Orson Scott Card recently heaped some abuse on “Star Trek” in the LA Times, vigorously trashing everything about original “Star Trek,” although generously conceding:
“The later spinoffs were much better performed, but the content continued to be stuck in Roddenberry’s rut. So why did the Trekkies throw themselves into this poorly imagined, weakly written, badly acted television series with such commitment and dedication? Why did it last so long?”
Well, I can answer that: They, and I, did NOT see it as poorly imagined, weakly written, or badly acted. Opinions are merely opinions, and not absolutes. That, and the growth of “Trek” conventions made it more than a canceled TV show, but instead a solid socialization experience for many people–including me–who had no social life to speak of.
“Here’s what I think: Most people weren’t reading all that brilliant science fiction. Most people weren’t reading at all. So when they saw “Star Trek,” primitive as it was, it was their first glimpse of science fiction. It was grade school for those who had let the whole science fiction revolution pass them by.”
I wouldn’t disagree. But that’s not the point. Rather than gleefully heaping dirt on Trek’s ostensible grave, as Card does, he might stop to consider that a considerable number of those “grade school” fans went on to high school and college. The first time I saw the name “Harlan Ellison” was on the credits of “City.” Granted, the aired version didn’t represent his vision. Didn’t matter. It led me like an arrow to other works of his that most certainly DID represent his vision. Nor was I alone in that respect. I was already reading SF when “Trek” came along, but others weren’t, and “Trek” created a new wave of SF fans whose interest spread from “Trek” to Ellison, Asimov, Clarke, Bradbury, Gerrold, and even some guy named Card.
To say nothing of the fact that “Trek” fandom had a huge female population (no, not a population of huge females, although yeah, there was a bit of that.). Maggie Thompson recounted how she was at a WorldCon where a roomful of fans were bìŧçhìņg about this influx of *yuckickypoo* Trek fans to their beloved WorldCon. And Maggie pointed out, “Guys? You’ve been crabbing for years how there’s hardly any women attending these conventions. Look around the room; I’m the only female here. Have ANY of you noticed that the vast majority of the Trek fans are female?” The guys looked at each other; they hadn’t noticed, because they’d been so busy excoriating the TV show that brought them there.
“Trek” got me into conventions, and I met both my wives at conventions (at different times). Four kids were the cumulative result, all of whom have attended conventions. “Star Trek,” if NOTHING else, may well be the single greatest contributor to the perpetuation of SF fandom in general.
So, Mr. Card…how about a little gøddámņ respect, okay?
PAD
• 
Well said Peter! It’s easy (too easy) to knock the Trek these days, but it really is a phenomenon. Respect.
You tell him PAD!
Besides socialization among fans, it also serves as a family bonding event. My mom and I don’t necessarily like the same things when it comes to TV, but when it comes to Star Trek, we are always watching it together.
sometimes Card takes his self-appointed gadfly role a bit too seriously. If you’ve read any of his columns from his hometown newspaper (and many people have at least read his anti-gay column after he was announced as writing Ultimate Iron Man) you would see this.
However, I do like Card’s writing. I’ve read all the Ender books and enjoyed them. I enjoyed the originals better than the more recent young adult sequence, but they are all very readable. In fact, I would argue that the YA Ender books do exactly what Card thinks Star Trek did: they introduce otherwise ignorant young readers to the possibilities inherent in SF. Given that Card can write perfectly fine adult SF, there may be just a bit of self-condemnation here, masked as lashing out at the Trek-fans.
and in your comments you didn’t mention that for many,many people, James Blish’s adaptations of the episodes led us to READING SF. You had to go to the SF section of the paperback racks or bookstore to get them. The back of the books listed other SF writers and books. It’s a small step from them to reading other, more rigorous SF.
Nobody’s perfect.
Back when I still didn’t know what I wanted to write when I became a real writer, I read several books on writing. (I know. Bad mistake.) The first two were by Larry Block, were very well done, and had a tone of “This is how I do it” while throwing in some quick summaries of how other writers do it. First rudiments of how I write novels now.
Then I read Card’s book on how to write science fiction. He spent most of the book in pompous ášš rants about how his defnition of bad science fiction was STAR TREK.
I can seperate a lot of things from the author and his work. His personal life, his politics, his criminal record. What I can’t seperate is a sneering “I’m better than your favorite icon” attitude at the keyboard. Can’t. Which is why it’s highly unlikely I’ll ever read ENDER’S GAME.
