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."
I use to have a crush on Wesley Crusher.
Everythings become so staid or stupid in StarTrek. They need to get name authors to pen plotlines if they ever want to do Trek again. Perhaps if they set everything in the Mirror Universe, it would be good. Afterall, how many TV series set out to be evil all the time?
The worst stuff just drags on and on, rehashing the same tired prejudices and routines with regularity until it's mercifully cancelled. You're not normally supposed to hate the protagonists and root for the end of humanity by raging alien hordes, but each Star Trek has gotten better at inspiring this kind of "hope".
I never vote for anyone. I always vote against.
-- W.C. Fields
Star Trek had some excellent, intelligent episodes as well as its flops. It inspired many people to seek careers in science and engineering, and helped make science seem cool to the general public, not just the comparatively small community of SF fandom. And it may have inspired people to pick up SF books and learn about those authors Card likes so well. If only they'd stopped after the second series.
Card's article seems rather lacking in substance. It is very short and doesn't have nearly the depth of Brin's attacks on Star Wars. I found it rather disappointing.
And it did it while dealing with the social and political issues of the day. It was that element which I think resonated so strongly with the people. Rodenberry used it as a means of social commentary, and it is that element which seems to be lacking in the most recent incarnations of Trek (for which I blame Rick Berman- along with a host of other things). That torch of social concious has been picked up by shows like South Park and The Simpsons, and those are the ones which seem to now have the hardcore fan base memorizing lines.
The original Star Treks may not have been "good" Science Fiction, but they were very good at telling stories relevant to their viewers. I have enjoyed reading many of the authors that he has listed (though I have not yet read any of his work) and many of their stories also provide parallels to society. The ideal solution would be the ability to read and watch good stories, be they "hard" SciFi, "soft" SciFi, or Fantasy.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Let's face it. These are far more realistic than Star Trek, and present a much clearer understanding of politics.
Maybe someone should get the rights to produce a prequel of "The Prisoner" (set in The Village, but not with No. 6), or something based on the Quatermass series (where the only way to succeed is to perish in a horrible, ghastly manner).
Science Fiction has plenty of utopias AND plenty of dystopias. I would agree with the idea that having only one of these is not truly representitive of Science Fiction as a whole, but I would NOT agree that a series is "bad" merely because it happens to be on one side of said fence.
IMHO, we need the extremes and even some examples of Universes between those extremes. Science Fiction ceases to be interesting the moment it stagnates on a single formula. Stagnation is the problem, not the brand.
It would be good if American TV were more adventurous, looking at possibilities on where to go next, rather than trying to live on past dreams. The past fades, no matter now good it was back then. It's good to KEEP the past (NOTE TO THE BBC: This applies to you!!!) but it is not good to assume that you can live in it all the time, forever and a day.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
It's almost like he learned nothing from Rodenberry's secular humanist vision of the future. No wonder he's glad to see Trek go. And no wonder he's got all kinds of other reasons to say he's glad. He probably doesn't even realize he's lying - that's one of the most effective characteristics of his cohort in America.
--
make install -not war
Part of what makes this country great is the (unfortunately declining) encouragement to tolerate people that are wrong. The alternative is worse.
I never vote for anyone. I always vote against.
-- W.C. Fields
Isn't that true of all critics, though? They just share an opinion, and if they're good, back it up with some information. If you're stupid, you just listen to your favorite critic like the sheep you are. If you're intelligent, you listen, you process, you get more information, further process, and come out with your own opinion.
Personally speaking, Card's not too far off from my own opinion. Star Trek could use a face lift it needs to continue, otherwise, I really won't (read: haven't for years) miss it. If that enrages you, hey, fine. I'll just be over here enjoying something outside the limited scope Trek had for Sci-Fi.
This forum Sig is licensed under the LGPL.
