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."
Live long and prosper ...
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
Enraged Trekkie __________ attacked Orson Scott Card today and beat him senseless with a 1960s-vintage officially licensed Star Trek (tm) phaser. Other trekkies soon arrived in mass and quickly stoned the defenseless Card to death with their DVD box sets of TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise.
Card had made the mistake of making comments in a Los Angles Times op-ed piece about the Star Trek franchise that did not deify all people ever involved in the series, including bit-part actors who barely had speaking parts. He even went so far as to suggest that perhaps Star Trek was not the best TV series of all time.
"He made some good points in the article," said a fellow sci-fi writer who feared for his life and did not want to be identified. "Too bad he had to make them about Star Trek. I'll miss him."
I wasn't sure if it was OK for me to not like Star Trek anymore. If it wasn't for Card telling me what to think I would probably never make up my mind.
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
I use to have a crush on Wesley Crusher.
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
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?
... people love discussing it's demise! Two "trek dead" stories in two days on /.
I still say they should do a trek reality series that follows Romulan assassins weeding their way into Romulan culture and the Federation. 24 in space type thing...
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Who would have thought Star Trek would outlive Star Wars?
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
Card is an excellent writer - his Ender character is immortal, and the writing is some of the best in the genre of his contemporaries. But outside of his own novels, who cares what he thinks about anything else? For example, he's an insane Christian homophobe. That doesn't affect his SF writing, but it does impugn his judgment about "society", even the place of the writing of others in society.
--
make install -not war
Oh, c'mon. Orson is not so very subtly saying:
My sci-fi show wouldn't suck, so hire me.
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.
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
In the 1960's, Star Trek presented a vastly different culture than our own, with ideas that clashed with the popular world view, such as human equality and tolerance, fused with America's nascent desire to pioneer space.
Today, the civil rights movement has come and gone, there's equal rights and opportunity for almost everyone, and no one gives a crap about a mars base, much less colonizing space. The core themes of Star Trek have lost relevance with today's generation.
Now it's just another whiz-bang space opera. Might as well be watching Lost in Space.
It does affect his writing -- if you have read the Homeworld or Alvin Maker series.
Comic Pull List.
Guess Iron Man is off my list now, Mr. Card. Didn't really like what you did to the origin anyhow.
Why people think the mere existance of Star Trek somehow stifles thier ability to put other SF out there is beyond me.
As far as going to the pot to many times, I think that was proven with the Enders Game books (re-telling an entire book from a diffent character's perspective? *), so I guess in a way he knows whereof he speaks...
* of course the Card fans out there will deny that being in any way derivitive or limiting or "more of the same" and crow about how "innovative" it was. Meh.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
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 -
By Grapthar's Hammer they shall be avenged!
Why didn't somebody say something?
Faith: n. -- That human impulse that drives them to steal appliances when the power goes out
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)
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)
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
An Orson Scott Card editorial in the LA Times? Get real: there's no nudity, no scandal, and the intersection of folks that have ever heard of OSC and folks who read the LA Times is probably nil. For many readers of the LA Times, this will be the first time they've ever heard Card's names, and that's exactly the point.
Ender's Game is coming out eventually, and the studio wants it to be a hit. The book is literally a masterpiece (one of several by Card) and should be required reading for everyone serious about life, before they enter kindergarten. It was inevitable that someone who had read the book would eventually get the word to a moron at one of the big movie studios, and via blackmail or drug haze, a studio would pick it up. We're not far away from the release.
This story is the introduction of Orson Scott Card to the moviegoing world. There's no telling how much planning went into what story should go and when it should go out, but the fact of the matter is that you're all being played. The world of dumbasses doesn't touch the world of genius without reason, and money is a good enough reason.
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.
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
He's not a Christian - he is a Mormon.
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?
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....
Heh... well considering Wil Wheaton reads Slashdot and posts sometimes, he might leave his own comment.
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.
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
For example, he's an insane Christian homophobe. That doesn't affect his SF writing...
You're talking about a guy who had little kids running around killing "buggers" in his most famous novel...
Okay, he's a right-wing Christian who hates gay people. I don't think he is "bad" because that's a horribly vague term. But I have considered his point of view, and I think he must be insane.
You're right, that's much better!
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
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?
"Your Agonizer, please"
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
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
So what are we waiting for?
...because "hacker" sounds way sexier than "code drone."
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.
OMFG!! I can't believe you played the Orson Scott Card!!!
Can I bum a sig? I left mine at the office.
Last Trek: May 13
Last Star Wars: May 19
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.