Dear Mr. David,
Thank you for this. I, too, got into science fiction because of Star Trek. I’d never even *heard* of ST conventions before I found the show. I met many people, who remain my friends, to this day. Star Trek opened up my life 🙂
So, thank you for this. Orson Scott Card needs to learn humility.
The stuff Card says about Trek may not be all that worse than a lot of what Harlan has said–I heard Harlan speak at a time when he was REALLY down on Trek (or maybe he was just extra special mad at Roddenberry)and when Harlan Ellison gets his mad on he makes Card at his angriest sound like Fred Rogers.
That said, it seems unfair to trash Star Trek for not measuring up to today’s high standards. TV is better written these days. TV is ALLOWED to be better written these days. If Rod Serling had handed in anything like a script for your average episode of CSI or THE SHIELD they would have carted him off. Special effects can be done on my home computer that blow away anything they were able to do on OUTER LIMITS.. It’s not fair to penalize shows for being of their time. Yeah, METROPOLIS has poor sound editing, what the hëll were they supposed to do about it?
Yeah, but Harlan feels he was rather ill-used by Trek personnel, up to and including Gene repeatedly stating that the original draft of “City” featured Scotty as a drug dealer when it never did. So if he’s got an axe to grind with Trek, at least it’s personal. All “Trek” ever did to Card was generate more potential readers for his work.
PAD
I met a lady at a Starfleet International meeting. We were different in many respects: she liked country music and dancing, I like classical music and computers. However, we had Trek in common. We enjoyed that part of our lives together. I read Imzadi to her.
Twelve years and one daughter later, I’m even more glad of Star Trek than when I was a socially challenged teen.
Now, as far as Card’s editorial (http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-card3may03.story) goes, he goes on to praise “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” as one of the “finest science fiction films of all time so far”. Well, Mr. Card, the moral lesson of that movie – that you should welcome the pain of life as much as the pleasure – was at the center of what’s considered the worst Trek film (STV). I guess Trek has something going for it after all.
Personally, I think the finest SF film of all time is “The Truman Show,” if for no other reason than people don’t think of it as SF. But it is. It extrapolates on current technology to create an environment that does not yet exist…but could…and uses that environment to comment laceratingly on the current state of mankind. Plus it’s a Biblical parable to boot, as Truman–the True Man–leaves Paradise. This time, however, he does so on his own terms, departing not because Paradise’s creator is throwing him out, but DESPITE the creator’s pleadings that he remain, so that he can carve his own destiny instead of having a “divine plan” shape it for him.
PAD
Well, whaddaya expect from a vocal supporter of the Bush/Cheney junta.
Mark
sometimes Card takes his self-appointed gadfly role a bit too seriously.
I agree – the man seems to think that bestsellers gives him the ability to be a total prìçk to the rest of the genre.
Thankfully, his novels aren’t the end-all of science fiction (not that I’ve read any of his stuff anyways).
I’d hate to think what Card would have to say about Doctor Who. 🙂
I always liked it simply for the fact that it portrayed military women in their proper place: wearing short skirts and handing out coffee.
But seriously, we have played non-stop Star Trek DVDs from the first 2 seasons since our child was born a couple months ago (apparently it’s good for let-down…go figure). I can see where a lot of women would find much offense in some episodes. Nevertheless, my wife loves it (they’re HER DVDs).
At my work,a Waldenbooks, SF&F is one of our very successful categories. Every so often I get a SF person who wants real, hard SF. We get very little to stock our shelves because historically, it hasn’t sold well enough to justify stocking it. The Fantasy side does very well, we have to get everything TSR publishes. And Star Wars. And every Star Trek release. One of the few SF things we do have is all of the Ender books. I showed it to a Herbert fan last night and pointed out that not many books win both the Hugo and Nebula. And then pointed out to my coworker that I somehow have no interest in reading it. While Card’s stuff may be “Quality”, it isn’t what interests most of the audience, Star Trek and Star Wars are. And sometimes things like Dune when they make a TV movie.
I forgot one point. Was it the publisher twisting Card’s arm when he and they pursued the Harry Potter audience by producing Young Adult versions of Ender? Or was it willing participation in an attempt to cash in?
