Blood and Fire and Homosexuality as an Other Star Trek fan fiction is a long-running, extremely popular, and often

infamous form of storytelling. Fan fiction allows fans of Star Trek to expand their own ideas of what the characters or the stories should be or should have been. Authors can explicitly say that their work is meant to fit in with the Star Trek mythos and ideals, or they can use it as a vehicle for their own alternate ideas. They can use fan fiction to explore romantic relationships or societal ideals which were not addressed in the canon series, for one reason or another - perhaps it is this flexibility which makes fan fiction so popular. A particularly interesting form of fan fiction is full-fledged fan-made Star Trek episodes. These episodes can have amateur or professional actors, writers, directors, cinematographers, and other workers, but they are usually of fairly high quality. The writers of and performers in these fan-made episodes have a devotion to Star Trek, and, much the same as other fan fiction creators, want to tell their own stories within the Star Trek universe. One such group making fan-made episodes is called Star Trek: Phase II (it is named similarly to the ill-fated Roddenberry-sponsored follow-up to the Original Seriesand was formerly called Star Trek: New Voyages). Following the idea of creating their own stories, Phase II created an episode in 2008 dealing with homosexuality in Star Trek, entitled Blood and Fire. The episode was centered on two men, Peter and Alex, in a relationship.When the Enterprise receives a distress call, the two men are both on the Away Team sent to investigate. Alex eventually dies while operating equipment which allows the rest of the team to escape.1 The idea of homosexuality had never been directly covered in a canon Star Trek episode, and had only recently been covered in a TNG-themed fan production called Hidden Frontiers. Blood and Fire was the first time that homosexuality was covered in a TOS-era episode, even a

fan-made one. Since New Voyages, as it was called at that time, was one of the most well-known fan series, many people viewed the episode and expressed their opinions of it, especially concerning the explicit inclusion of a homosexual relationship. Both favorable and unfavorable views were expressed I contend that the unfavorable views stem from the view of homosexuals and their community as an other in American society, and thus that the unfavorable views are representative of the subjects identity and exoteric views of homosexuality, rather than objective analysis of Star Trek and its ideals. When I first began this project, I had expected to be able to meet and interview members of the homosexual community at StarFest. I made posts asking for help on both the StarFest websites board and on their Facebook Wall. My search only yielded one result, a middle-aged bisexual man named Christopher. I conducted an interview with him, but decided that, even though he gave me useful ideas, I would need to shift the focus of my project elsewhere due to lack of information. So, Christophers interview was relegated to background information, and I shifted my focus instead to the forums of the New Voyages website. There, I specifically concentrated on the thread titled Gay Scenes in BAF [Blood and Fire].2My involvement in this community was nonexistent I was simply an observer, not a participant. The forums are public, so anyone can go and observe what people have written.If I had begun my project with the intention of focusing only on Blood and Fire, I may have contacted certain members of the forums or of the production team to ask them for interviews, though the episode and many of the posts on the forum were made 2-3 years ago. As it stands, the only information I have about the posters are their forum posts. This could affect my conclusions because forum posts express a small window into the myriad of nuanced opinions that a person could have on a topic, especially an (unfortunately) contentious one such as homosexuality. They are made without

context and without verbal and physical cues, and are therefore prone to be misinterpreted. I was careful to try not to misinterpret or misrepresent anyones views in my analysis. There may also be bias because I consider myself part of the homosexual community to which some subjects are opposed, but I tried to be objective in my analysis. The folklore with which Im working is really folklore doubly they are fan reactions to a fan-made episode. The episode was produced and performed by amateur fans of Star Trek, though it was partially written by a former official Trek screenwriter a small element of elite culture. There is not really an element of performance present in these examples as stated earlier, they are posts on an internet forum. These examples are taken from then-ongoing debates concerning the content of Blood and Fire. There were a huge volume of posts 173 pages, so far, and most of them positive. I picked, however, the negative examples which I thought were most representative of negative attitudes, and which explained those attitudes most clearly. I collected a large number of posts, so I will provide a few example screenshots here. This is a post from one of the producers of the episode:

Now, a few negative posts:

I have collected more information than just these examples, but I feel that these are good representatives of the types of opinions given about the episodes. As stated before, the fan response to Blood and Fire was mostly positive. Negative comments and arguments were in the minority, but they constituted a substantial enough number to facilitate discussion. The arguments against the inclusion of homosexuality into Star Trek tended to fall into three main categories:disagreement over Gene Roddenberrys vision for Trek, religious/moral objection, and personal objection. The first is simply a matter of interpretation, and the latter two present worldviews and identities. All three are a result of exoteric views about the other homosexuality. First, Ill examine the interpretations of Roddenberrys ideas. One post reads, in part, Yes, Roddenberry pushed boundaries, but simply by the presence of a varied cast. I dont think he would have devoted ALMOST FOUR MINUTES of a show to a gay lovers scene.3(Note: I will be transcribing all the posts in their original form, including emphasis and grammar.)This poster is correct in observing that the scene in question is nearly four minutes long, but his or her assertion about Roddenberrys choices of episode pacing is ridiculous, especially considering the

amount of romance that occurred very regularly throughout the Original Series. There is really no proof that Roddenberry wouldnt have devoted that much time to a love scene, whether gay, straight, or anything else. Furthermore, the complaint that the episode is nearly four minutes long is also absurd - with both of its parts put together, Blood and Fire are almost ninety minutes long. Four minutes is certainly not an excessive amount of time. Another poster writes, Im sorry boys, but the gay thing is NOT Star Trek. Theres no point in it and theres no need for itthe original message of Star Trek will be lost to a promotion of something which just isnt a part of something so great.4 A last example is shown in the preceding paragraph: I dont believe thats the future, and I dont believe Gene did either.5 In fact, there is some evidence to show that Gene Roddenberry and other prominent Star Trek figures did believe that acceptance of homosexuality was the future. In his interview with The Humanist, Roddenberry mentioned ideas that he would have liked to address on the show, but was unable to, including sexual attitudes.6 Considering the already fairly liberal sexual mores on the Original Series (Kirks promiscuity, women possessing some amount of power), it is logical that Roddenberry meant attitudes pertaining to homosexual or transgender issues. Brannon Braga, a prolific producer of Star Trek episodes and films, recently said in an interview that he regrets not including homosexuality in the episodes which he worked on.7Remember, too, that Blood and Fire was originally intended to be a Next Generation episode, and was partially written by a Trek veteran, David Gerrold.8These are all esoteric views from people who were integral in creating the Trekuniverse, as opposed to the exoteric views of that fans about what they think Star Trek should be and where homosexuality fits into it. It can be concluded, therefore, that the assertion that homosexuality has no business being in Star Trek based on the shows own merits and ideas is false.

The other two general types of objections are more abstract religious and moral beliefs and personal beliefs. I couldnt find any posts that explicitly invoked religious laws in condemning the content of Blood and Fire, but there were plenty of moralistic statements which I suspect were informed by religion. One post says that the level of intimacymoves this episode beyond the family friendly level that all of TOS and the previous episodes were at.9 The scene in question, in which nothing explicitly sexual happens, is no more objectionable than Orion slave girls or a shirtless Kirk from the Original Series. Another states, And my personal point of view is that the general public, including their children, does not need to watch this.10 Finally, there is the story told above by one of the producers, about the email concerning the 7year-old and the episodes appropriateness to him.11 Religious and moral beliefs are often part of a societys worldview. These posters, as part of a Western society, share common elements of worldview. Toelken writes that Experiences perceived as normal ways of life, must provide a strong basis for certain ideas found in more sophisticated form among adults.12 These certain ideas form the basis of an adults worldview. Toelkens idea supports the assertion that exoteric views about homosexuality, which are part of ones worldview, are the main determinants of the posters opinions. Consider, for example, the fact that in our own language, the commonly-used terms for hetero- and homosexuals are straight implying normalcy and gay. The idea of homosexuality as the other is ingrained into Western worldviews. Tangentially, another aspect of worldview is stereotypes. These are expressed in a few posts, including one pictured above: dikes on space bikes, Space Elton [John].13 Stereotypes are another way of turning a group into an other by giving them characteristics which are distinct and different from the norm. Also ingrained into Western worldviews is religion, specifically Christianity. Many modern Christians discomfort

