His proposed alternative, the introduction of a new gay character, does not work.
Imagine we meet a new guy named Lieutenant Whatever who is clumsily, pointedly introduced as gay. This character will be entering an ensemble of characters who have been honed over decades. He will appear in a story driven, as all New Trek is, by nonstop action, which means that the story will likely pause to say, okay, here’s this guy, and that this will then fade into the background, as more important, explodey stuff takes the forefront. What are the odds that he will not last, as a character? That he will be as memorable as Franklin, the black kid belatedly introduced to PEANUTS, whose one personality trait against that gallery of marvelous eccentrics was that he was The Black Kid? Seriously, the motive behind creating Franklin was an excellent one; the execution, delivery of a character who had no other organic reason to be there, was miserable.
Now imagine you could reboot PEANUTS — itself a terrible idea, but imagine you could — and make Linus black.
Some will cry, “Blasphemy!”
But can any of you think of any reasons why that should not be so? Linus is great. He’s a neurotic intellectual, a believer in cult religions, a fool in some ways and a sage in others: really, the best friend that Charlie Brown, a kid who considers himself friendless, could possibly have. And he’s a human being with his own set of concerns and problems. He doesn’t just exist to serve the white protagonist. He would be a guy with his own personal set of issues. A black Linus would be beautiful. So would a black Schroeder. (Indeed, the only cast PEANUTS cast member I would balk at providing this racial shift is Pig Pen, for obvious reasons.)
Returning to Hikaru Sulu: this heroic and dedicated man, this proud father, this good friend, this trained helmsman, this eccentric hobbyist, this great fencer: declaring as gay would not be inconsistent with any of that.
Plus the official declaration has the important and necessary subtext for those who doubt: as much as you think you’re repelled by gay people, you likely know and treasure some, whether you know it or not.
The corollary of “We’re Here, We’re Queer,” is “The Queer are Already Here, Just Look.”
You know some. You’ve loved this guy for fifty years. Finding out that he goes home to a man and not a woman doesn’t erase everything he’s already meant to you.
It’s more powerful, more real, more important, if it’s someone we already know.
It means more if it’s someone we already know.
I’m not in George Takei’s head, but he’s also likely a little self-conscious about the way that the re-imagination of Hikaru Sulu as gay seems to have as much to say about his own cultural footprint as it does about the character. It’s his life, bleeding into a fictional life. And yes, if George Takei were not such a prominent gay man, and Hikaru Sulu up until now such a cypher away from the helm, this would likely never have happened. But George Takei is a prominent gay man, one who has made a disproportionate difference in the national perception of gay men. And George Takei is now, separate from the character he’s portrayed off and on, for so long, beloved. (I cheerfully confess, I’m second to none.) So this reflects Takei’s influence, and the regard the current creators have for him. It’s life feeding back into art, which is the way art is supposed to work — and frankly, I’m willing to take it, and ignore whatever brief indications to the contrary might appear in this tie-in novel, or that one. It’s a good thing.
In the days to come we will hear from a number of fans barking — verb very much deliberate — that this is a horrible manifestation of political correctness on the part of social justice warriors, raping their childhoods. I don’t want to hear from any of them. The only person with anything negative to say about this, whose opinion I care about, is George Takei. And while I believe he’s wrong, I believe that’s because he’s so close to it, so invested in the work he’s done that he’s for the moment missing what the landmark has to say about the terrain. It may be a while before this good and brave man sees what the re-invention portends and what it has to say, for all of us. It may indeed be a while before he’s no longer sputtering, “But that’s never been the way I –”
And that’s okay.
Until then, I intend to be proud for him.
Comment By: Ryan James States
July 8th, 2016 at 9:17 am
Thanks, Adam-Troy.
Comment By: David Vineyard
July 8th, 2016 at 9:17 am
I do understand his position as an actor. His Sulu was a repressed swashbuckler, d’Artagnan in space. But there is no reason Sulu can’t be that and gay, and opening up the ST universe to major gay characters should be celebrated.
Comment By: Ken Houghton
July 8th, 2016 at 10:17 am
Sulu the swashbuckler looked, especially at the time, as if he were modeled on Jonathan Harris’s appearance in Zorro.
Good to see Simon Pegg was let in on the joke.
Comment By: Rick Shannon
July 8th, 2016 at 10:17 am
Then create new Gay characters.
Comment By: Adam-Troy Castro
July 8th, 2016 at 10:17 am
Did you read the link? I address that.
Comment By: Victor Jason Raymond
July 8th, 2016 at 10:18 am
Actually, I am going to disagree with you on this. Unfortunately, I have to go into work and this really deserves more time than I can get it right now. I will definitely come back and provide at least another perspective on this. Looking forward to the discussion (Roddenberry knows we need a break from everything else right now…).