Thanks Peter,
I was introduced to Star Trek at 15 and it turned my life around. Due to the principals of the Federation I worked hard and found a place at the United Nations for many years before starting my own non profit to help people.
I don’t care much for the Star Trek shows myself but they did have some great concepts once in awhile.
Also Picard had some great moments and to call him a weak actor is nonsense. (Also I must advertise my favorite site dedicated to the man: http://picard.ytmnd.com/ Have your speakers on!!!!)
I agree that it is a bonding experience. The only times I would watch television with my parents and have them both be interested would be during reruns of the Next Generation. I didn’t like it much but the fact that my dad (who never watches television) and mom (Who rarely pays attention to what is on the television) were enjoying the same thing made me stay in the room and politely watch with them.
Thought it was funny that the Borg eps are the most popular but my dad refused to watch them out of hatred. He was the same way with the Reaver eps of Firefly when I showed them to him on DVD and it’s the only reason why he has no interest in Serenity.
Most people weren’t reading all that brilliant science fiction. Most people weren’t reading at all.
No, but some of us were having it read to us; my father read me Heinlein and Asimov and Bova and every piece of bad, hardcore SF he could find as my bedtime story, and I loved it. But Start Trek held a different kind of love, because it was something Dad and I could do together. He’d come home from work, and we’d tuck up in front of the TV and watch TOS (admittedly, on reruns), and then we could talk about it after and discuss the plot and morals. As much as I loved my original intro to SF via bedtime stories, those stories often went well over my head, and aren’t things I’ve been able to appreciate until recently: as an adult who studies critical theory and can see the social commentary being made. Perhaps it validates Card’s point, but Trek was something that I could participate in with my father; I could see the bolder story points with no problem, and as I got older, Dad and I could rewatch the episodes and discuss the finer points, too.
-K
The later spinoffs were much better performed, but the content continued to be stuck in Roddenberry’s rut.
…Whereas Card rewriting his own books from a different character’s point of view in order to keep on milking the Ender cash cow is “bold,” “innovative” and “original.”
In the immortal words of Bill Cosby’s Noah:
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
You know, I’ve read and loved Ender’s Game, and enjoyed a number of Card’s novels.
Reading some of his weekly columns over on his website (particularly the anti-gay-marriage one)just made me sad.
I chalked his anti-Trek feelings up to “everyone’s got opinions”, but his other columns took me somewhat aback.
I guess this is one of those times that we’re supposed to separate the creator from their creations. I don’t know if I’ll be able to look at his stuff again. I’ll try (it didn’t work for Mike Miller, but I’m an optimist by nature).
I have no problem with it that Mr. Orson Scott Card has a different opinion than me. But what I have a problem with is, how he is voicing that opinion.
I am sick and tired of these discussions of what is “real” or “better” SF or the media vs. non-media discussions in which the pro non-media crowd is looking down at fans like me, sometimes giving the advice that we should read something that is “original” and of course superior.
It is annoying enough when I encounter such discussions among fans and by now, I just sigh and move on instead of getting involved. But I find it even more annoying to see a professional voicing such attitudes in this manner. You don`t catch flies with vinegar. I have never read anything written by this author and after having read this, I also won`t be his customer in future.
What is “good” or “bad” is first of all a subjective matter. If this man had said something like this: “I am not a Trek fan because… but I understand why so many people like it”, showing a certain amount of respect, that could have been the start of an interesting discussion. It also worked for me when someone approached me this way: “You like Star Trek? Have a look at these non-media books. You might like them because…” This is how you invite people to try something new. Not by putting down what they enjoy.
I am not surprised that TOS was the first SF fandom with a big female interest as well. The few old SF classics I tried and movies of that time are usually pretty unwatchable and uninteresting. I am simply not interested in these characters. For example, when the actress who plays the new Dr. Who companion promised, she won`t scream, I thought, about time!
Star Trek also enriched me a lot, more than any other SF. I enjoy the discussions on the net and in our local Trek group – and one of my then-pen friends became my husband and we have a daughter together. She, by the way, is also enjoying certain aspects of Star Trek. She already knows who Kirk and Spock are and Porthos, of course!
