Slashdot Mirror


Why Charles Stross Hates Star Trek

daria42 writes "British sci-fi author Charles Stross has confessed that he has long hated the Star Trek franchise for its relegation of technology as irrelevant to plot and character development — and the same goes for similar shows such as Babylon Five. The problem, according to Stross, is that as Battlestar Galactica creator Ron Moore has described in a recent speech, the writers of Star Trek would simply 'insert' technology or science into the script whenever needed, without any real regard to its significance; 'then they'd have consultants fill in the appropriate words (aka technobabble) later.'"

4 of 809 comments (clear)

  1. Re:hmmm by Attaturk · · Score: 5, Informative

    The thing that annoyed me the most about Star Trek, and it was most common in the Next Generation, was the idiotic idea of solving a made-up scientific problem with made-up technology. It has no value to a plot; actually it's the opposite of plot, if there is such a thing.

    You're thinking of 'deus ex machina', which is a plot device along the lines of "and suddenly a god-like being appeared and fixed everything". It's the fate of all lazy fiction and, sadly, it's not restricted to sci-fi - although the opportunity to invent suitable technobabble does make it rather easier.

  2. Re:Quid Pro Quo by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Informative

    The best of the modern hard SF writers is Larry Niven, but he, like all aging SF writers, has fallen off the bandwagon. By the second Ringworld book, he was more obssessed with various humanoids fucking than with a storyline, and the last Ringworld book was just unreadable garbage.

    But stuff like the Neutron Star stories, those are damned good hard (or at least semi-hard) SF with interesting characters and at least half-believable solutions.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  3. Re:And ST is being picked on.... by chrysrobyn · · Score: 5, Informative

    Young man, you will bite your tongue after speaking of Firefly with such disrespect!

    Compare the technobabble of TNG to Firefly. How many times did the tachyon thing have to get reversed, repolarized, resynchronized or whatever in order to solve some time spacial anomaly?

    Firefly ep Out of Gas:

    Kaylee: Catalyzer on the port compression coil blew. It's where the trouble started.
    Mal: Okay, I need that in captain dummy-talk, Kaylee.
    Kaylee: We're dead in the water.

    And that's about as "technobabble to assist the plot" as Firefly got.

  4. Re:Uh, B5 "technobabble"? Hardly... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Also, time travel was used precisely once, required an entire planet worth of power generation to implement, and spanned three episodes: one near the end of the first season, and a two-parter in the middle of the third season; henceforth, it was never used again.

    The other key to the Babylon Squared/War Without End time travel is that it stays consistent. In Star Trek, characters are repeatedly traveling backwards in time to fix or prevent something. In B5, everything happened because they went back in time, and going back in time simply ensured that what happened did happen.