Truth forever on a scaffold

Meta
Title:	Truth forever on a scaffold
Creator:	Karen Fleming
Date(s):	January 1978
Medium:	print
Fandom:	Star Trek: TOS
Topic:
External Links:
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

Truth forever on a scaffold is a 1978 essay by Karen Fleming.

It was printed as an opposing viewpoint to M.J. Fisher's essay The Wall. Both essays were printed in Spectrum #35.

The topic was explicit adult material in Star Trek: TOS zines, a topic that was raging across fandom at the time. For more context, see:

• Open Letter by Winston A. Howlett Regarding His Review of "Alternative: Epilog to Orion" (1976-77)
• The SekWester*Con Porn Debate (1977)
• Open Letter by Mary Lou Regarding Explicit Fanworks (1977)
• Kirk and Spock: Do They or Don't They? (1978)
• Timeline of Slash Meta

Some Topics Discussed

• the concept of IDIC
• Kirk/Spock, a relatively new premise
• The Pornography Controversy!, aka "Rise of the Age Statements"
• proposing that when people talk about Kirk/Spock, they do it in private

The Essay

IDIC, simply translated, is the concept that the variety of life is necessary—and therefore good. It's not really unique to ST, though ST has given it a name. It's an idea that is basic to modern cultural anthropology, and I suspect that it's been around for a long time in one form or another, but hasn't achieved widespread popularity.

IDIC is the kind of concept that everyone agrees is important. It has been turned into a slogan and lost its meaning. It's one of those Great Ideas that we pay lip service to, but which no one really expects to live by. We remain barricaded behind our prejudices and sneer at anyone who doesn't think as we do.

However, I am convinced that with effort the principle of IDIC could be put into practice. IDIC is flexible. I can be applied on a variety of different levels and allows us to choose the level that most easily lets us live in peace with other beings.

The basic concept that supports IDIC is that everyone has the right to choose the way of living and thinking that best suits his needs. That's simple—right? And obvious. But complications arise, because most people seem to have an exaggerated view of their own" rights." For example, "loving" someone, contrary to popular opinion, does not obligate the object of our affection to love us back. The possession of a "right" carries a corresponding obligation not to abuse it. Each persons rights end where the next person's nose begins.

A good example of this is the controversy that rages in fandom now—the clash between the "right to free speech," on the one hand, and the "right to privacy," on the other-all over whether or not Kirk and Spock would have a homosexual affair. Fandom has fractured into warring factions so far apart on this issue that there's no possible way of reconciling the differences between the two groups.

The problem is that it is an entirely emotional issue, even though the proponents proclaim its biologic correctness with detailed arguments and it's opponents point to the Bible as their authority. Nature's Way vs. God's Way. We are in the midst of a new crusade, complete with banners flying and legions marching off to do battle. Little matter that swords are pens and that typewriters and the wounded bleed ink. It's a bloody civil war that's tearing our small world apart.

On the surface of the issue I would have to side with the proponents, because, like them, I place a great value on my freedom to think what I please. And, like them, I don't consider homosexuality harmful or immoral.

However, looking deeper into the matter, I can see that the opponents have a point too. The right to think and do as we want has a corresponding right to avoid what we consider offensive — part of the right to privacy. And to some extent, the opponent's privacy has been invaded. It's not as if they went looking for the stuff they consider filth. They didn't. It was brought into their homes via communications they had always considered harmless and friendly — by zines that had always been "straight" before. And at SeKWester-Con*Too they found blatant porn art intermixed with "straight" art on display, people would be walking along looking at the pretty pictures and all of a sudden, there would be a nude Spock with a full erection. (There were also two porn panels at the con , but those could easily have been avoided by anyone who wouldn't want to attend them.)

(It should be noted here that it is really unfair to condemn the zines, most notably Halkan Council — and SeKWester~Con*Too — for anything they have done concerning this issue. They merely served to air the topics that are uppermost on fans' mind. That is their function, after all.)

In this controversy, neither side is entirely to blame. Neither side is entirely in the right, and neither has the right to condemn the other side for what it thinks. We alt have the right to think what we want — to be wrong, even — as long as we don't tread on someone else's rights.

A Mexican standoff? Not really.

In a complex society rights cannot be absolute, because rights are frequently in conflict with each other. It becomes a question of how to achieve a just balance between opposing rights.

How do we achieve the balance in rights of the opponents and proponents of Kirk/Spock sex? At a glance, the rights of the two groups would appear to cancel each other out, but the solution is really simple. Just return the topic to its original forums: the porn zines and private letters. For about the last year, the proponents have openly — and aggressively — discussed the subjects in public arenas, the usually "straight" zines. They have had their say — exhaustively! Withdrawing the subject to more private means of communication won't deny them free speech. The Kirk/Spock sex will continue to be discussed as long as there are two fans with an interest in it. It would be wise, however, to cease waving it under the noses of the fans it offends. Aggravating their opponents gains them nothing, it only introduces an unnecessary irritant into fandom. Sex has always been a private matter; it's stupid to be at each others' throats over a matter of personal feelings.

And in the battling — everyone loses. We all have differences of opinion on various things. That's as it should be. If we fracture into alienated groups, we lose some of the input that spurs us to keep thinking and reevaluating things. And there are nice people on both sides of this. Even though we do have differences, we have other things in common.

Can't we learn to live with each others' differences? That's the only was to maintain individuality — at the same time avoiding tearing fandom to pieces. How can we do it? Find the level of IDIC that works best for each individual situation.

Level one is the highest —a nd the best known. This is finding joy in our differences. Lovely thought, isn't it? Unfortunately, given the ethnocentricity of mankind, it's almost impossible to put into practice unless the differences are minimal.