I hold Mr. Cards books in high regard, but not necessarily his role as film critic. He makes some points, but not all of them are well founded. I would concede that TOS is like short fiction and later TV Sci-Fi like novels. Short stories are not by definition worse or more lowbrow than books. I would argue the same for this comparison of these two art forms (episodic versus non-episodic).
Production values are much higher these days, but that can sometimes be a detriment to story telling. Try viewing TOS and viewing it as a Play rather than a Movie and you might find its exaggerated acting holds up better.
Most off track is Card's indicating TOS could have benefited from the great writing talents of its day. It did. Several episode were penned by guests writers, well known Sci-Fi novelists of the day -- not so coincidently some of the best episodes. (I'm sure some other post will list the episodes and authors).
I wouldn't deny that TOS had some clinkers, but come on, compare it to "Lost in Space" or the hardly known "Star Lost" I'd say it took TV Sci-Fi twenty to thirty years to catch up where Star Trek had boldly gone.
Card, why you gotta be hatin'?
P.S. I have never been to a ST convention or worn vulcan rubber ears.
Letter To Iran
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.
...etc.etc...
:-)
The vision of the future in Star Trek is called ideal socialism: no currency (because everything is so well managed that no one needs to pay for anything, since it's essentially free), no personal possessions apart from the few toys and artworks found in rooms onboard the enterprise, a very flattened organization in terms of social ranks, despite the actual ranks onboard (i.e. Wesley Crusher can address the captain more or less freely despite being just a little brat)
Not that there's anything wrong with socialism, aside from being a complete utopia
I'm in the sciences today because of it.
I'm sure there are a lot of people at Nokia who got inspired by the communicator thing. And I'm quite sure there are a lot of people who went into the toupet-making business and the gay fashion industry after watching late ST1 episodes with Shattner.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
I don't want to watch Sci-fi to put current events into perspective. That is what The Daily Show is for. I want series long plot development, not episode long one offs. When Enterprise started out I thought it kinda sucked. The season long story about the Xindi was good because it was continuous. This is why Babylon 5 was really good. Firefly looked like they were heading in this direction too, just not enough episodes to find out.
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
Last Trek: May 13
Last Star Wars: May 19
Homer is great because he captured Greek culture and managed to pass down to posterity a story that express the goals, hopes and dreams of that culture. The Illiad is the closest the Greeks have to a Bible, and it is brilliant.
Perhaps you read a bad translation. Try Lattimore. You might also want to try a good commentary (although, I haven't used this particular one). For other suggestions on what else you might read to really appreciate Homer, try The New Lifetime Reading Plan which suggests good translations and sources for literary criticism, historical background, and other information.The New Lifetime Reading Plan is - without question - the most important book I have ever owned. It can help you to appreciate Homer just at it helped me to read what I thought was unreadable - James Joyces' Ulysses. The key tip is that Ulysses should be read with the help of Stuart Gilbert.
I've always felt like Card is an outsider to the science fiction world. Nowhere was this more clear than reading the introduction to his collection of short stories Flux - he relates his entry into the community and his writing for a Mormon audience lucidly, and it reveals a lot about his attraction to the genre.
Some people seem to me like they're just living in a different world from everyone else. This isn't a good or a bad thing; they're very remarkable people, but they just don't share the same existence as the rest of us. A loose friend (whom I haven't seen in years) is a bit of a pyromaniac, a megalomaniac with moderately serious plans of world domination, and a significantly above-average intelligence. I don't actually expect him to conquer the world, but he sees it in a way that most other people don't. It's hard to express but easy to see.
Card is one of these people, too; reading his work, I can feel the alien nature of his message, his plots, and his characterization. It's very much the intangible sense you get from a zealot - the absolute dedication to a worldview which is almost, but not quite, completely unlike your own. In many cases, this adds a great deal to his fiction, but it's also uncomfortable to realize just how distant his strict Mormon perspective is.
I can't find the link (or the title) now, but Card's approach to the science fiction field reminds me in some subtle way of a sf story about a brilliant molecular geneticist who engineered a virus that would promote his religion's idea of chastity but didn't have quite enoug foresight to predict all its effects. (Does anyone know what I'm talking about? It's fairly well-known.)