As usual, Peter, you hit the nail right on the head. To compare Harlan’s gripes to Card’s would be like comparing the preparation of ham and eggs with Harlan as the Pig and Card as the hen. If nobody bought eggs, it wouldn’t hinder the hen’s productivity, but if nobody bought ham, the pig was slaughtered for nothing! When Card wants to ply his writing trade to television, THEN he can gripe to his heart’s content. Otherwise, he should show a little respect for the works of people like Harlan and D.C. Fontana (and the guy whom this website is named after, who wrote quality novels based on TOS and the spinoffs) who can do BOTH quality literature AND TV writing as opposed to being a diner of sour grapes because of the “illiteracy” of Trek fans. As Harlan said in print, “If [literary SF writers] think it’s easy to do both, let ’em try!”
I started watching ST when I was in the 4th grade. Because of it, I read Heinlein, Pohl, Herbert, ect. I subscribed to Analog when I was older. All because of ST. I love the series, almost all of them, even if I felt like they were afraid to take chances later on. So, I only have fond memories of ST and its fandom. Oh and I work in a B&N, the ST books are still some of the biggest sellers. Along with Card’s novels. 😉
Mark Walsh,
Please grow the f–k up.If Card was a Kerry supporter,would that make his comments any more disrespectful?No. Save your cheap shots for another thread.
To Everyone Else,
Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Myself,it took about 21 years to start actually watching “Star Trek” in ANY of its incarnations (not counting the movies,which I thoroughly enjoyed). That was 14 years ago. One of the main reasons I had avoided it was the “hokey”label so many in the media and general public throw at it. But,yes,a female a knew in college was in toit. So I started watching “Next Generation” so I would be able to talk to her about it and was instantly entertained. I gobbled up TOS reruns, Deep Space Nine and as many of the books and comics as I could get my hands on,particularly those written by a certain Peter David.
I also started going to conventions.
Along the way,I have encountered the Snobswho seem to think that much more “worthy”work is being ignored on the bookshelves.Which is nonsense. First,having so many “Trek” and “Wars” books being profitable allows everyone from the mom and pop bookstore to Borders to carry MORE sci-fi titles in the first place.
Second, by frequently perusing the sci-fi section for these books,I have on occasion gotten other sci-fi books that look interesting.
Third,”value”is in the eye of the beholder. Some of the non-Trek books I have read I have found to be enjoyable and thought-provoking (and the samd can be said of some Trek books) and some I have found to be huge bores.
I am very proud to call myself a Trek fan. For those who don’t care for it,well,hooray for them.
And don’t even get me started with how the mainstream media portrays “Trek” and it’s fans…
Along the way,I have encountered the Snobswho seem to think that much more “worthy”work is being ignored on the bookshelves.Which is nonsense. First,having so many “Trek” and “Wars” books being profitable allows everyone from the mom and pop bookstore to Borders to carry MORE sci-fi titles in the first place
No kidding.
I did any eyeball count of title and shelf space for SF books a while back. Media tie ins (and I include comic-related stuff, whether there was a movie or not, and gaming tie-ins) never made up more than 20% of the titles and 33% of the shelf space of the shelf space of the stores I was in.
That can’t be generalized beyond the Pacific Northwest, but I get similar accounts from folks from other parts of the country. Ya gotta think that media work helps SF in general…
It’s ironic though that at a Star Trek convention one is very likely to run into the same kind of attitude as Card’s, just targeted at some other show. Some Trekkers look down on Dr Who fans who make fun of Galactica fans who think that comic books fans are losers who think that anime fans are idiots. Everyone hates the furries. As it should be.
Why is it that it’s not enough to enjoy something, people have to insist that anyone who likes something else is ignorant and misguided? Ther simply isn’t enough time in the day for me to enjoy everything that there is to enjoy. I’ve had to pick and choose. That others have chosen differently is to be expected.
Star Trek isn’t the only thing being attacked by classic SF writers. A New York Times article from last week has greats Ursula K. Le Guin and Ray Bradbury complaining about how Star Wars is bad SF. Which would make sense if it were actually SF and not space fantasy. In fact most of their arguments would describe Tolkein as well. Sory, not sure how to put the link, so cut and paste.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/weekinreview/01fount.html
As PAD said about many readers, Star Trek (and for me, Star Wars) got me into reading SF and fantasy. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, it is sad that anyone is purposely disparaging to their own fans or those who are also fans of the genre.
Heh, I find myself in the position of agreeing with Card about “Trek”, even though his rudeness and arrogant delivery turns me off.
