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
• 
Money doesn’t change anything for Card (in regards to the Ender’s movie). It’s taken over a decade for the Ender’s Game movie to get made precisely because OSC refused to have major changes made to the script (for example, the first movie studio to buy the rights originally wanted to make Ender a teenager – Card actually lost a lot of money buying the rights to the film back from the studio).
>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.
Well, I’m the first one to admit that I can be paranoid when it comes to such things. Like I said in my post, before I knew of Mr. Card’s positions regarding politics and social issues, this particular plot point hadn’t bothered me none. So, I may be just seeing things. I’m very sensitive when it comes to such things as morality politics. I remain wary.
As far as this thread is concerned though, I think Card is right about Star Trek in particular and “media” SF in general. They smack of security and aversion to change and I agree with him that that is the very anti-thesis of science fiction.
“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.”
Okay, now he’s just weaseling. This isn’t Card’s first broadside at “Trek,” merely his most recent over a period of years. My heart doth not bleed.
And Michael, I don’t disagree that the interest in written SF has been waning. But that has jack-all to do with media SF, in my opinion. To me, the observation that people are reading less SF is akin to when Ted Sturgeon was asked about ninety percent of SF being crap, to which he replied that ninety percent of everything was crap, and thus was born Sturgeon’s Law. Reading is shrinking overall. Periodical circulation is spiraling, book sales are down overall, and people have been pondering why Johnny Can’t Read since the 1960s.
To say that media SF has drawn fans away from mainstream fandom is to presuppose that, if media SF did not exist, that fans would somehow have found their way on their own. With Americans reading less and less, I don’t entirely see on what that theory can conceivably be based. I simply don’t see the harm of media SF drawing in fans if even five percent of that fandom then is drawn into reading literary SF that they would just has likely never have come to on their own.
“Shore Leave” in Maryland had James Marsters as a guest a few years ago. All of a sudden, for the first time in years, the convention was packed to capacity and beyond, mostly with female teens who had never set foot in a convention before. Most of them planted themselves in the main programming room and sat there the whole day, waiting for Marsters. But a percentage of them became so involved in everything else they saw that they came back the next year.
What’s sad is that many editors share Card’s POV. When I was shopping “Sir Apropos of Nothing,” editor after editor stated that my current readership base “didn’t count.” Because fans of “Star Trek” wouldn’t be interested in fantasy, and as for comic book readers, why, comic book readers didn’t read normal books. People whose stock in trade is ostensibly imagination simply don’t have the imagination to believe that “Trek” fans can expand their interests beyond the “Enterprise.”
And I would be most interested to know how many “Trek” novels Card has actually read.
PAD
>Because fans of “Star Trek” wouldn’t be interested in fantasy, and as for comic book readers, why, comic book readers didn’t read normal books.
Real offensive and condescending of that editor guy. From personal experience, I think comic book readers are much more likely to pick up “normal books” than people who just don’t read anything besides the occasional magazine or sports page in the newspaper.
And as much as I personally dislike Star Trek and Star Wars, I also don’t think they have anything to do with “real SF” readership shrinking. SF readership was shrinking in the middle-70s already when Trek had been cancelled and Star Wars was still to come…
“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.”
Oh yeah, great choice. It would be an even better movie if one could go back and edit out some of the more dated segments–the musical numbers have that awful editing technique that happens when 50 year old directors try to be hip (Ralph Nelson also did the perfectly dreadful EMBRYO but he was the director of SOLDIER BLUE, which scars me to this day and was probably my first taste of an uncompromising gore film.)
Good call, David.
What Card points out as a flaw of Trek is more indicative of the desires of the AUDIENCE. And it’s that audience that goes out to seek material that fits their needs.
There’s nothing unique about that….written SF has had much of the same elements over the years, particularly in the pulp years. It’s only more apparent now as there’s more money flowing into SF books.
And I repeat my point above: “standard” written SF outnumbers media SF by at least 3 to5 to 1. And that volume wouldn’t have been there without the media SF.
Thomas Disch’s appraisal of Card — that he’s the Edgar Rice Burroughs of Generation X — has always stuck with me. I’ve enjoyed some of Card’s work, but someone whose work is dominated by audience-pleasing super-powered/super-intelligent children probably shouldn’t be lecturing the world on what adult sf should be. Whatever such a thing is, it’s a lot closer to the best of Trek than it is to Ender’s Game. Oh, wow, a super-powered child saves Earth by playing video games really good! That’s adult sf in a nutshell!