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!
How about "Person who believes that Jesus Christ is his savior?" The only thing I've seen that says Mormons don't fit the definition of Christian is that they don't believe in the trinity. That's really a nitpick though because Mormons believe in something really similar to the trinity.
Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
Okay I don't want to seem like a troll but the parent is right. Name a sci fi series that in the past 20 years has lasted more than two seasons on network (NETWORK) TV.
To further this point, think about the ones that have. I can name "quantum leap" as one of these series, but how sci-fi was it really? It had a sci fi premise, but the theme wasn't steeped very deep in sci-fi. It was a great show don't get me wrong, but in order to be successful with sci-fi and the american viewing public you have got to either mask it a bit, use an established name like star trek, or go onto the sci-fi channel.
Bab5 was an exception, and even then, in the height of its popularity, it wasn't pulling enough of a ratings share and the time slot moved a hell of a lot until TNT finally said enough, we'll air the last season and shut the networks up.
Sci-fi still is a big risk and it will be until general fan base for sci fi grows. It hasn't for years and won't for a long time.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
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.
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.
... 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.
"I swear I've heard of people who quit their jobs and moved just so they could live in a city that wasn't full of Homophobic Mor(m)ons like Orson Scott Card running the place."
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
As much as I like his books (at least ones that are not trying to turn me into a drooling mormon) he is a dispicable human and an outrageous bigot:d /index.html l
See
http://dir.salon.com/books/feature/2000/02/03/car
and his actual views
http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.htm
Those articles will turn you off on that guy.. or at least stop purchasing his books.
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
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?
Good point. Let's check the Oxford English Dictionary.
The official name for the Mormon church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The subtitle of the Book of Mormon is Another Testament of Jesus Christ (the first being the Bible). Articles of Faith 1, 3, and 4 (which they basically brainwash their children with via ritualized repetition) all claim belief in Jesus Christ as a member of the Godhead and their personal savior.
Ergo, Mormons fit the definition of "Christian".
As you said "There is no need for this to be an issue of opinion. Words have definitions."
(For the record. I'm an ex-Mormon. I was raised one, but left once I actually started thinking about what I was told rather than just accepting things.)
As much as I like his books (at least ones that are not trying to turn me into a drooling mormon) he is a dispicable human and an outrageous bigot:d /index.html l
See
http://dir.salon.com/books/feature/2000/02/03/car
and his actual views
http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.htm
Those articles will turn you off on that guy.. or at least stop purchasing his books.
(this was originally buried in another thread, but reposting here as OSC is really not a nice guy, so does not surprise me that he would turn on a large segment of his fans.)
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
I think not -- at least as far as Trek shows. Not that there's anything wrong with secular humanism -- it's more or less my viewpoint -- but consider the Trek evidence (no, I don't know episode names or exact wording -- I'm not *that* much of a Trek fan):
1) The episode where Kirk meets an alien who was the god Apollo in Greek times -- Apollo wants people to worship him but Kirk says "Humanity doesn't need gods -- we find the one sufficient" -- implying that some sort of monotheism is still there in the Trek universe
2) The "20th century Roman Empire" episode the rebels fighting the empire are thought to be "sun worshippers" and the Enterprise crew is surprised to find how noble they are (pagans are evil, ya know) but then Uhurua figures out that they are "son worshippers" -- that is christians, and it all supposedly makes sense.
For an indepth view of the Authors personality and thoughts take a look at http://www.hatrack.com/ The Official OSC website
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"
So that's who's to blame for Vanilla Sky!
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?
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.
I agree, that is indeed part of what makes the UK great.
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.
that's only true if you believe that reserving marriage as the exclusive right of heterosexuals is upholding the fundamental meaning of marriage and isn't implicitly homophobic.
it's kinda like if i said: the fanatical Left will insist that anyone who calls black people niggers is a "racist." inevitably most people would respond that such sentiments are implicitly racist. would such a response somehow prove me right(or less wrong)?
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.
"officially licensed Star Trek (tm) phaser."
Should have read "officially licensed Star Trek (tm) phaser in mint condition."
"their DVD box sets of TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise"
Should have read "their collectible DVD box sets of TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise in pristine wrappings"
The Times regrets the omissions.
Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
luckily cashiering at soft-serve ice cream joints is a portable skill.
who is she? leave a comment!
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
He hasn't proven Card "absolutely correct" unless you can show:
1. He is a member of the fanatical Left (a loaded term to say the least)
2. There *is* a "fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation".
3. Grandparent thinks Card and all other "fundamentalists" are not only a homophobes, but also mentally ill (are the two synonymous? I wasn't aware of this).