No, what really scares me about Card is his position about sexual matters. I am a believer of separating the work from the person, but once I know a person’s ideals as being so radically different from mine, I can’t stop but being irked when I think (rightfully or not) that their ideals are shaping much of their work.
I never looked the same way again at that Ender book when the guy who had an affair with his own half-sister (but they didn’t knew they were siblings) ended up horribly paralyzed so he couldn’t continue the “sinful” affair. The first time I readed it without knowing about Card’s background it didn’t bothered me none. It was only in retrospect that I suspected that Card was harshly and self-righteously “punishing” the incest.
Is it just me or does Card just need to get a hold of some good weed? By that I mean,lighten up dude! So someone makes Star Trek, someone else makes Star Wars….how does that effect you life? What, you can’t breathe because TOS is out there?
As opposed to Card’s raging homophobia. When he rants about how marriage should only be between man and woman, that actually hurts people by limiting their choices for their own relationships.
Sure, I’m pìššëd that Lucas has chosen to ignore everything we know about Yoda and how peaceful he is after 800 years of teaching jedi just to satisfy some fanboy wank to see him kick butt….but I don’t think it occupies more than a few seconds a day in my schedule.
BTW,Peter…great latest issue Hulk. It’s like Jurrasic Park on acid. 🙂
Michael J Norton
I first saw Star Trek: TOS when it was in syndication during the 1970’s.
I enjoyed the characters, their friendship and loyalty towards one another.
For me, the emphasis was always on the characters and their situations.
The special effects came second, but were satisfactory to me.
TOS comes off as a morality stage play, where our attention are focused on the crew of the Enterprise, and their latest mission.
The ship, the phasers, the photon torpedos, the colorful uniforms were very cool and quite memorable.
I like the characters of Kirk, Spock, McCoy, et al.
The writing by D.C. Fontana and Gene L. Coon are among my favorites of the series.
The science-fiction was purely incidental.
At least, that’s what I’ve always gotten out of it.
Steve Chung
Having written the above, did anyone else enjoy the episodes of Enterprise with Sheryl Lee Diamond (“Twin Peaks”) as the Orion Slave Girl and the two-parter set in the Mirror Universe (complete with characters from TOS)?
Steve Chung
It always upsets me to see “proper” sci-fi/fantasy people dissing the Star Trek/Wars series, especially since sf and fantasy themselves are seen as lower forms of fiction by many. As a former English professor of mine puts it, he can remember a time when his local drug store stocked sci-fi books in the same section as the pornography. Given the reputation of the entire genre, sneering at one part of it (in many ways the most commercially successful part) is just elitist. Working off the topics others have brought up:
The Truman Show: Thank you for your concise words concerning this movie, Mr. David. My brothers and I regard it as our favorite Jim Carrey movie, and you perfectly articulated why.
Media’s portrayl of Trekkies: totally unfair. Who decided it’s socially acceptable to spread paints all over your body and go half naked to a sport event, but it’s weird to dress up like a Vulcan?
Dark Mirror Star Trek episodes: My brother thought the first was the best ST episode ever, combining themes from two original series episodes (The original dark mirror and the Tholian Web) and delivering a great opener with the twist on the First Contact movie. I don’t think it’s really the best, but it was a far step up from most of the season.
Dr. Who: Out of curiosity, has anyone been watching the latest series incarnation? It’s been my first experience to Dr. Who, so I don’t know how it stacks up, but I’ve been enjoying it. (When I remember it’s on… it views the same time as the Amazing Race, and I just can’t get enough of those wacky Survivors…)
>It always upsets me to see “proper” sci->fi/fantasy people dissing the Star Trek/Wars >series, especially since sf and fantasy >themselves are seen as lower forms of fiction by >many.
I’m not defending Card, a man whom I really dislike, but try to look at it this way… for us SF/fantasy fans who don’t like Star Trek/Wars, it’s a bit like…
You know when you tell someone you’re a superhero fan, and they think superheroes are Superfriends and Adam West ONLY? It feels a little like that.
I’m not sure my analogy is completely fair though, because as bad as I think Star Trek/Wars is, it’s not like they’re twisting or dumbing down something from novels.
But in the end I have to agree, it’s just my oppinion, and it’s as valid as anyone else’s oppinion.
personally, I think the finest SF film of all time is “The Truman Show,” if for no other reason than people don’t think of it as SF.