Cheers, Willie
Card sneering at Trek like that really isn’t terribly useful. He’s right that it owes more to 1930s SF than to the more cutting-edge SF being written today, but then so do Star Wars and most other space operas that make it to TV and film. This is not necessarily a bad thing, however, since such stuff is an easy and obvious entry point into SF those who might be daunted by the cutting edge stuff if i was the first thing they encountered. And if people don’t progress on from Trek to more challenging material, so what? Sometimes you want fillet mignon but other times a burger hits the spot, and Trek makes for perfectly good burgers. I’ve been reading SF books for decades and watching TV and movie sci-fi for as long. They scratch different itches, but I enjoy both on their own terms.
To the person who asked how the current DR WHO stacks up to the original, well I have to say I’m loving it, and I speak as someone who saw the very first episode broadcast over here the day afte JFK was assassinated, and who followed it every week thereafter (yes, I saw all those black and white episodes that have since been lost). The effects were much cruder than on Star Trek (there’s always been higher budgets on US shows) but I always preferred it to Trek since the scripts were usually darker and more quirky. Rather than the older 30 minute multi-parters, the new show has been made in the traditional US 42 minutes format with most episodes being self-contained episodes (though there is a series arc concerning the Timelords, whose fate has been gradually revealed as the season progresses), which only makes commercial sense and should help foreign sales. Some older fans have moaned about this, but I have no problem with it.
There’s a difference between UK and US SF TV series that’s always intrigued me. In the US, the protagonists are usually working for the military, or otherwise agents of the State – Trek, Stargate, Babylon 5 – whereas over here they’re more likely to be lone agents or actively opposing the State – Dr Who, Blakes 7 etc. Yes, I know there are counter-examples in both cases, but I think the general trend is as I’ve described it.
Sounds to me like Mr. Card had the best all-time ever idea for a Trek episode and then someone told him, “Dude, that just sucks.” So of COURSE it’s all crap.
I honestly find it hard to disagree with Card’s comments; Star Trek was been derrivative rubbish for years, a Paramount cash-cow that gets more embarrassing with every new incarnation. If Star Trek gets no respect from Card then it his eyes it hasn’t earned any and again I find myself unable to disagree with him. Its tiresome, repetative and totally uninspired. It strikes me that even the actors from the show are totally fed-up with it. May be it’s time to move on to something new.
Posted by Bill Mulligan at May 7, 2005 02:40 PM
“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.”
HA!
There’s also two breeds of Trek fans… Trekkers, which just watch the show, and the somehow much scarier Trekkies, which buy EVERYTHING associated with the show and dress in costumes. I’m more a casual Trekker, in that I’ll tune in if the plot sounds good (I skipped the slave girl story and the mirror universe twoparter, for example… Plus the entire original series…). But I absolutely LOATHE Star Wars and can’t pull up any interest in Dr. Who.
In any case, I fail to see why ANYONE ever feels that their fandom is superior to another. I’m a comic geek that loves anime and laughs every time the furry ep of CSI airs. Because we all hate those guys. They’re scarier than the obsessive Klingon fans that file their teeth.
The moment you say that one fandom is superior to another, you’ve lost perspective. The truth is, we’re all fans of IMAGINATION. Infinite variety in infinite forms.
I don’t scoff at Star Wars fans. I shrug, tell them to enjoy it, and move on. People prefer the original Trek? More power to them.
Now if only people would take the same thought track when they see that giant Power Rangers collection I have in the basement…
You know, you don’t stand up to a rude and arrogant person by fighting fire with fire.
Saying Ender’s Game is about a super-powered child saving Earth is equivalent to saying “Genocides”, Thomas Disch’s novel, is about giant plants invading Earth. In a way, it *IS* about giant plants invading Earth, but it’s also much more than that.
Card was a success due to his exploration of biology themes, his questions about ethics, and his characterization of young Ender. Those are what make Ender’s Game distinctive from many, many other “super-powered child saves Earth” stories.
As much as I lean much more towards Disch than Card in the political spectrum, I have to say Disch isn’t exactly a reliable and impartial critic IMO. If there is a guy that seems awfully bitter and envious of the “young guns” of the new generation of SF writers, this guy is Disch. He is as much an arrogant ***hole as Card was being when he attacked Trek.
(I mean, I agree with what he says about Trek, I just don’t care much for the way he says it).
