Slashdot Mirror
No Need For Trek Anymore
dcsmith writes "In an article at the LA Times, Orson Scott Card says 'So they've gone and killed Star Trek. And it's about time.' SciFi blasphemy? Not really. Card makes several good observations about the growth of SciFi over the past 30+ years. The article also comments on several other genre gems, including Joss Whedon's Firefly." From the article: "...the hungry fans called their friends and they watched it faithfully. They memorized the episodes. I swear I've heard of people who quit their jobs and moved just so they could live in a city that had Star Trek running every day."
In summary, he states that Trek has always sucked, Roddenberry was a hack, and the Klingon language is stupid. I've got some tar over here, anyone else got some feathers?
:-/
Honestly, it's great that he doesn't like Star Trek. I'm happy for him. Really. But not everyone is looking to have their heads messed with when they watch Science Fiction. They don't necessary need to find the "deeper connection", "reveal the hidden truths", or "find another plain of existence". Sometimes people are happy addressing issues that are relevant today rather than issues from some dysotopian future. Star Trek did that. It used allegories (e.g. Klingons == Russians) and analogous situations (e.g. A Private Little War) to help put current issues into perspective. In addition, Roddenberry made Star Trek nothing more than a canvas for far more experienced writers to make their points.
In short, people loved Star Trek because it was both thought provoking and accessable to people who aren't interested in "hardcore sci-fi" visions of the future.
Side Note: Has anyone ever noticed that when Star Trek addresses a topic that some find to be a repulsive trait of hardcore Sci-Fi (e.g. telepaths), the blow is somehow softened to where the concept is easy to accept? Perhaps there's even more missing than Mr. Card realizes.
"I wonder sometimes if the motivation for writers ought to be contempt, not admiration." -Orson Scott Card
Well, that explains everything.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Star Trek gave many people a vision of a future much more peaceful and prosperous than the present day, and awakened who knows how many minds to the potential and wonder of the universe and science. I'm in the sciences today because of it.
The hope that tomorrow can be better than today is what keeps all people going. Star Trek really connected with people on a level I've rarely seen.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
Through-line series like Joss Whedon's "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and Alfred Gough's and Miles Millar's "Smallville" have raised our expectations of what episodic sci-fi and fantasy ought to be.
Fantasy, yes... science fiction, no.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Orson Scott Card is a gifted writer. Nobody denies this. Well, maybe a few.
But let's be serious here. As far as "Sci Fi" goes, he's off the deep end. He's the sci-fi world's equivalent of some british royalty gimboid sipping tea from a saucer with their little finger sticking out, mumbling on about how the "unwashed commoners" don't truly appreciate horse racing, or polo, and how ghastly sports like soccer are.
So he champions the hardcore sci-fi shows. That's fine. I've watched them. Some of them, I've actually enjoyed.
I doubt if Orson Scott Card has seriously watched a Trek series, ever.
I doubly doubt if he's paid attention to some of the absolutely amazing episodes Enterprise has had this year.
And I really don't understand why anyone gives a shit what this ivory-tower sci-fi snob has to say on the subject.
The problem though comes from a friend who doesn't have the money for cable or Satelite. Unless NBC starts carrying BattleStar Galactica, Enterprise is the ONLY current BROADCAST space-opera style sci-fi. When you consider that there will always be a younger generation of kids discovering science fiction for the first time, space opera still has a place. Maybe not Star Trek- which is particularily bad space opera- but space opera all the same.
With Firefly and Enterprise canceled- and fewer stations than ever before carrying the syndicated version of Stargate and Andromeda (the second of which I'm sure Mr. Card would say suffers from the Roddenberry curse) what can step up to take the hole?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
From the article:
I don't want to admit it, but Card is right. Star Trek was wonderful in large part because it was the first of its kind on TV. Now SF is not a gamble TV and is all over the place. That's a good thing since we can now concentrate on good story, characters and so on.
This is perhaps a natural step in the development of a genre. Even Homer was great mostly because he was the first (have you every actually read the Illiad (even in translation?) It's not that good!)
I still have a warm place in my heart for Star Trek that will never go away, but it must seem mysterious to those young whippersnappers who have never lived in a universe without Star Trek.
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
Screw the enraged Trekkies, he's knocked SciFi as a whole by listing such a crap set of unabashedly mainstream and modernly-popular authors - with the exception of Ellison - to represent 'Sci-Fi of the time' or whatever he calls it.
:-/
I was just re-reading his comments when I noticed these gems:
Charlie Kaufman created the two finest science fiction films of all time so far: "Being John Malkovich" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind."
Through-line series like Joss Whedon's "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and Alfred Gough's and Miles Millar's "Smallville" have raised our expectations of what episodic sci-fi and fantasy ought to be.
