Forget Subtext - People Don't Even Get Surtext

@edentmedia · 4 comments · 250 words · Viewed ~1,261 times.

Once in a while, you'll see some blowhard railing about the modern world. I recently saw someone decrying the fact that Star Trek had "gone woke".

This Star Trek?

Uhura, a black lady, is kissing Kirk, a white man.

OK, you can argue about whether Kirk and Uhura were forced to kiss in that episode. But how does anyone look at Star Trek - with its women on the command bridge, anti-colonial stance, and mixed-race crew - and not think it was a bastion of progressive causes? Star Trek is explicitly political. It isn't hidden in the subtext. You don't have to search for clues as to what the writers were trying to say.

Star Trek isn't complicated.

But some people only see the laser guns and exploding space ships. They're not looking at the text, they're barely even comprehending the narrative journey; they only see the flashing lights and gaudy costumes.

After digging through a lot of copypasta, I finally found Kenny Boyle's brilliant thoughts on the subject:

X-Men is about civil rights. If you didn’t get that, you didn’t get X-Men. Black Panther is about civil rights. If you didn’t get that, you didn’t get Black Panther. Captain America literally fought Nazis. He is the embodiment of fighting the alt-right. If you didn’t get that, you didn’t get Captain America. The Empire in Star Wars is fascist. The Rebel alliance are Anti-Fascist. If you didn’t get that, you didn’t get Star Wars. The Punisher isn’t meant to be a role model for police or armed forces. So much so that the writers of The Punisher made him actively speak out against it in a comic. If you didn’t get that, you didn’t get The Punisher. Deadpool is queer. He’s pansexual. Fact. If you didn’t get that you didn’t get Deadpool. Star Trek is about equality for all genders, races and sexualities. As early as the mid-60s it was taking a pro-choice stance and defending women’s right to choose. One of its clearest themes is accepting different cultures and appearances and working together for peace. (It’s also anti-capitalist and pro-vegan). If you didn’t get that, you didn’t get Star Trek. Superman and Supergirl (and a whole host of other superheroes) are immigrants. The stance of those comics is pro-immigration and pro-equality and acceptance. If you didn’t get that, you didn’t get Superman or Supergirl. Stan Lee said “Racism and bigotry are among the deadliest social ills plaguing the world today.” If you’re bigoted or racist, you didn’t get any of the characters Stan Lee created. The stories we grew up with all taught us to value other people and cultures and to treasure the differences between us. Only villains were xenophobic, or sexist, or racist, or totalitarian. I can’t understand how anyone can have missed that. If you’re upset that there’s a black Spider-Man, or a black Captain America, or a female Thor, or that Ms Marvel is Muslim, or that Captain Marvel was pro-feminism, or any of the other things right wing “fans” say is “stealing their childhood” - you never got it in the first place. The things you claim are now “pandering to the lefties” were never on your side to begin with. If you consider yourself a fan of these things, but you still think the LGBTQ+ community is too “in your face”, or have a problem with Black Lives Matter, or want to “take the country back from immigrants”, then you’re not really a fan at all. Geek culture isn’t suddenly left wing... it always was. You just grew up to be intolerant. You became the villain in the stories you used to love.

Kenny isn't wrong. But I am disturbed by the sheer number of people who don't have even a surface level of understanding of the media they're consuming. I know that lots of people don't get satire, but most TV isn't trying to bamboozle its audience.

I think there is a fundamental disconnect between people who consume and people who understand.

4 thoughts on “Forget Subtext - People Don't Even Get Surtext”

2024-05-22 13:44

Kevin Marks said on bsky.app:

The Kirk Drift essay is well worth it on how the folk memory of Star Trek is askew from the original strangehorizons.com/non-fiction/...
Reply | Reply to original comment on bsky.app
2024-05-24 12:21

Borys says:

Apart from subtext and surtext there is also structural context: the proportion between the quantity of woke/leftist/political metaphors (put there willingly or subconsciously by screewriters), and the quality of narration as such. I can easily enjoy a good movie with, say, homosexual characters given that the plot is interesting and the characters credible. But if the statements become too blatant at the expense of everything else that makes a movie memorable, well, then I will be the first to complain. I agree fully with what you say about the sheer number of people who do not understand what they are watching. It is sad. I agree also with Kenny Boyle's post. But let us not forget that "X-Men", "Star Wars", original "Star Trek" and "Superman" were innovative, interesting, excellent productions. It does not work the other way, however: Putting a political message into a movie won't automatically make it a good one. I will even argue that it will turn a bad movie into even worse – first, because of annoyance factor, second, because the limited creative energy was spend on crafting the message, not on improving the plot.
Reply
1. 2024-05-25 15:28
  
  @edent says:
  
  Do you notice when a blatantly heterosexual couple are placed in a movie? Or is it only the existence of non-straight people which is political? Similarly, do you complain when a ham-fisted attempt is made to put a right-wing political message into a story? Or are you content to ignore the money and energy spent on, for example, pro-military interjections?
  Reply
  1. 2024-05-25 22:19
    
    Borys says:
    
    Do you notice when a blatantly heterosexual couple are placed in a movie?
    In a bad movie? Sure. These movies are usually to be categorized as "mediocre rom-coms" and are just as uninteresting for me as lazy scripts with non-straight couples. You are welcome to argue that the latter deserve more attention because they at least attempt to normalize homosexuality – but then I will reply again that the brazen normalization attempt in tandem with bad plot and uncredible characters makes the movie even worse.
    Similarly, do you complain when a ham-fisted attempt is made to put a right-wing political message into a story? Or are you content to ignore the money and energy spent on, for example, pro-military interjections?
    Unsure which movies specifically you have in mind. But yes, it might be that Rambo & Commando-kind of movies provide me with a lot of fun – more than they should, really – even though their cinematographic value is pretty, pretty low.
    Reply
More comments on Mastodon.