with issues of sexuality, especially homosexuality, is so ingrained into Western culture that people, even the non-religious, often feel ashamed discussing sexuality frankly. It is just something which is taboo. This attitude is reflected in the comments about children and appropriateness. A worldview of Western religion and morality highlight homosexuals otherness it is out of this worldview that the opinions of the posters grow. Personal beliefs are the last general category of negative posts. These generally seem to concern two things: an ick factor (people dont like seeing homosexuals together) or a lack of relation by heterosexuals to homosexual relationships. Well, I would like to watch a show I can relate toand I dont relate to homosexuality, says one post.14 The same poster decries Blood and Fire as trying to shove homosexuality at viewers. Another says, Im just not interested in gay lovers having intimate moments nor do I want to watch people getting shot in the heador many other things.15 There is also a worrying trend of sexualization of the episode in certain posts: one calls it softcore gay pornography16 and another accuses it of being a bump and grind and a peep show.17One poster even went so far as to say this: I mean lets face itthe fans would have been happier to see a couple of hot babeslezzing it up LOL!18 These posts are all related to personal beliefs and views, and personal beliefs and views directly relate to personal identity, as shown throughout the Dundes reading. Posts like these directly show the attitude of homosexuals as others. The ones about not relating to homosexuality are again painting homosexuality as an aberration, with heterosexuality being the norm. The posters consider heterosexuality part of their identity, and cannot relate with people who differ on that one aspect. The fact that one poster believes that homosexuality is specifically being pushed, as opposed to heterosexuality (which is implied to just naturally occur), shows that he views homosexuality exoterically as an outsider group. The stereotype that all homosexual

relationships are overly sexualized, and the subsequent discomfort, is very common in Western society, and is shown in certain posts. Upon viewing the scene, most people found it tasteful and appropriate, not softcore pornography. The logical reason for this assertion on the part of the poster is that he believes homosexuality to be only about physical affection. This view is shown even more strongly in the comment about lesbians. Not only is it implied that male-male homosexuality is less appealing, it is also implied that homosexuality is only acceptable if it is hot that is, if it is purely sexual. These exoteric views relegate homosexuality into a status inferior to that of heterosexual relationships; they say that homosexuality can only be about sex, while heterosexuality can be about love. This differentiation is one of the largest manifestations of the idea of homosexuals as others. These posters identities inform their views on homosexuality. Bringing things full circle, lets move back to Gene Roddenberry. Many of these posters opinions were rooted in the idea of homosexuality as a deviant lifestyle, not on the same level as homosexuality something that must be pushed and cannot simply exist. One can draw an analogy between homosexuality on Star Trek and another milestone in Trek and television history, the first interracial kiss on TV between Kirk and Uhura. On that topic, Roddenberry said this to the Humanist: [The] kiss was an integral part of the storyline, and it never occurred to me to question whether Kirk should kiss a black person or not.19 He was not trying to make a statement or break down barriers, he was just telling a story. Based off of this statement, it seems that Mr. Roddenberry himself probably would not have treated homosexuality as an other but instead simply as a part of life in the Federation. As I have shown, the opinions of the negative posters concerning Blood and Fire are predominantly rooted in worldview, identity, and exoteric views of homosexuality as opposed to

rational analysis of Star Treks ideals. These three things combine to express the view of homosexuals as others. Despite the negative responses, dont forget that the majority of responses to the episode were positive. Perhaps with such good responses, canon Star Trek will eventually properly address the issue of homosexuality, not as an issue, but just as another valid way of life.

Works Cited 1. Blood and Fire, Star Trek: New Voyages. Directed by David Gerrold, written by David Gerrold and Carlos Pedraza.Released 20 December 2008. 2. Star Trek: New Voyages forums. http://forums.startreknewvoyages.com/index.php?topic=2660.0 3.

4.

5.

6. Gene Roddenberry: Writer, Producer, Philosopher, Humanist, The Humanist, Issue 51, March/April 1991.Page 8.Course Material.

7. Star Trek Producer Regrets Lack of Gay Characters, Advocate. http://www.advocate.com/Arts_and_Entertainment/Entertainment_News/Star_Trek_Prod ucer_Regrets_Lack_of_Gay_Characters/ 8. David Gerrold, Memory Alpha. http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/David_Gerrold 9.

10.

11.

12. Toelken, Barre, The Dynamics of Folklore (Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 1996), 267.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

6. The Humanist, page 8.