All qualitative things aside, Card's open assertions (cf. that 1990 article, or the one you linked) that the government should legislate against homosexual people are downright scary. I'm glad that he's a writer and not a politician. (But there are plenty of politicians in Utah, and who knows how much influence there is in Card's stories - especially the ones he produces and performs only for Mormon audiences?)
(It's amusing that although Card hates what gay people do, according to the introduction to Flux, his first calling was as a playwright.)
We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
... there was a similar story in this morning's Seattle Times:
i nment/2002260546_startrek03.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/artsenterta
That's the problem with modern Trek. They refused to stop being progressive.
Firefly is also a great show, of course. I'm just saying that its greatness does not stem from it doing SciFi better than Star Trek, or at all[2].
----------
[1]Seriously. Firefly is not SciFi. Replace any piece of technology in the story with current technology or no technology at all, and the story still stands.
[2]Star Trek is also not at all SciFi, either. Compare
with See what I mean?Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Niven and Aldiss are the ones that tear it for me. The rest, I'm cool with. The calling of it a 'crap set' is mainly due to his mismatching and popularizing.... My main problem with OSC is his close-mindedness, and the problems that creates for him when rating. He'd love to be Asimov, but just doesn't.... quite.... make it..... I, Robot and the Foundation Trilogy and even Positronic Man are all quite mainstream now, but were more groundbreaking than all of OSC's work put together. There are a few authors I just love which just don't get the press these guys do, because they were just a bit older or more obscure... Authors should pick people not everyone has heard of to push forward, not the same cookie cutter preferences. Especially when being angry about there being a cookie cutter TV series that set the making of THEIR series / movie / whatever a bit behind.....
My little site.
Equal rights and opportunity for almost everyone? Really? You honestly believe that?
/. when W mentions Mars. Most people think the idea is ludicrous (and yeah, for stupid reasons).
In America, yes. Anyone that thinks otherwise has no understanding of what real inequality looks like, or where we have come from. The modern civil rights movement has all the smackings of a mass, shared martyrdom complex. On modern TV, no one gives a crap if Kirk kisses Uhura. It's just not a big deal.
No one gives a crap about a Mars base or colonizing space? Really? You honestly believe that?
Dude, it's a fact. People think it's a waste of money. Do I disagree with them? Yes, I do. But I'm the minority here. Just look at
That people like you and Card can't get past the styrofoam boulders and green alien chicks to see this indicates a lack of insight on your parts.
I didn't say there wasn't more to Star Trek. I'm saying the "more" is superfluous to today's generation. I'm not saying that's a good thing. It's simply a cultural thing; maybe modern America is wrong about the message's relevance, but this is the perception it has. The "more" isn't drawing mainstream America in; no one cares anymore.
I'm coming to the end of the Firefly DVD set. Seems little different to Star Trek to me. Yes, it's a bit grittier, but that's just the simple transformation you get from applying dirt to the set and throwing a few expletives into the dialog. It has exactly the same format as Star Trek: The Morality Play. Each episode some of the characters lectures some of the others on how their ethics need improving.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Kuttner. I LOVE Kuttner's Proud Robot collection. An 'engineer' who can't do anything unless he's completely blitzed, and then spends his sober hours figuring out what on earth he's done.
T ry) Bear did a wonderfully snide and macabre short story in "Heads" as well...
Ellison is getting more mainstream as he gets older, but "Repent Harlequin Said the Ticktockman" is probably one of the top ten Sci-Fi stories ever written.
Zelazney's short fiction is quite good. Some of it is campy, but Lord of Light is something many people haven't read but enjoy quite a bit on their first read.