>
You know, you don’t stand up to a rude and arrogant person by fighting fire with fire.
Saying Ender’s Game is about a super-powered child saving Earth is equivalent to saying “Genocides”, Thomas Disch’s novel, is about giant plants invading Earth. In a way, it *IS* about giant plants invading Earth, but it’s also much more than that.
Card was a success due to his exploration of biology themes, his questions about ethics, and his characterization of young Ender. Those are what make Ender’s Game distinctive from many, many other “super-powered child saves Earth” stories.
As much as I lean much more towards Disch than Card in the political spectrum, I have to say Disch isn’t exactly a reliable and impartial critic IMO. If there is a guy that seems awfully bitter and envious of the “young guns” of the new generation of SF writers, this guy is Disch. He is as much an arrogant ***hole as Card was being when he attacked Trek.
(I mean, I agree with what he says about Trek, I just don’t care much for the way he says it).
Disch comes across much like John Byrne to me, bashing anyone who dares to write science fiction not exactly in the way he would have written it and awfully jealous of other people’s sucess.
Another interesting way to look at it is take a look at NASA and othe aerospace companies and judge the number of folks there that like Star Trek. Nearly 90% in some cases would be my guess.
“Real offensive and condescending of that editor guy.”
Guys. And gals. Practically ALL of them said it.
“You know, you don’t stand up to a rude and arrogant person by fighting fire with fire.”
You…DON’T? And I’m just hearing about this NOW? All right, why wasn’t I informed of this YEARS ago?
PAD
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…
Umm, one note: the “Flinx and Pip” stories were by another three-name writer, Alan Dean Foster.
” Umm, one note: the “Flinx and Pip” stories were by another three-name writer, Alan Dean Foster”
Allan Dean Foster, Orson Scott Card…hey, unless you are some big name assassin (John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan Sirhan before he had it changed to just Sirhan Sirhan, Charles Nelson Reilly) you should just use two names like the rest of us.
PAD wrote:
‘What’s sad is that many editors share Card’s POV. When I was shopping “Sir Apropos of Nothing,” editor after editor stated that my current readership base “didn’t count.” Because fans of “Star Trek” wouldn’t be interested in fantasy, and as for comic book readers, why, comic book readers didn’t read normal books. People whose stock in trade is ostensibly imagination simply don’t have the imagination to believe that “Trek” fans can expand their interests beyond the “Enterprise.”‘
Are you serious? That’s pretty short sighted of those editors then. The Apropos series are a set of books I would NEVER have picked up if not for the fact PAD wrote them (I don’t read too much fantasy). 50% of the comics I read are by PAD, and I make it a point to read every book PAD writes too (even if it if was about the life and times of a bunch of tulips growing in a field, I’d still probably pre-order it from Amazon)
That makes them more narrow-minded than the readership base to which they refer if they think we are interested in one subject only.
There’s also two breeds of Trek fans… Trekkers, which just watch the show, and the somehow much scarier Trekkies, which buy EVERYTHING associated with the show and dress in costumes.
This distinction has made me chuckle for years. Outside of the hard core fan base, few people bother with it. The term Trekker was an attempt to say “I’m not THAT bad”. In my experience, however, since it’s primarily used inside of fandom, someone who says “I’m a Trekker, not a Trekkie” is usually much closer to the latter definition than they want to admit.
I’ve been a fan for 30 years. I own TOS and TNG on DVD, a few small trinkets, have been to maybe a dozen cons, have a couple of autographed photos in the drawer, and gotten in costume exactly once. I really don’t care if I’m called a Trekkie or a Trekker, because the label isn’t that important to me.
Wow. Nothing like trampling on someone’s sacred cow to get people riled up.
I used to watch Trek. Trek in the 60’s was campy, cheesy, and filled with 2-dimensional characters, but it was also fun. The Next Generation improved on the characters, but still had plenty of camp and cheese. DS9, IMHO, was the best of the Treks, because it dared to explore the idea that there were other people who didn’t want to be part of the Federation’s socialist utopia.
Voyager and Enterprise, though, were just completely unwatchable. Because the Trek machine has pumped out nothing but dreck over the past ten years or so, I’ve become turned off by the whole franchise system. I can’t watch any of it any more.
So, OSC doesn’t like Star Trek. Big deal. Not everyone has to like or even respect the things you like.
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.