That would be an interesting question for a thread–what other great SF movies that nobody considers SF movies are there?
I’d vote for SECONDS, the only Rock Hudson movie I’ve ever liked. And, considering the subtext and the implications we now all can clearly see in Hudson’s performance, he was GREAT in this movie. Frankenheimer was never a better director than in this and the original MALCHURIAN CANDIDATE (another great SF film). The ending alone must have sent audiences out of the theatre reeling.
Check out: http://www.brunching.com/geekhierarchy.html
“Who decided it’s socially acceptable to spread paints all over your body and go half naked to a sport event, but it’s weird to dress up like a Vulcan?”
The same people who decided it’s OK to spend your free time in high school playing football, but it’s weird to play D&D.
While I like Mr Card’s writing, I think he needs to take a big šhìŧ. It would help.
I think Star Trek and Star Wars have done more to destroy SF fandom as it existed prior to about 1980 than anything else I can think of.
While SF fandom has worked hard to be inclusive of media fans, I think it’s been an effort which has fallen somewhere between futile and failed. Media SF has by-and-large drawn younger fans away from “mainstream” fandom (if there is such a thing). In effect, there is a diversity of fandoms, rather than a fandom which is diverse. And the popularity of media SF can mainly be laid at the feet of Star Wars and then Star Trek.
It’s difficult to argue that this is, in a global sense, a bad thing. For people (like me) whose main interest is written SF, it’s a bad thing, because the interest in written SF fandom has been declining, especially among my and younger generations. But clearly there are many people who enjoy the different fandoms, so to them it’s presumably a good thing.
But the statement that Star Trek “may well be the single greatest contributor to the perpetuation of SF fandom in general” seems to me to be clearly wrong, and (at least) at right angles to the truth.
My first exposure to SF, besides seeing the occasional Heinlein that my father left lying around, was on my sixth birthday, when one of my favorite uncles gave me a box filled with back issues of Analog, Galaxy, Worlds of If…
It wasn’t until a couple of years later that TOS went into syndication in our area. I promptly gobbled it up, of course, especially when I saw that one of the first episodes I was exposed to (“Amok Time”) had been written by Theodore Sturgeon. Theodore freaking Sturgeon, people! I was in eight-year-old happyland! Since then, I’ve remained a fan of the other series (except the first seasons of TNG and Voyager, and most of the last season of Enterprise), and I’ve kept reading the hard stuff, too.
And incidentally, I don’t see where the perpetrator of the “Flinx and Pip” stories has much leeway to criticize the maturity of anyone else’s writing…
Dr. Who: Out of curiosity, has anyone been watching the latest series incarnation?
I’ve been downloading each episode as they are released to the torrenting community at large. I’d *gasp* actually watch them on tv, but as of yet, no network here in the States has picked up the rights to the new Who.
I grew up watching Doctor Who on PBS. So, while I’m not a complete die-hard Whovian, I’ve watched episodes from each previous incarnation of the Doctor – Sylvester McCoy as the 7th is my favorite, but Eccleston’s 9th Doctor has been excellent so far.
My favorite SF movie that no one realizes is SF is Brain Candy starring the Kids in the Hall. Go rent it and keep in mind it came out in ’95…….pretty staggering early commentary on the whole “zoloft” culture that would pop up a few years later.
I see PAD’s point, but I also see Card’s.
I see PAD’s point because as a lonly SFF geek, it’s exciting to meet others who like the same stuff you do, and the more popular something is, the more likely you are to meet someone you like in that fandom. I’ve experienced this myself with the Harry Potter phenomena–finally, finally a large book fandom! And actually, I am here in the first place because of PAD’s Sir Apropos of Nothing series. Not his comics or anything else, just that one particular series, because it’s darn good fantasy. But anyway…
I see Card’s point, too, because people get consumed in the popularity of Star Trek/Star Wars/etc and don’t even see what I, personally, consider to be the POINT of SFF–the idea. The “What if”. The forward thinking into what our future may hold, the fascinating ideas of what may come about from all our new technology. A lot of SFF tv is rehashing what has already been done in books, often not even as well as the books themselves, so the beauty is lost, and the thoughtful futuristic parts of it are getting lost too because everyone is borrowing ideas without keeping the…the thoughts, or the what-ifs, or the like…below it. The Ooooh! PRETTYSHINY! is being borrowed, but not the fascinating thoughts below it all. You get the shiny silver rockets, but none of the scientific “what ifs” about how the rockets may work. You get horned aliens, but barely a glimmer of how evolution might work to make them horned in the first place. You get gutteral alien languages, but not a hint of the secrets of linguistics. And…that is so painful for me to behold. I realize that perhaps the medium of TV isn’t cut out for teaching, but I rarely even see a glimmer of where the ideas started in the first place. The popularity of Star Trek/Star Wars is causing more of the same to be produced by money-hungry people, things that are near-clones if not out right rip offs, and it is drowning out the thoughtful, forward-thinking SFF literature* in popularity numbers, and it’s painful.