Generally, I like to read a lot of anthologies - Sci-Fi is like normal fiction; you hear a lot about novels, but if you read short stories you get the authors who aren't so worried about cover count on books sold. You get a lot of authors who pack their stories tightly. You get a lot of authors whose fiction is amazing. My favorite collection of all time is, "The World Treasury of Science Fiction." Good luck finding a copy...
Another good way to go is early novellas from people - Blood Music was sold as a novel but better as a novella. (In-My-Never-Humble-Opinion-No-Matter-How-Hard-I-
Can't think of anything else off the top of my head, unfortunately. Sometimes, I like to go buy two or three anthologies and spend a weekend digesting 2k pages. It's fun.
My little site.
Hmm..
where does "Alien" fit in? 70s?
A while ago I played a PC game called "Iron Seed". It was some strange mix of Master Of Orion and Battlestar Galactica. Interesting thing is, that for the FTL drive to work, the mass of the ship has to be as small as possible. Thus, the crew of 250.000 people was digitalized, and their "engrams" now control the ships. The bodies of 250k people made a huge difference in mass. Unfortunately, the "engrams" need to be connected to a body, otherwise they get insane. Therefore a virtual body is periodically created, and the engrams put in for a while. This way, they stay sane.
Another one (I can't remember its name) was about a future with highly developed technology, and FTL travel - but no starships. Instead, people developed the ability to interact with space on a quantum level, shifting and bending the very fabric of spacetime as they wish.
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
The Slashdot article suggests Card makes some good points about the development of SciFi over the last 30+ years. I'm not entirely sure, because based on what Card holds up as paragons of good SciFi, it's pretty clear to me that his definition of SciFi doesn't match mine. (Another poster echoed this sentiment, stating that many "examples" were more Fantasy than SciFi.)
To be clear: Science Fiction is fiction in which, when you remove the science element, it no longer makes sense. Science is integral somehow. Mary Shelly's Frankenstein is SciFi; without the premise of reanimation with electricity, it just wouldn't be the same story. (I can just hear the Fantasy apologists chiming in with the "Fantasy is indistinguishable from SciFi" argument, by claiming that magic is indistinguishable from technology. I don't want to get mired in this debate, however. Good fantasy requires some kind of self-consistency on some level, just like good SciFi, but fantasy doesn't have to square with conventional reality in any way. Even "far out" SciFi concepts are usually extrapolations of current ideas or trends or technologies.)
By this definition, most space opera is not SciFi. Star Wars, minus the SciFi trappings of spaceships and futuristic weaponry and droids, would be a Western with some metaphysical overtones. Now, it's true that Star Trek was sold to NBC as a "wagon train to the stars." This was because Westerns were the popular milieu of the day; most of the successful TV shows at the time were Westerns. But there were still stories being told against that backdrop that had real science fiction in them.
Orson Scott Card's LA Times article does a lot of name dropping. He mentions Larry Niven and Robert Silverberg and Harlan Ellison. And yet, many of these writers wrote episodes for Star Trek. (Ellison's script won an award, even though Roddenberry rewrote it for the screen. The episode was "City on the Edge of Forever," and won a Hugo. Ellison's original script won a Writers Guild of America award. Niven wrote for the animated series.) Some young SciFi authors got their start because of Star Trek -- remember David Gerrold? He wrote "The Trouble with Tribbles," and is now a respected SF author in his own right.
What is Card's problem with 1930's SciFi? Not all of it was episodic pulp crap or low-budget moviehouse serials. Some of the best SciFi I've read has come from the 1930's and 1940's.
He's right that later incarnations of Star Trek were better acted, and wrong that the content stagnated. At least with ST:TNG, many thought provoking stories were told, and would actually qualify as "real" SciFi by my test above, providing you're willing to forgive Star Trek physics and some of its consistent inconsistencies with real physics. Even the mundane backdrop trappings of the Star Trek universe were the subject of fascinating books.
I will grant that Card's right about one thing: Star Trek popularized Science Fiction. Some would say Trek diluted the pool of good stuff by filling the airwaves with mediocre material. This is an opinion I do not share.
