescue and his VISOR allows him to perceive across the whole electromagnetic spectrum. La Forge is also a geek, obsessed with warp fields at work and holographic fictions in his off-time, thus representing the kind of minority who avidly follow Star Trek. Finally there is his best friend…

Data is possibly the most interesting character in Next Gen. As an android he is the strangest crew member of all – a thing rather than a person. But a thing that aspires to personhood. Is this more ‘alien’ than any extra-terrestrial? Or are we more relaxed with the products of our own technology than we are variant forms of the same organic life to which we belong? The character of Data allows the show to explore both the ‘human condition’ that Star Trek has always been interested in and the issue of technology as a two-edged sword (I have seen Data take over the entire ship single-handedly and have to say that Piccard is far more trusting than I would ever be).

Some of us spend our entire lives associating only with those who think the same way as us. One could be forgiven for thinking that the United Federation Of Planets was one big echo-chamber in which hundreds of unique species agree on everything but logistics. In the programs that followed Next Gen the producers decided to explore diversity of a political and philosophical kind.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993-1999)

Deep Space Nine is set on a space station orbiting the planet Bajor which is considering entry into the Federation but they are a suspicious and superstition lot and far from relaxed with the Star Fleet presence in orbit.

This tension and its resolution is explored via the characters of Benjamin Sisko (Starfleet) and his Bajoran attaché Kira Nerys. Here also we have two new firsts – an African-American commander and a woman as effective ‘Number One’ (almost three decades after The Cage).

Beyond this, different ways of thinking and behaving are explored in Deep Space Nine. The setting is a (partly) civilian one so we can suddenly have characters like Quark the Ferengi (a petty criminal) and Garak the Cardassian (a suspected spy). The focus shifts to characters who are interesting rather than simply virtuous.

Star Trek: Voyager (1995-2001)

Voyager starts with the tension – indeed the conflict – that arises from difficult political decisions. The Federation has voluntarily ceded territory to the Cardassians and many inhabitants of that territory object and form the insurgent Maquis. The Voyager chases a Maquis ship and via some anomaly both ships find themselves on the other side of the galaxy – uncharted and distant territory. The Maquis ship is destroyed by local aggressors and its survivors teleport to the Voyager. Both crews unite to find a way home – conflict evaporates in the face of necessity.

Tensions were underplayed in Voyager, but there were some more firsts and some interesting characters. Kathryn Janeway is first woman to command the titular vessel of a Star Trek program. In Chakotay we have a Native American as Executive Officer. And in Seven-Of-Nine the former Borg I like to think we see the experience of those who are rehabilitated from life in a cult.

Enterprise (2001-2004)

Enterprise is interesting as the program set closest to our own time. And yet it is more a product of the time in which it was made rather than the fictional future to which it belongs. Thus its crew is more diverse than that of The Original Series despite the fact that it is set before it. There are few things I can think of that are new in Enterprise except perhaps the extremely patronising way in which Vulcans once regarded Terrans.

Hold on – there is one more thing I almost overlooked: The medical officer of the ship – the Denobulan Dr Floxx – often refers to his many wives and their many husbands. Is this inclusion there to suggest acceptance of differing mores or is any such effect diminished by the fact that it is attributed to a curious alien species?

Can you tell that I need to see more of the later incarnations of Star Trek?

Progress Report

In assessing the progress of Star Trek in overcoming prejudice I wonder whether I should be judging by the standards of my time or by those in which the programs were produced. If it is the former then overall I think the more recent shows fare much better. However if it is the latter standard I apply then The Original Series is by far the most successful at challenging the assumptions of its time. And my favourite show – Next Gen – falls furthest short.

Still it also depends on what issue I am considering. On the front of accepting different cultures then Star Trek overall has done pretty well for most of its history. It took a lot longer to challenge traditional gender roles and relations. And on the front of sexual orientation it has been pretty much silent (I am deliberately overlooking slash fiction here because what interests me is what gets to the largest body of viewers).

As far as I am aware there is still nothing like a same-sex relationship in Star Trek. Or even characters with same-sex preferences (Garak is kinda camp but that is hardly proof of anything). Rival show Babylon Five (1993-1997) fared much better and only the most obtuse fans could deny that there was something happening between Susan Ivonova and Talia Winters (apparently some did try by arguing over the fact that only one pillow is seen on a bed).

I would expect however that, despite its own shortcomings, the Star Trek universe has powerfully influenced the producers and consumers of science fiction to present and demand more inclusive and cosmopolitan settings, or to expose the short-comings of past and present society, by exploring alternate futures for ourselves and others.

Cross-posted here. Comments welcome.