Malkovich? Smallville? *These* are what he thinks are the paramount of Sci-Fi? This guy needs his head checked!
Whedon's "Firefly" showed us that even 1930s sci-fi can be well acted and tell a compelling long-term story.
Well, at least he got one right.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Yes, Sci-Fi has grown up over the last 30 years. I love Firefly and Stargate. But that doesn't mean old ideas are inherently worse; the new Battlestar Galactica series is fantastic. The problem is that since Star Trek: The Next Generation made it OK for shows like Quantum Leap to take to the air, Star Trek itself has had closed-in ideas and stagnant leadership. Deep Space Nine was alright, Voyager was decent, but Enterprise just got worse as it went along. They didn't realize it until it was too late. Manny Coto might have done a lot for Star Trek. He may yet have the opportunity. What's needed is a new vision. When legends like J. Michael Straczynski are lining up to reboot Star Trek, something is up. Maybe something great. If only Paramount would shake off the stranglehold Rick Berman has on the franchise, they could really make progress.
(It's never too late to join the Renaissance)
Yes, God forbid anybody should be a Christian. Everybody knows that Christians are all evil and bad. Except we can't say they're evil and bad, because nothing is really good or evil, you know? That's Christian thinking, and we reject that. Because Christians are bad.
Also, anybody who disapproves of sodomy is really just scared of it. Don't dignify their positions by saying that they disagree or that they don't approve. Instead, accuse 'em of having a phobia. That way was can totally ignore their point of view without having to feel bad about doing it.
It's puzzling, to me, that Card (a writer whom I respect greatly, BTW) spends his entire column arguing that the "Star Trek" series(es) should be cancelled because ST:TOS was a bad show.
Why should that even matter? ST:TNG was (by the third season, anyway) a far better series, and DS9 was better still, despite stealing ideas left and right from "Babylon 5". It's the last twenty years of Trek that's being cancelled, not the first three.
Postscript: Now we finally have first-rate science fiction film and television that are every bit as good as anything going on in print. If only....
The problem is the same as actors blabbing about stuff you think is stupid: it makes it harder for you to concentrate on their major work. Once I knew that Tom Cruise was a $ceintologist, it made it damn hard to sit through a his movies without thinking "gee, he thinks the souls of dead aliens makes us do bad things"... the same for Card. It's now hard to read a book, knowing he's so kookie, and not be distracted by it.
And, there's the whole I don't want to support his bullshit views (by helping to make him rich).
I'll admit, this might not be a problem for everyone, but it is for me.
Yes, God forbid anybody should be a Racist. Everybody knows that Racists are all evil and bad. Except we can't say they're evil and bad, because nothing is really good or evil, you know? That's Racist thinking, and we reject that. Because Racists are bad.
Also, anybody who disapproves of Blacks is really just scared of them. Don't dignify their positions by saying that they disagree or that they don't approve. Instead, accuse 'em of having a phobia. That way was can totally ignore their point of view without having to feel bad about doing it.
The only people who consider mormons Christians are mormons. As my favorite History of Christianity prof used to say - (my paraphrase) - 'Take a look at all the Christians through the history of Christianity. Find what they have in common, discard what they don't. Then you will have what defines Christianity.' Using such an approach one finds that mormonism does not fit the definition.
Interestingly enough it bothers many mormons when someone challenges their attempt to redefine the term Christian-- it also bothers them if you call the polygamist mormons, mormons. Go figure.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
In short, people loved Star Trek because it WAS both thought provoking and accessable to people who aren't interested in "hardcore sci-fi" visions of the future.
Emphasis on the WAS.
The problem here is too many people view Trek as one big, indivisible thing. It's not. You can't have a rational conversation about "Trek is Good" or "Trek is Bad". Some Trek was good. The current state of Trek is bad.
The worst thing that can happen to a piece of Sci Fi is for it to become commercially successful. The more commercially successful something is, the greater the temptation to extend the franchise just for the sake of profit. The more money a franchise is worth, the lower you can set your creative standards and still justify releasing a product.
Why do half of the Star Trek movies suck? Because PAramount wanted to make a Star Trek movie, regardless of whether the script was any good. Sometimes they got good scripts, sometimes they didn't. But the people who get to decide whether a Star Trek movie should get made don't make that decision on whether the script is going to produce a good movie. They make that decision based on whether money in will be greater than money out.
The Original Series was a ground-breaking series that only happened because Roddenbery believed in it and made it happen. Next Generation only happened because Roddenbery believed in it and made it happen. Star Trek XXXVJWII, Voyager, and Enterprise was made because if Paramount didn't churn out new Trek they'd be wasting this huge, profitable sci fi franchise they'd built.