I would also argue that Card's wrong about the quality of modern SciFi on television and film; I disagree that it's every bit as good as what's in print, if only because there are many things that can only be approximated with special effects, things that the human imagination is much more adept at rendering. (But then, I have long believed that Card simply doesn't "get it," and wouldn't recognize truly good SciFi if it bit him on the ass.)
While the recent incarnations of Trek have been painful to watch (with season 4 of Enterprise being what the show should have been all along, but too little, too late), I don't think the "need" for Trek has diminished. Trek was more than just a vehicle for telling stories in a SciFi milieu. Trek was more
Star Trek has been soul food for people with open minds. It's always been a story of moral questions, even if it was under the guise of scientific mumbo-jumbo. Unlike Star Wars, where the adolescent view of evil dark side and the good light side fight, Star Trek always probed the grey areas where good/evil don't really make sense. It was always about how to be human when faced with radically new circumstances. Holographic doctors treated with dignity, just like the rest of the crew, fighting the Borg collective that thinks it's perfect, and it only gets anywhere by assimilating, never creating something from scratch. You name it .. if that's not food for thought, than I don't know what is. The new scifi series, like Andromeda or Stargate fall back to the adolescent posturing, and zero challenge to your moral views. I guess the establishment had enough of free thinkers, now it's time to make everybody dumb and controllable by peer pressure - welcome Apprentice, Survivor, Americal Idol, Fear Factor.
Actually, "Ender's Game" reminded me of Heinlein's juveniles. And his idea of military strategy is a joke.
Armchair generals talk strategy. Real generals talk logistics. Read "Moving Mountains", by Gen. Gus Pagonis, the head logistician for Desert Storm. If you can get most of the right stuff to the right place at the right time before the battle, and the other side can't, you usually win the big battles.
I'm not trying to troll. I would think that this is apparent in the fact that I have done my best to carry on the discussion that I started. (I had no idea it would be like this though)
Mormonism does not add a layer to Christianity-- adding but not subtracting. I would posit that it alters the very core of Christianity and this is why I object to the lack of a distinction between the two. Here is why I think so.
I think this goes beyond just adding. But I truly am not trolling. I am taken aback by the number of vehement responses I've generated. I am searching for the why in this. Why my saying mormonism and what has been called Christianity for the last couple thousand years are different is such a big deal.
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?
Lost is sci-fi in that it has an element of the supernatural, etc. I mean, it really depends on your definition of sci-fi too. Some people would look at X-Files and say "Not Sci-Fi", and under a classical definition it is not. But then in many ways it is. It is all on your point of view.
As far as being good. That is your own taste. I think it is VERY well written. The fact that each character was pretty much defined by a different person has made the show pretty interesting. The way their paths crossed before the island is interesting. And just overall what is going on is fascinating. I think it is one of the best shows on TV (regardless if you think it is Sci-Fi or not).
RonB
PS - We are up to episode 20, and we still don't know what the thing in the jungle is.
It is human nature to take shortcuts in thinking.
IMHO, this is immaterial to the discussion if I am going to buy his books or not. There have been many cases in the course of history where someone who did some phenominal work was a "bad guy". Beethoven was, a 'jerk'. Van Gogh was pretty much nuts (he cut off an EAR to give to a woman!!). Roman Polanski was convicted of having sex with a 13 year old girl.
Again, to me, you can't mix up the two. If someone produces good work, regardless of what they do, you have to respect at least the quality of their work. But I don't get denying yourself quality works, just because you don't agree with the point of view of the one who produced it.
RonB
It is human nature to take shortcuts in thinking.
For my own viewpoint, one of the best SciFi movies ever made was "Contact" starring Jodi Foster. It was also an incredible improvement over the book, which IMHO is a pile of political activism and dribble that I expected better from a professional scientist like Carl Sagan. The book was fair on science but poor on the English and character development.