Actually, I would say “The Truman Show” (as you analyze it) is the antithesis to the biblical story; it is not a biblical parable but a parable as you would prefer it was written in the Bible. The difference between the two does matter.
RE: Card
I love many of his books, but would agree that this was a childish rant against Star Trek. I don’t know what it is driving him, but it comes across as pet peevish as PAD’s rant about the oringal quote concering shouting “fire” in a theater.
Card’s last paragraphs were particularly intesting to me as he mentions Smallville, Buffy, and Firefly as examples of good Sci-fi. His comparing them to the orginal ST is absurd. Network standards, viewer demands, and the overall culture (including Star Wars and other movie sci-fi) has radically changed. I think ST stretched people at the time more than many contemporary shows.
Comparing Card’s woldview to that of Star Trek’s, there are some significant differences. Rodenberry’s original vision of a utopian future is a compelling hope, but does not fit with the human nature we observe around us. I love Star Trek, but I find many of Card’s books more compelling in their portrayal of the journey a character takes to being a better person. It is a shame that Card had to stoop to a childish rant rather than deal with whatever is really bugging him. I don’t care if he hates Star Trek (or if some of you hate Card’s books), it is a matter of opinion. But if he doesn’t know the reason why, then he is just being reactionary and not helping bring about an improvement he seems to desire.
Live Long and Prosper,
Iowa Jim
I wonder if in other genre fandoms there is this kind of missionary sectionalism? Are fans of contemporary crime authors mad at e.g. the success of “Murder She Wrote” seeing that that series perpetuated the clichés and convention of old-style (Agatha Christie) whodunits? Do fans of Clint Eastwood westerns have it in for Zane Grey buffs (or vice versa)? Some of the positions taken in this respect does strike me as almost a “follower of the true faith vs. the unwashed heathen” kind of attitude (most participants in this thread excepted, of course 😉 ).
One thing that does seem to be more pronounced in when debating “good science-fiction” than e.g. in discussing “good crime fiction”, “good horror” or even “good literature” is the (to some extent subconscious) view that good writing from the present is better than good writing from the past. Not necessarily because of more sophisticated literary styles or ways of looking at the world (at least as far as writing goes, most of science-fiction tends to be on the conservative side), but because old science-fiction stories may have been overtaken by technological progress (obviously a view especially prevalent among devotees and practitioners of “hard s/f”). Yet in the wider context of literature, I do not get the impression that today’s “top” science-fiction writers may be less well recognized than their forbears a hundred years ago (Jules Verne – who was admired by Tolstoy, Turgeniev and Proust, for instance and who died in 1905 – and H.G. Wells come to mind). At which point did s/f become a literary ghetto and scholars start to say that if it’s science-fiction its not real literature, and if it’s “good literature” (e.g. Brave New World or 1984), it’s not science-fiction? Still, at least for me, Jules Verne was probably the author who first got me interested in reading science-fiction. (That, and a certain TV series launched in September 1966 – no, not Star Trek, but the West German production “Raumpatrouille” (space patrol), the first episode of which was aired nine days after the first ST episode, but which ran for just one season of seven episodes).
But Star Trek fandom devours books that return them to the SAME world, the SAME “characters,” the same experience, over and over.
I’m guessing that Card hasn’t actually seen or read much in the way of Star Trek then.
And, to even begin to lump Star Wars in there? Somebody needs to tell the guy that SW is space fantasy. Science fiction doesn’t even apply.
I guess he would have of approved of the Early incarnations of Doctor Who, which was low budget and never took itself too seriously.
I meant “would not,” cursed typo gremlin.
>At which point did s/f become a literary ghetto and scholars start to say that if it’s science-fiction its not real literature, and if it’s “good literature” (e.g. Brave New World or 1984), it’s not science-fiction?
In the 20s, I suppose, with the science fiction magazines, SF literature became a whole paralell world, beneath the radars of the “proper” literary establishment (though some would cross this chasm, like Kurt Vonegut Jr).
I suppose this chasm is a good thing, as proper literature became more and more inward-looking, with post-modernist emphasis on form instead of content (after all, one of the tenets of post-modern lit is that the ‘real’ can’t ever be captured into words, so what is the point?), while SF has remained “commercial”, thank God.
There was a discussion on Neil Gaiman’s site about “Dantes” (artsy writers) and “Beowulfs” (genre writers, including SF) that is cool to show how huge a divide there is between “writers” and “writers”.