That can't go on forever though - eventually you produce so much crap just for the sake of making a buck that your franchise becomes worthless.
Unprofitable or New Sci Fi will only happen if it's good. Profitable Sci Fi will happen REGARDLESS of whether it's good.
If Star Trek hadn't been successful, it would have died after DS9 or earlier, and we'd all still think Trek is Good. But it didn't. But new trek being bad doesn't make old trek any less good.
paintball
That's the exact opposite of what the article was claiming. He says that Star Trek sucked from the beginning, but it was the only sci-fi most people knew for generations (because they didn't read). Now that decent sci-fi is starting to come into its own (ex: Firefly), Star Trek can actually die.
I'm no trekkie, but that's one thing that I noticed Card didn't mention a word about: original Trek was very progressive for television of the time. In fact, during the original pilot, the first mate of the ship was a female spock-like character called "number one" (they never gave her a name), who had better knowlege of the ship than the captain, in a uniform similar to that of the men. NBC ordered her cut because audiences wouldn't be able to identify with a powerful woman. Even Uhura, who made it into the show, was a pretty impressive step - a high ranking, non-submissive, black female officer was something you didn't see much of at the time. As for racism, a quick look at the bridge of original trek speaks wonders for its progressive view at the time.
It's a Cyrillic alphabet. It's like all those keys you never push on a calculator.
Exactly what I was thinking. "Being John Malkovich", that's great sci-fi??? Card should go back and hope he can write another good book like Enders Game. Most of the rest of his work has been very very non-memorable. I think he's shown he dosn't have any better of an idea what good sci-fi is than the Trek freaks.
As geeks, we LOVED Card because he wrote about Ender Wiggin; a very bright young boy who could not get along with his peers because of his intellectual capacity. C'mon, this is Slashdot. If you read Slashdot, and you've read Ender's Game, you identified with Ender to some extent.
We all like to believe that we are special. Geeks like to believe they are smarter than the average person. Is it so crazy to believe that maybe it wasn't Card's extraordinary writing and plot that made Ender's Game so popular -- perhaps it was because Ender's Game was the ultimate braniac dream? To be smart enough to save the world, and get the accolades that go along with it.
His blatant religious proselytizing in his other books, most notably the Alvin Maker series, choked me with its sickly-sweet taint. I enjoyed the series at first because it was well written and fun, but it soon turned into a carousel of reptition. Alvin did and said the same things over and over, Card using him as a hand-puppet to express his Love Thy Neighbor and Turn the Other Cheek platitudes until I was racing through to the end of the novel not out of enjoyment and eagerness to see what happened, but just to be able to put the book down and go wash the veneer of his homophobic Christianity from my hands.
Card is not a saint. He wrote something that we all very much wanted to read; that we were alienated from our peers as children for a reason. There's a destiny waiting for us so we can use these big brains. We were humiliated on the playgrounds in grade school, but we'll show them! Someday!
Card gave us this pipe dream. But it's time to let go of the security blanket, Linus. You're smart, but you don't need a writer to give you a raison d'etre in a science fiction fairy tale.
From TFA you linked to: The fanatical Left will insist that anyone who upholds the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation, is a "homophobe" and therefore mentally ill.
What's funny is, you've just proven him absolutely correct. About the above quote, not the rest of his article.
Arr! The laws of physics be a harsh mistress!
I don't know that Heinlein and Asimov, not to mention LeGuin, Clarke, Moorcock and Silverberg, really need to be slagged as a "crap set" of authors. Seriously, if you are looking at the late 60's and early 70's, which is the time frame he was talking about, which authors would you consider to be "not crap"? Sure, he left out Philip K. Dick and Frank Herbert and Fritz Leiber, and I'm not sure I would rank Niven or Aldiss equal to Asimov or Clarke or Heinlein, but honestly, who do you think should be on that list? I'm very interested.
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
I was wondering the same thing as I read his piece on trek, when one the most oft cited things you see on things like "trekkies" is the socially progressive and accepting nature of the Trek Universe presenting for many fans a optimistic view of the future.
But then after reading his marriage essay, you quickly realize, progressive and social change are things that OSC is not comfortable with, so then it makes more sense that he was not a fan.
I've written that media SF has often been a good few decades behind written SF, especially movies. They quote Richard Morgan in the NYTimes article ("That's the past of science fiction you're talking about, . .
The literature is filled with writing by Greg Benford, the 'how to empathize with ordinary deathless people' writer Greg Egan, Ken Macleod, Richard Morgan, Ian Banks, Cory Doctorow , or Charlie Stross. Movies haven't made it past the 70's (Bladerunner, the Matrix) other than perhaps 'Eternal Sunshine' (similar to a few 80's stories), and T.V. shows have only tentatively reached the 80's or early 90's (some Outer Limits and Twighlight Zone episodes). With Star Wars and Star Trek out of the way perhaps there'll be more room for the average media SF to catch up to at least the 80's.