Occasionally you see some good SF come around and an attempt to make it into a movie, but it is a difficult task. Most good SF authors have some section of their book where a narrator of some sort (sometimes written into the dialog of the characters, but often simply described by a narrator or an entry in "Encyclopedia Galactica") where the hard science is explained. To a reader this is good background material, but in a movie this is either very boring or slows down the flow of the movie to the point that it has to be cut out and removed.
The only person I've seen to successfully put in a "galactic guide" entry into film was Douglas Adams... in part because HHGG is humorous and these entries had a life of their own as another character on screen. Even then, it only worked because the guide was the focus of the entire production. (I'm speaking about the TV series BTW... as I have yet to see the movie. I hope they've captured at least some of the guide in the movie in a somewhat similar fashion).
The other problem with producing SF into film is that the people who make movies in Hollywood (or Baliwood) simply are not SF fans to start with. You get some people like George Lucas or Robert Rodriguez that are familar with SciFi movies done in the past, but aren't exactly fans of classic SF books like Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, or Bradbury. The movie "I, Robot" starring Will Smith is a good example of SciFi taking over done by SciFi fans and not the hard SF fans... particularly where the shortcuts were made to make the movie flow.
Shows like Lost, Smallville and Buffy represent a shift in fantasy programming towards long story arcs over self-contained episodes. For the type of fanatical viewers that typically follow a show like Trek, it makes sense that you will involve them even more with some long-term character and story development.
The potential pitfall is that the series becomes impenetrable to new viewers. But the potential upside is that you can build a highly devoted fanbase that is motivated to get their friends watching. That certainly seems to have happened with Lost.
A show with an ongoing arc is now positioned as a premium commodity, thanks in large part to the Sopranos and its HBO successors. (And don't forget Twin Peaks.) 24, Lost and Desperate Housewives represent the broadcast networks' latest efforts in this format, and each is an unqualified ratings success.
Unless they go with an anthology format, the next Trek show had best pick up on this trend and deliver season-long story arcs. Battlestar Galactica and the new Star Wars live action series have both beat it to the punch.
Critical to success in this format is an uninterrupted airing schedule. Don't start airing episodes until there are enough in the can to run a whole season without reruns. Better still, produce the whole season, fine-tune edit it to bring out details that reward the devoted viewer, then air it.
I think it's the other way around (speaking as someone who was there at the beginning). Star Trek was about taking moral grey areas, and forcing them to be black or white, where only one outcome was 'correct'. Star Trek has a very idealised view of the universe (which it came by honestly, since Roddenberry was pretty damned narrow-minded, I say having spoken to the man myself).
:)
Whereas Star Wars started with an apparently black-or-white, good-or-evil premise, and gradually blurred the lines by showing just how grey life really is.
Stargate (like most character-driven SF) is much more akin to Star Wars, in that outcomes are frequently uncertain or even negative, and the moral stance that you thought was so black-or-white is in fact grey with pulsating purple stripes, or even no valid colour at all. The challenge isn't to find a black or white moral view, but to find one that works at all in the context of situations that don't fit any preconceived pattern.
I've noticed over the decades that very consistently, ST appeals more to people who like the universe to be neatly pigeonholed, whereas SW and its kin appeal more to folk who prefer a flexible or unpredictable universe. (The ST exception is DS9, which falls into the grey camp.)
BTW, I write SF (character-driven space opera), and mine is both rainbow-grey and smells funny.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
ender's game a masterpiece? please.
ender's game was incredibly shallow and easily predictable, and the ending was telegraphed light years away. not a single one of the characters was even remotely interesting, including ender. developments in the story are about as subtle as a baseball bat, including osc's very shallow black and white portrayal of 'good' vs 'evil'.
ender's game isn't terrible (i've read far worse), but it's not good. i can see it mainly appealing to angsty teens. however there's so much better stuff available, ender's game should be toward the bottom of the list when looking for stuff.
i haven't read osc's other works so maybe he's gotten better since then, but ender's game didn't impress me at all .