(*forward-thinking as in genuinely new ideas, cutting-edge sci-fi ideas that have barely been touched by any medium anywhere)
TV sci-fi and literary sci-fi is very different. But TV is more accessible to new people, so while the popularity may bring a few people to literary fiction–but from what I read, it’s not all that many compared to the total of tv fans, not many tv fans go into books that aren’t related to the tv shows they love as novel adaptations or whatever–I’m sure it’s also driving away people who might enjoy the literary counterpart even if they don’t like the TV stuff.
All in all, it’s very hard on me and I think people with similar viewpoints as me to see certain things in Trek/Wars fandom, as they mock what I personally see as the greatest asset of literary SFF by celebrating sometimes what I think to be the franchies’ worst flaws.
So I can see Card’s frustration, totally.
But I can also see PAD’s point too, the community aspect is very important–they just are two different viewpoints and goals.
PAD feels the community aspect is very important. Card is most likely most fascinated by the ideas behind the SFF. Two different people, two different viewpoints. ::shrugs::
BTW–the reason I liked the movie “I, Robot” is because it’s one of the few TV/movie things where I have felt/seen the Idea being explored, thought of. Sure there’s action in it, but it deals with what it is to be self-aware, but not human, unlike most of the rest of SFF that ever has an android or robot. And yes, I know Data from Trek is the same thing from another angle–he’s one of the ideas/characters I really like from Trek. But I, Robot did it without being mired in Star Trek lore–it’s cleaner, more seperate. When you add something new to Star Trek, it has to be bent a little to fit in with that world convincingly, which is why I like to see seperate explorations of the same idea, to unhook it from any Trek (or whatever-show’s) lore.
But anyway…this is just my opinion. Sorry if it’s long and rambling, I am tired and didn’t set out to do an essay on the differences, pros, and cons of the two siblings in genre, tv and literary SFF.
Nice post, Domini.
I’d add that, beyond the science aspect you mentioned, one thing that I think is essential in science fiction is the sense of awe. And that is one of the main problems Star Trek has for me. In traditional TV series, at least until the 90s, you need a never-changing (or rarely changing) status quo peopled with easy-to-relate-to characters.
While there were lots of weird aliens, monsters, robots, and stuff in Star Trek, it has always more or less stayed at arm’s length, a view screen away, the crew would meet the “it”, and then solve whatever and go to another place, but the crew itself would more or less stay the same pretty ordinary fellas (with some exceptions like Spock who isn’t ordinary but is still unchanging).
I think that pretty much kills it for me, as I always thought the several science-fictional elements in the series stayed in the background.
The first SFictional series in TV that really hooked me was Babylon 5, but as good as I think B5 was occasionaly, it still pales next to the good written stuff. But at least there you seemed to have the characters more involved in the thick of things, since they were allowed to change and grow, with some corrupted by some ancient power, others becoming messiahs, or transfigurated by psi powers or racial changes, etc.
Though I heard that B5 motivated the folks writing Trek to do some of this too, I’m not sure if it was really done.
A few months back, Boston held WorldCon,and a few members of my Dr. Who club were there to promote the club as well as the convention we hold each year. According to one of them, a lot of folks that were there would go by the table, noses upturned because the club was a MEDIA based club.
I tend to think that fandom is made up of various levels, mostly by how they were introduced to science fiction. I tend to think that a vast majority of fans got into SF because of media-related things, rather it me a film of a tv series, or maybe a comic book.
As for me, I got into SF from watching as a kid episodes of Dr. Who, Star Trek and being a big Star Wars fan. It’s led me to travel to other areas of the country, to meet people that made me enjoy the shows and films, and to make friends who share the same interests. So I don’t think its a bad thing.