Comment By: Josh Olson
July 8th, 2016 at 10:18 am
I love Takei, but he’s being a classic actor here. Understand – in HIS mind, Star Trek is a show about Hikaru Sulu and his comrades on the Enterprise. To the rest of the entire world, he’s a supporting character who’s never had any kind of personal life on the show or any of the movies. If Sulu had a scene in the new movie in which it was shown he was heterosexual, it would be exactly and precisely as fresh a revelation as a scene in which it’s shown he’s gay.
Comment By: Ken Ficara
July 8th, 2016 at 12:18 pm
I think you might want to rewatch TOS.
Comment By: Josh Olson
July 8th, 2016 at 1:18 pm
Ken Ficara I’ve seen it. Sulu had no personal life.
Comment By: Adam-Troy Castro
July 8th, 2016 at 10:18 am
And as I pointed out, it would not be nearly as effective to create a new character specifically to be gay.
Comment By: Josh Olson
July 8th, 2016 at 10:18 am
Of course it’s not. I almost suspect Takei’s playing a sly trick, attempting to out homophobes among Star Trek fans. All the sober faced comments from people (All men, I suspect) explaining patiently why he’s correct are kind of hilarious.
Comment By: Adam-Troy Castro
July 8th, 2016 at 10:18 am
“The movie’s about the doctor who tells George Clooney he has cancer, in the first scene.” — An actor.
Comment By: Ellen EL
July 8th, 2016 at 10:18 am
I’d like to know why everyone is presuming that his character is also monogamous and not polyamourous?
Comment By: Michael Pullmann
July 8th, 2016 at 10:18 am
Takei’s version or Cho’s? Because the stories about the Cho Sulu being gay have said he has a partner and a kid.
Comment By: Ellen EL
July 8th, 2016 at 10:18 am
Yes, but nothing about monogamy. There is nothing about polyamory that says primary partners and kids end it. Orientation is not the same as romanticism.
Comment By: Katherine Walsh
July 8th, 2016 at 10:18 am
If I remember that TOS movie correctly, we meet Ens Demora Sulu. She is Sulu’s daughter. Kirk, lamenting his own life, says something to the tune of, “When did Sulu have time for a family?” No designation of a ‘wife’ was mentioned, as I recall. So…. husband…. daughter. There. Easy. Just as Mr. Takei himself coming out and saying ‘here’s Brad’, it really makes no difference. Sulu remains Sulu. And, you are so right, an introduction of a new *gay* character would not be as effective.
Comment By: Dru Ilhares
July 8th, 2016 at 10:18 am
I’ve met a lot of gay people with children. Some because it was what was expected of them (family obligations, etc), others because they just really grok that they were gay until years later.
Comment By: Starshadow
July 8th, 2016 at 11:17 am
I’m a lesbian. I’m a mother and a grandmother. I have a friend who’s a professional writer who has a son he raised. I know many gay, lesbian, queer-gender and transgender friends with children. I think George, bless his heart, is wrong on this one.
Comment By: Adam-Troy Castro
July 8th, 2016 at 12:18 pm
Or Dru, because they want kids!
Comment By: Dru Ilhares
July 8th, 2016 at 12:18 pm
Poppycock, Adam. No sane person wants to do that to themselves. 😉
Comment By: David Vineyard
July 8th, 2016 at 10:18 am
Another thing, the classic Trek Sulu is Takei and isn’t gay because Takei didn’t play him that way.
The new Sulu is no more him than the new Kirk or Spock or McCoy is exactly the same as Shatner, Nimoy, or Kelly.
Whatever else the first film established this is an alternate Trek universe. Not really sure why this upsets anyone.
Comment By: Josh Olson
July 8th, 2016 at 10:18 am
How do you play gay?
Comment By: Adam-Troy Castro
July 8th, 2016 at 10:18 am
The news that Kirk and Spock were definitively never played as gay would stun a whole lot of fan-fiction writers.
(Of course, I’m kidding, but you know what? If the new Uhura had a little lesbian fling on-screen, many fewer would object.)
Comment By: Ken Houghton
July 8th, 2016 at 10:18 am
Two real-life-gay people being the Hot Love Interest of the first two films? No problem.
Comment By: Dru Ilhares
July 8th, 2016 at 11:17 am
Zoe swings both ways, I don’t see how that’s really relevant, though. An actor plays a role.
Comment By: Patrick Flanagan
July 8th, 2016 at 5:17 pm
I don’t know how Kirk’s father being killed early would have the effect of making Sulu gay now, assuming we grant Takei’s statement that his portrayal was of a straight character with any validity. (I do grant that, but I also understand that the actor isn’t the sole defining authority over what is and is not a part of the character.)
Comment By: Josh Olson
July 8th, 2016 at 5:17 pm
Patrick Flanagan More importantly, who gives a shit?
The character has never had a personal life. Now he does. Move on.