I posted another reply already that lists what is commonly held to be the primary doctrines of Christianity. The trinity is the first. I don't think the concept of the trinity could be considered nitpicking. It is the thing that most differentiates Christianity from the other Abrahamic religions. In fact were it not for that-- Christianity would be more an offshoot of Judaism than anything else.
The ramifications of the trinity are huge. They show up in the places where the mormonism and Christianity don't meet. God being spirit. The incarnation. Humankinds destiny in regards to after this life. The list is long.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Well, having read TFA, I can say I have no interest in reading anything by Mr. Card, ever. It's rare that I see such pure arrogance. The last time I saw it was in my high school short story lit book, which talked about "mature readers" wanting deep, moving stories and only "immature readers" cared about actually enjoying the story.
Mr. Card, perhaps you were not aware that Trek, when it's good (meaning not when Berman is running things), offers some of the best and most insightful social commentary and discussion you'll see on film. There is a group where I live that gets together monthly at a Unitarian Church to watch an episode or two and then discuss the social, ethical, and moral implications thereof. It's been meeting for about 6 years, I think. Are there any groups that do that with Firefly? Or Smallville? I didn't think so.
Just because more people like Star Trek than like your books is no reason to declare them all immature grade schoolers. That's very grade school of you.
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?
Well, there are a lot of definitions of science fiction floating around. For some, all it takes is that humans descended from Earth live on a planet other than earth, even if all the technology that the characters posess is no better than what we had in the 18th century. For others, it has to involve scads and scads of technology that we don't have or can't exist, preferably with lots of robots and space travel.
However, I think for a lot of science fiction writers and "high brow" literary types who get into science fiction, the boundaries of the genre are much softer. In this case, any literature which uses some piece of unusual or advanced technology as a plot element through which some human theme can be explored counts as science fiction. Apparently for Card, the technology itself doesn't even have to be given much stage time, if he considers Being John Malkovich (which I think is deep in a gray area) to be sci-fi.
Personally, I prefer this final definition. While I frequently enjoy "rocket" science fiction and used to watch TNG and DS9 almost religiously, I tend to think of the period when all sci-fi was oozing with gadgets to be pretty typical for any genre in its infancy/childhood. Sort of like in early animation where EVERYTHING was moving CONSTANTLY, even many inanimate objects.
If that's true, why is it that the Right is firmly in control of the United States, the only remaining Western superpower? I call Troll. (Or Flamebait, take your pick.)
Yeah, we can see how badly beaten the political Right is. Please, spare me.
People slag Star Trek for having every alien be humanoid, but that is deliberate. Roddenberry wanted people to see the humanity in every character.
Personally, I don't watch much Sci Fi because most of it shows a future which sucks. Star Trek shows a future that I want to believe in.
The main point of his entire rant seemed to be that episodic programming with larger character development arcs provides more compelling fiction than programs that start and end at the same place. When Xander is scared for his life and reaches for Willow's hand, it's a lot more compelling if they've gotten near to a relationship, he burned her badly by going with someone else, then they spent the last 3 episodes working their way to the point where they are speaking again. When Bones takes a jab at Spock, it's meaningless because their relationship never changes.
Being John Malkovich was a popular, excellent movie, and while I'd put it more in the category of fantasy than Sci Fi, if you read Card's books the distinction is academic. Plus the characters to go through an immense arc throughout the film, falling in love, falling out of love, changing... evolving as characters in exactly the way that Homer Simpson doesn't. Again, the focus, as in all good Sci Fi, is on the character evolutions.
Smallville isn't the best series ever by a long shot. But like Buffy it is a popular show that opened people's eyes to what can happen when characters evolve across episodes.
Trek did and does follow an antiquated model, and he's right in thinking that it would only continue to do so. Probably the best bit of Trek, the last few seasons of DS9, took place when Paramount's main people were focused on Voyager and allowed a smaller group of people to create a broader story focused more on large story arcs and developments. The best season of Enterprise has been this last one, when multi episode story arcs were plentiful.
Orson's books reflect this thinking, of course. His most popular work, the Ender's series, follows one character along his evolution from a weak abused nobody kid to a reclusive man hiding from unwanted fame from his past, to an old man accepting of his place in the world. And the latest Ender's book takes place in the same time frame as the original, exploring another character who isn't the hero, but who evolves from a lone troubled genius striking out at anyone or anything that might subjugate him, to being a mature, willing second, giving himself over to a man he believes deserves it.
Oddly enough, I've always felt Asimov was at his best in short stories, but even then his characters were undergoing tremendous evolution within the span of several pages.
The ______ Agenda