I think Mr. Card must forget that Star Trek/Wars, Dr. Who, B5 all have books that are based on the series, as well as expanding to go beyond them in themes. Trek is more than a tv show:Its been a film franchise as well as a book section in the SF/Fantasy area of bookstores around the country.
Mr. Card is entitled to his opinion and I am to mine. Its a big universe and I’m sure we won’t have to meet up.
There’s a thread over at Orson Scott Card’s website about OSC’s original essay: http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/forum/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=003086;p=1
In the thread, OSC posted this opinion, part of which Peter David might agree with:
“Look, folks, I only had 700 words. I couldn’t go into nuances. I couldn’t talk about how much better the acting was in the later stories.
But I could also have gone into the rigid formula that the writers followed in writing their Star Trek episodes in the more recent series. But once locked into that mindset, they couldn’t escape. Had a chance to see it up-close-and-personal, and the obliviousness of the writers so damaged is astonishing.
Sure, Star Trek was the introduction to sci fi for many people – but that was my POINT.
And look at the result. In REAL science fiction, the readers are constantly looking for new worlds, for revisions of reality, for ideas they haven’t had before.
But Star Trek fandom devours books that return them to the SAME world, the SAME “characters,” the same experience, over and over. Like Harlequin romances. Ditto with Star Wars fans. What do you think all those novels are about? Endless repetition. Safety in familiarity.
That’s just not science fiction, folks. It’s a different experience; Star Trek fans sometimes make the transition to be part of the science fiction community, but most of them have found a safe haven and put nothing at risk in their reading. That’s fine – everybody should have the stories they want – but because it’s CALLED science fiction, people who read this poorly imagined, safe-as-mommy’s-arms writing are NOT getting anything like what science fiction actually can be and IS – outside the media-centered stuff.
If only they could have called it something else, and erased the confusion. THEN nobody would have asked a sci-fi writer to comment on Star Trek, and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.”
(By the way, for anyone wanting to participate in OSC’s forum: it’s a very good forum, with a broad range of folks from liberals to conservatives… but if you do come over to participate, you have to behave and not throw around crude insults.)
(Yes, I know that OSC’s own rhetorical style in his columns doesn’t seems to encourage respect for other ideas. But most folks at the forum aren’t fans of the rhetorical style of his columns, and instead prefer the more complex and humane moral ideas in his fiction.)
Best SF film that most people don’t think of as SF: “Charley” starring Cliff Robertson as a mentally retarded man who becomes a genius through surgery. It’s based on the brilliant SF novel “Flowers for Algernon” by Daniel Keynes.
Check out “The Ender’s Game Movie” website to read how Orson Scott Card presents himself as the Official Apologizer for changes necessary to adapt a novel into a film.
As a multi-colored hair songstress once sang, “Money changes everything!”
Rene wrote:
>I never looked the same way again at that Ender
>book when the guy who had an affair with his own
>half-sister (but they didn’t knew they were
>siblings) ended up horribly paralyzed so he
>couldn’t continue the “sinful” affair. The first
>time I readed it without knowing about Card’s
>background it didn’t bothered me none. It was
>only in retrospect that I suspected that Card
>was harshly and self-righteously “punishing” the
>incest.
Rene, I doubt this was Card’s intention. One of Card’s children was a boy, Charlie Ben (now passed away), who had celebral palsey. Disabled characters figure in many of Card’s books, and the sex lives of the disabled characters have no relation to the cause of their disability.
Its my understanding that television is a totally different animal then novels. I see on the internet movie database that nr card has written and directed a video release movie called Remind Me Again. I am familiar with Mr. Card’s books, and I know star trek, but I’ve never heard of Remind Me Again. It is easy to bash star trek, but I would like to see Mr. Card come up with a television series that lasts 3 seasons. Then I would be happy to let him bìŧçh about Star Trek to his hearts content. As far as Roddenberrys rut, has he seen some of the drek that the sci-fi channel has produced over the last decade. Sure we have had our farscapes and battlestar galacticas, but snakehead terror? eep. I just think there are many more bìŧçh worthy things than Star trek.
JAC
on a more humorous note, Someone needs to pull the warp nacelle out of Card’s ášš.
JAC
This, coming from a man who’s written home many Ender novels?