Comment By: Patrick Flanagan
July 8th, 2016 at 5:17 pm
Well, I’ll comment as I see fit, but thank you for your concern.
I don’t really see why this is something anyone but George Takei should be upset about. Yeah, I always assumed he was straight, and there were some scenes where his Sulu was leering at an attractive guest star or at Uhura, but ultimately I don’t really see this as a huge problem in terms of story or characterization. I’m hard pressed to think of any old TREK story which would require serious revision due to this new understanding of the character.
Comment By: Josh Olson
July 8th, 2016 at 5:17 pm
Patrick Flanagan There isn’t one that would require even microscopic revision. It’s like revealing the fact that Chekhov’s mother was blonde.
Comment By: Patrick Flanagan
July 8th, 2016 at 5:17 pm
Josh Olson Exactly. Even the argument about his daughter doesn’t hold because there was no mention of a wife.
Comment By: James Patrick Parks
July 8th, 2016 at 10:18 am
And let’s be honest, John Cho appeals to everyone.
Comment By: Dru Ilhares
July 8th, 2016 at 11:17 am
Eh.. Not really. I mean, he’s acceptable as an actor, but nothing to write home about, so to speak. And most of the time he comes off as kind of being a dick, even when he’s the nice guy. That’s the vibe I get.
Comment By: Jose Iriarte
July 8th, 2016 at 10:08 am
“What this says to me is that we are all afflicted by head canon.”
I don’t perceive his reasoning to be rooted in headcannon. His statement suggests to me that only finding out Sulu is gay now created the implication that all along Sulu has been _closeted_. That _this_ is why the series tells us nothing about his love life, not because he was a secondary character, but because he was _hiding_ his proclivities. In the twenty-fourth century or whatever it is, gay men shouldn’t need to be closeted.
I find what I perceive to be his argument compelling. I also find your argument against introducing a new character compelling, which leaves me frowning at reboots. Somebody make an awesome new ensemble sci-fi show with a lead who is gay (and not subtextually) and then we’ll be getting somewhere.
Comment By: Rick Shannon
July 8th, 2016 at 10:18 am
It wasn’t Roddenberry’s concept for the character. Takei is right.
Comment By: Adam-Troy Castro
July 8th, 2016 at 10:18 am
In a world where we have had four separate mutually exclusive Sherlock Holmes avatars in the last five years, I think some characters are open to interpretation.
Comment By: Jason Bennion
July 8th, 2016 at 11:17 am
It also wasn’t Roddenberry’s concept to play Jim Kirk as a hot headed punk kid with discipline problems. The TOS Kirk was described as a straight arrow and a bookworm in his academy days, such a stiff that upperclassmen hazed him. The reboot films, by their very nature, are not Roddenberry’s Star Trek.
Comment By: Dru Ilhares
July 8th, 2016 at 11:17 am
Due in large part, Jason, to the lack of an actual father and the other issues that arose as a result of the events in his timeline being so heavily altered. Who knows how many other lives were influenced by the deaths the giant Romulan ship caused?
Comment By: Jason Bennion
July 8th, 2016 at 11:17 am
Oh, I understand the reasons why NuKirk is the way he is. My point is that the reboots have changed *many* of the details of Roddenberry’s original concept, so that particular argument against making a character gay doesn’t hold water.
Comment By: Dru Ilhares
July 8th, 2016 at 12:18 pm
I can’t argue with that.
Comment By: Glenn Hauman
July 8th, 2016 at 1:18 pm
Kirk’s still a bookworm in NuTrek, BTW. You don’t blow through a 4-year academy in 3 at the top of your class if you aren’t.
Comment By: Buzz Dixon
July 8th, 2016 at 11:17 am
If the Trek franchise had stones, they’d let Kirk and Spock be gay. You can’t say fans don’t want that.
Comment By: Arlene Wicks Allen
July 8th, 2016 at 11:17 am
Well spoken.
Comment By: Sally O'Mahony
July 8th, 2016 at 11:17 am
I love reading and writing fan fiction and have written stories where Sulu is straight, and several where he is gay. One reason is that I hope by the time the stories are set, who people make love to WON’T BLOODY MATTER!
Comment By: Ken Ficara
July 8th, 2016 at 12:18 pm
But given there has never been an openly gay character on the show, this clearly isn’t the case in the ST universe.
Comment By: Sally O'Mahony
July 8th, 2016 at 1:18 pm
Probably because they want it to be syndicated in the Bible Belt. Cynical? Me?
Comment By: Christopher L. Bennett
July 8th, 2016 at 11:30 am
Technically, Sulu has shown interest in women in TOS canon. He was visibly affected by “Mudd’s Women” and by Ilia’s Deltan sensuality in TMP (at least in the expanded TV cut). His “Mirror, Mirror” counterpart sexually harassed Uhura. In the animated series, Sulu was affected by the women of “The Lorelei Signal” and used magic to conjure up a woman to kiss in “The Magicks of Megas-tu.”