Level two is accepting the differences as necessary — a part of life to be lived with amicably. That is more useful. It only takes a shrug and a "Different strokes for different folks" attitude. It recognized that other beings have rights equal to our own and that they need not be a threat to us

Unfortunately, even the second level doesn't lend itself to all circumstances. Occasionally, we may find the opposition so repugnant that the only "acceptance" we can muster is to swallow an impulse to do violence. Then, the final level — or, if you prefer, the opposite side of the IDIC coin — comes in handy. This is best expressed by a quote from Paint Your Wagon: "You don't have to love thy neighbor — just leave the bastard alone!"

IDIC doesn't mean changing our opinions to agree with someone else. And it doesn't mean that everyone will love everyone else and that there will be heaven in fandom. It does supply a partial guide to help us live peacefully with others who don't agree with us. Isn't that good enough?

Fan Comments

Fan comments touched upon Kirk/Spock fiction being "distasteful," "out of character," done without the actors' consent, that it should be labeled so that one could boycott zines that contain Kirk/Spock material, that it should be kept private, and also "think of the children."

I have read in "The Wall" and Karen Fleming's article.

First, I resent having labels like "left wing," "right wing," slapped onto people just because of their stand on this particular issue. "Pro" and "Con" seem to be sufficient in my opinion.

Also — I would like to point out to you that none of the "porn" zines have deceived any fans in their ads. I've been exposed to fanzines since 1976—just about the time that the controversy surfaced, from xeroxed stories in the underground. Every one of these ads have said "age statement required with order." "If you don't like the theme, don't buy the zine." These stories are not being shoved down any fan's throats. All they have to do is refuse to order or read the zine.

Now, about Karen Fleming's [essay] — her statement that this "filth" was being brought into the fans' homes by zines that had been "straight" before.

Which zines are these? I've been reading zines like Warped Space, Contact, Galactic Discourse etc. before and after the controversy began. The "straight" zines are still "straight." Any inferences to the subject in the stories of these zines have been so subtle as to cause one to miss it the first time, perhaps always. And none of the zines have printed stories involving the actual sex acts between the two.

What has happened is that new zines have started printing in this period—and the editors have announced their purposes right from the beginning. I've seen their ads, I know it!

The only case I could possibly think of in which a switch could occur is in the case of the fan-letter-forum zines like Halkan Council. And it's the fans who determine what the content of the forum will be.

As for withdrawing the subject to more "private" means of communication—I don't think that's necessary. All one has to do, if the discussion is too embarrassing, is to get up and leave the group. If you're feeling bold enough to verbally state why you're doing it, do so. Otherwise, you can write to those fans, state why you did it and ask ' that you be alerted in advance if they're going to continue to talk about it so you can avoid it. Also I've seen some "con" letters in some of these letter forum zines, too. So, maybe you can have your say there.

At T'Con though the K/S lovers' panels were labelled accordingly—so no one walked into the panel against his or her own will. These safeguards I think, are sufficient.

Both you and Karen Fleming had valid points in your discussion of pornography in fanfic; however, you both seemed to have missed one very essential area of this controversy. Isn't there anyone else in all of fandom who cares about the feelings and opinions of the actors who are being portrayed in these stories?

The actors have rights too. While the printed page may be faceless, the illos in Thrust, for example, are most definitely not. (Please, before anyone tries to jump on me for being prudish, I purchased Thrust with full knowledge of its intended subject matter. I didn't find it shocking, only rather adolescent.)

Personally, I don't see the K/S sexual relationship. I am, at least, trying to understand it. I have no objection to sex as a part of writing, be it hetero, homo, or pot luck. I've read this thing long before it became the vogue in Treklit, and I've seen "dirty" pictures too. Big deal.

All the yelling about rights always centers on us, the fans. It's "my freedom of expression" vs "my right to choose what comes into my house." We've all complained at times about the shoddy merchandising Paramount has done with Star Trek, and we tend to sympathize when the actors say they've been used by Paramount. If it's wrong for Paramount to use the actors' faces in money-making schemes, what makes it O.K. for us to use those same faces to advertise our sexual sophistication?

Sex for sex' sake doesn't make any better a story than mindless adventure; of the two, the adventure story is often more honest about itself. Too many of the sexual stories we've seen in Treklit are pretentious in their sexuality, giving the impression that the writers have just discovered sex. Far from being new, sex is one of the oldest things around. Sex for sex' sake is boring whether it's pro porn or Treklit. Yes, professional markets provide all varieties of explicit sex scenes in books, pictures, and movies. The people in the pictures are paid for their work. They have the choice of posing for the pictures, and each of us has the choice of whether or not to buy.

But pity poor Shatner and Nimoy! Over ten years ago they took jobs in a TV series as a couple of professional actors, and now they are expected to put up with the slightest whim of every selfish fan, and her freedom and her rights. Even in one of the rare stories that say "Oh, this is an alternate universe," the illustrations of that story are a part of this universe. The faces in those illustrations are recognizable to anyone familiar with William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy as actors. These men have feelings, families, and professional images to be considered. Who speaks for their rights?

Jeff, you said "I wouldn't want to be the poor schmuck telling them (Paramount) about it (K/S)." There doesn't need to be any "poor schmuck." What's to prevent someone at Paramount from buying some of this stuff over the counter like fans do Thrust, for instance, was on sale in its brown envelope at the con in New York Feb 18-20. Mail gets delivered here [California] too, so Paramount could even use the traditional method of acquiring zines. Unless the address said Paramount Studios, the zine ed wouldn't know who was placing the order.

In many ways the Trek actors are at our mercy, defenseless against the rumors and innuendos that swirl about them. Fandom is in a pretty sorry state when we battle ad nauseum over the sexual preferences of fictional characters, but turn our backs on the fellow human beings who gave those characters life.