4. All others in the "fanatical Left" agree with grandparent.
Yeah, I don't think he's proven much of anything, except that he views such hyperbolic statements defending (what he views as) discrimination against homosexuals as homophobic.
-Dan
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.
He said "Lost" is the best Sci-Fi currently running??!!
... Good?
Are you Americans watching a different Lost than what we get out here? Because I've watched about 12 episodes of some drama/survivor series and *still* we don't know what killed the bloke in the first hour.
I'm trying to keep this post above the level of the average troll, but could someone *PLEASE* explain how Lost is a Sci-Fi, or
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?
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
Whilst I'm a big fan of all five series of Trek, it's not remotely what I'd call great science fiction.
Here is a case in point:
They find a Dyson sphere!!! Wow!!! SciFi addicts are drooling. Against all odds, they find an easy way inside!!! We're on the edges of our seats!
But oh - wait - we spent too much time on the interpersonal stuff between Scotty and LeForge - so now all we can do is to invent some reason why they have to immediately escape from the sphere and leave all of the interesting stuff to someone else.
Bah! I wanted to know how the Sphere designers solved the problem of needing day/night cycles - how the poles are structurally abilised - about how the land area inside is so vastly huge that many civilisations must be spread across it's internal structure. How the population of the sphere probably exceeds that of the enture galaxy outside.
Now go read RingWorld to see how a Science Fiction plot line *should* be done.
Now, I have to say, I enjoyed that episode - but it just didn't have very much to do with SciFi.
Most Trek episodes do something like this - they usually end with the ships' deflector dish being redesigned with three keystrokes to emit wibble-rays which remodulate the theta band babbleometer and thereby save the day in the last 2 minutes. This only works because it's not being treated as a SciFi program.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing - and it certainly made the series popular amongst people who wouldn't know a SciFi plotline if it bit them in the leg.
www.sjbaker.org
> 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.
I diagree on two counts:
1. Christ = Messiah is the fundamental belief that differentiates Christianity from Judaism & Islam.
2. Trinitarianism is but one, very successful branch of Christianity. At one time, most Christians were non-trinitarian, but that was a long time ago and mixed up in Imperial politics. Today there are still a few Unitarians.
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
Christians believe that Jesus was the messiah. Everything else is brand differentiation.
--
make install -not war
Captain James T. Kirk of the starship Enterprise. Damn, he's so sexy.
Now, now. If you're going to bring that up, we've got to post the originals too! These are definitely worth looking at.
The Picard Song (Flash) [coral cache] You can hear the entire song here [coral cache].
There's several other Star Trek animations on that site that are pretty funny. There's also some very odd ones, like the Unlucky Ant (dealing somewhat with the Schiavo issue).
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
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.
How exactly did you write a post on ongoing plotlines in a TV series, and fail to mention Babylon 5 ? Especially given the SciFi context ! B5 unquestionably led the way with the concept of one gigantic story arc, to the point where its creator was repeatedly told that it just wouldn't work.
--LordPixie
A couple of corrections...
[Christianity] teaches that God the Father and God the Son (Jesus) are one and the same person - Mormonism denies this
Depending on how you want to define the Trinity, I'm pretty sure many Christians would have a problem with the idea that they are the same "person." But you are correct in that Mormonism holds that God the Father and God the Son (Jesus Christ) are two separate individuals.
Christianity teaches that Satan is a fallen creation of God- Mormonism teaches that Satan is equal with Christ- his brother
Mormonism does NOT teach that Satan is equal with Christ. It does teach that we are all spirit brothers and sisters, as all of our spirits were created by God. Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is the Redeemer of the world who atoned for our sins and is a member of the Godhead. Satan is a fallen angel who stands in eternal opposition to God. I'll give you one point on the brother part, but minus a infinite number of points on the "equal" garbage.
Christianity teaches that Christ though fully God became man incarnate- Mormonism teaches that Christ came to be as the result of an incestuous relationship between God and Mary (not my words- a leader of the mormon churches words)
Absolute total utter BS!
Mormonism doesn't teach that, and I would love to see your "leader of the mormon churches words." I can guarantee you that you there isn't a single quote out there from a Mormon leader.
I'm not doubting your motives. You probably honestly believe the anti-mormon propaganda that your have read. Just realize the method that they use: For every truth add in a couple of lies for good measure. Good enough to confuse those who don't know the difference. It worked on you.
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?