Still, he’s the one character who never had an onscreen relationship, so those could be rationalized as evidence of sexual fluidity or bisexuality on Sulu’s part. Or, since Sulu was probably born after the timelines split, it could be that the two Sulus have different orientations due to differing epigenetic/developmental factors, like how the Leda clones on ORPHAN BLACK have differing orientations despite identical genes. The one thing that is NOT required is that Sulu Prime was “closeted.”
Comment By: Tracey Turko Callison
July 8th, 2016 at 12:18 pm
Or, you know, you could go totally nuts and have him be *gasp* bisexual. Works with original and new canon. Guess we aren’t ready for a frontier that bold yet.
Comment By: George Peterson
July 8th, 2016 at 11:58 am
I think that by the 23rd Century our contemporary notions of Gay/Straight/etc will seem as quaint and bizarre as notions of being a Bastard or a Spinster from the Middle Ages are to us now.
Comment By: Ken Ficara
July 8th, 2016 at 12:18 pm
Why Sulu? Because Takei is gay? Why not Kirk? Maybe all that womanizing and misogyny was compensation? Why not Scotty? Maybe he didn’t love his engines most of all but instead felt unable to come out in the macho Enterprise environment? Why Sulu?
Comment By: Ross Youngblood
July 8th, 2016 at 1:18 pm
You have a wonderful way with words.
Comment By: Matthew M. Foster
July 8th, 2016 at 4:17 pm
I think you have missed Takei’s point. You focus on his headspace as an actor, but I think he had a clearer point. The change in Sulu is being done to make a statement and show the Star Trek world for what it should be. I’m good with that, as is Takei. But since it is a statement, creating an image, it does matter what that image is, and how it can be taken. And his point, which you may not accept, but I think should be considered, is to suddenly come out with this for Sulu is equivalent to Sulu coming out of the closet. (Yes, yes, multiverse, etc. etc, but the point is, after this long of not knowng that, and suddenly knowing it, it has the feel of him coming out fo the closet). And Sulu should never have been in the closet. The future world, the Star Trek world, should not have required that. So, any positive image projected comes with an equally troubling one of closeted, hidden away sexuality. Is that more troubling than not being mentioned at all? That’s a matter up for discussion, but it is still something worth considering.
Comment By: David K. M. Klaus
July 8th, 2016 at 4:17 pm
Since they could make where Kirk was born different, since they could make the ENTERPRISE design so radically variant, since they could cause Starfleet deflector shields to become useless, since they could cause a love affair between Spock and Uhura, I see no reason why Sulu being gay in this alternative universe isn’t also the fault of Nero and the NARADA.
Comment By: David Bridges
July 8th, 2016 at 6:19 pm
Perhaps his idea to introduce a non canon gay character is wrong but it is also pointless for the story to just make the character gay for no other reason than to be so. Is important to the plot? Does it advance the story somehow? This is ultimately the only way it would make sense.
Comment By: Adam-Troy Castro
July 8th, 2016 at 11:17 pm
Snarky reply coming.
Comment By: Adam-Troy Castro
July 9th, 2016 at 8:18 am
My reply will be a status update.
Comment By: David Bridges
July 9th, 2016 at 8:18 am
Obviously the show can do whatever it likes. Ultimately I’m not stating that I think it would be a bad thing for them to introduce a gay character, only that in this case it really feels more like a “oh look we have a gay character moment”.
Comment By: Pixel Scroll 7/8/16 Scrolled Pixels Are All Alike; Every Unscrolled Pixel Is Unscrolled In Its Own Way | File 770
July 8th, 2016 at 7:31 pm
[…] (4) THE SULU REVEAL. Adam-Troy Castro makes a case for “Why George Takei, Of All People, Is Now Wrong about Hikaru Sulu”. […]
Comment By: On Sulu, diversity, and change (minor STAR TREK BEYOND spoilers) | Christopher L. Bennett: Written Worlds
July 9th, 2016 at 2:15 pm
[…] Trek have lauded the change, including Zachary Quinto, David Gerrold, and Andy Mangels. I think Adam-Troy Castro’s take on Takei’s reaction is cogent — that it’s more about an actor’s attachment […]
Comment By: Dave M. Strom
July 9th, 2016 at 5:34 pm
Greeting, former Amazing Heroes alumnus! I, Dave M. Strom of former Strom’s Index fame, wrote a quick fanfic on how Sulu can be gay in Roddenberry’s universe, and gay in J.J. Abrams’. All it took was a little manly space-time disturbance. Ain’t SF doubletalk great?
https://davemstrom.wordpress.com/2016/07/09/sulus-gay-trek/
Comment By: Adam-Troy Castro
July 18th, 2016 at 9:24 am
Hey!