Ask the Flying Monkey: Would the “New” “Star Trek” TV Series Have Included a Gay Character?

Have a question about gay male entertainment? Contact me here (and be sure and include your city and state and/or country!)

Q: So the news recently broke that Jonathan Frakes, Commander Riker himself, had pitched a new Star Trek TV series to CBS/Paramount, but it was rejected. Frakes has spoken out before about the importance of adding gay characters to the Star Trek universe. Do you know if his proposed series included any gay characters? – Matt, Des Moines, IA

A: Frakes told Ugo.com: “I had a Star Trek that I developed for TV, and we were told in no uncertain terms that they said no to a Bryan Singer television Star Trek, they said no to a William Shatner television Star Trek. They feel at CBS Paramount that they don’t want to make the same mistake that’s been made before, which was watering down the brand by having a TV show and a movie.”

But no, Frakes’ would-be series didn’t include any gay characters. In fact, Frakes’ reps tell me that he was misquoted by a lot of media outlets, and the series never got as far as being pitched to CBS/Paramount at all.

Q: I thought Christian McLaughlin’s 1998 book Sex Toys of the Gods was hilarious. What’s McLaughlin is up to these days? Wikipedia states that he is currently working on a new gay soap opera-type series for Logo. Any news on that? – Alex, Munich, Germany

A: San Rafael, McLaughlin’s would-be gay soap opera, is not in development at Logo – no word on whether he’s still trying to place it elsewhere. After penning several novels, McLaughlin had a semi-successful career as a Hollywood writer, but he’s since shut his website down and seems to be keeping a low profile lately.

As for other scripted content on Logo, there are some shows in development that we’ll hopefully see in a couple of years, but they haven’t acquired anything like that lately. It’ll mostly be “reality” and talk show-type content for the foreseeable future.

Q: This is a question that I wanted to ask you as someone who takes up a nice chunk of shelf space at my local library. When you're writing fiction, especially YA novels, how do you keep your protagonist likable? On one hand, a writer wants their character to have realistic flaws and underdog-struggles that create the drama of the story. But on the other hand, you want the character to have positive qualities so the reader enjoys reading about them. This seems to be an especially precarious balance when writing LGBT YA fiction. How do you keep this balance? I realize this is not a typical media question, but I am really interested in your opinion on this topic. – Carolyn, Sacramento, CA

A: First, thanks for the kind words (and the plug of my books).

Truthfully? The reason I started writing in the first place was because I found so many of the main characters in gay novels unlikeable. Sure, jerks and anti-heroes have their place in fiction, but I was looking for someone I could relate to, and most of the characters I was reading were too whiny and self-destructive for my taste.

My partner and I used to joke that they should call the genre *sshole fiction.

This, of course, was the trend in literary fiction at the time – and most gay books back then were literary fiction. Sometimes it seemed like the point was for authors to shock readers with just how miserable, jerky, and/or self-destructive their characters were. That meant you were really baring your soul and being “truthful.”

And I think it was partly a generational thing. The generation of gay and bi men before me went through some pretty serious sh*t. If anyone deserved to be wounded, they did. I know it’s a triumph that many of them survived at all. So they were just revealing their own truths.

The thing is, me and most of my friends didn’t really relate. It’s true our community’s biggest problem had been internal: we didn’t even like ourselves enough to come out and ask for acceptance! But now we were emerging from our self-destructive ruts. It was finally possible to take on the external obstacles. In fact, AIDS made it essential.

So when in 1989 I sat down to write my first book Geography Club, I tried really, really hard to reign in the angst, the doom-and-gloom, and the self-destruction.

I don’t know how much credit I can take for this, and I’m desperately hoping this whole answer doesn’t come across as massively self-important. But I was determined that my story be a positive one and that my characters be likable and relatable — flawed, sure, but ultimately decent.

Mostly, I just didn’t want them to be *ssholes.

What advice would I give to other authors seeking to do the same thing? External obstacles are generally more sympathetic than internal or self-created ones — especially if it seems like the character isn’t interested in dealing with his or her internal problems. Pessimism and nihilism get old fast, and almost everyone recoils from whininess. Active is way more sympathetic than passive.

And I hesitate to say this, but … there’s probably some truth to the idea that characters in books can only be as sympathetic as their authors. It’s a good thing that Bret Easton Ellis writes mostly satires about self-absorbed *ssholes because, based on his recent essay in Newsweek about Charlie Sheen and his Tweets about Glee, it seems pretty clear that that’s what he himself is.

And I the fact is, I don’t think I was crazy in my thinking. Geography Club and my subsequent books did quite well. And it seems to me that the non-angst-y, non-tragic, non-whiny feel I was going for has since become the standard sensibility in both GLTBQ teen and adult gay lit. 



As for *sshole fiction? Well, when was the last time you read a Bret Easton Ellis novel?

What’s the lesson in all this? A writer must absolutely always strive to tell the truth. But the most important truths, the ones that will really get you noticed, are often the ones that no one else is telling.

Have a question about gay male entertainment? Contact me here (and be sure and include your city and state and/or country!)