Menshevik raises an interesting question. I think that part of the problem is that it is (or at least was) easy to be successful in the Science Fiction and Horror genres even if one was not a particularly terrific writer, as long as one had a good solid premise. The fiction could be weak as long as the science was sufficiently intriguing.
“And, to even begin to lump Star Wars in there? Somebody needs to tell the guy that SW is space fantasy. Science fiction doesn’t even apply.”
Is the science in Star Wars really all that less plausible than that in Star Trek? What makes one more science fiction than the other? Not trying to argue with you, but I’ve heard this before and wondered what the big difference between SF and Space Fantasy really is.
“Menshevik raises an interesting question. I think that part of the problem is that it is (or at least was) easy to be successful in the Science Fiction and Horror genres even if one was not a particularly terrific writer, as long as one had a good solid premise. The fiction could be weak as long as the science was sufficiently intriguing.”
Was. I believe from the 1960s onward you couldn’t become a hit in the SF field only by having intriguing ideas. Relativelly solid storytelling craft was required too. Nowadays, even the writers of “harder” sf are no slouches when it comes to tell stories. Greg Bear comes to mind.
“Is the science in Star Wars really all that less plausible than that in Star Trek? What makes one more science fiction than the other? Not trying to argue with you, but I’ve heard this before and wondered what the big difference between SF and Space Fantasy really is.”
I don’t think it’s only about the plausibility of the hard science involved. SF has been lauded as a literature of ideas and theories, and in Star Trek (without going into the quality or depth of it), there are attempts to explore ideas about society, about our future, about alien contact, etc.
While Star Wars is simply an action-adventure story (also without going into a discussion about quality), a modern fairy tale…
Alan Dean Foster, Orson Scott Card – neither one of them writes well, in my personal opinion…
Hey, if he’s going to try comparing Star Trek (and even Star Wars) to classic science fiction, doesn’t that mean I get to compare his work to, say, Robert Heinlen and Harlan Ellison?
Earlier in the thread, someone had mentioned the Outer Limits.
I love the earlier series, filmed in black and white, with such fine episodes as “Demon With A Glass Hand”, “Adam Link”, and “The Architects of Fear.”
Filmed on a shoestring budget, I enjoyed the performance of Vic Perrin as the Control Voice, who would add to the denouement of each episode (which always implied hope for the future, whether or not the characters got through it unscathed).
Steve Chung
SF has been lauded as a literature of ideas and theories, and in Star Trek (without going into the quality or depth of it), there are attempts to explore ideas about society, about our future, about alien contact, etc.
While Star Wars is simply an action-adventure story (also without going into a discussion about quality), a modern fairy tale…
That’s about what I figured but given that sort of criteria, an awful lot of Science Fiction is mislabeled. Hard to really see the exploration of ideas in THEM or INVASION OF THE SAUCERMEN other than “Big ants would be a very bad thing indeed.” and “There are saucermen! And they are invading!” respectively.
Are superhero movies technically SF?
It is sad and very regrettable that so many editors have the prejudices PAD has to deal with but unfortunately I can`t say that I am surprised. Sometimes I think certain producers are living in a different world. British magazines described in sometimes shocking detail what problems JMS had, especially with Crusade, of course. Things like (roughly) that the new pilot had to start with a fist fight in order to satisfy WWF fans. I also remember something JMS said what he experienced with Jeremiah (roughly) when he was told: “I don`t care if she can act. What counts is her looks.”
Fortunately the Star Trek book editors who post on the net are fans themselves which makes a huge difference here!
With me personally, it is the other way round: When I like the work of a media SF writer I am much more likely to read a non-media book written by him or her as well. Without knowing PAD`s work from Star Trek I would never have tried the Apropos and Knight novels I bought and read.
Media SF has one big advantage: People buying it have a pretty good idea what to expect. They know the characters, they know the world they are living in. All they have to find out is if they like the writing style of the author in question. When you have no idea at all what non-media books offer, you simply don`t know where to start looking. Not only do you have no idea if you like the writing style, you have no idea if you will be able to find an emotional connection with the characters, if you find the topic of the book appealing to you and what SF style it is after all. You would need a lot of time, a lot of trial and error in order to find what you like and many people are simply not prepared to invest that. It is also that media SF, like Trek books, offers already more than enough new releases in order to keep you busy reading.
Thanks to recommendations I read a few other non-media SF but I will always be a media reader who only occasionally reads something else. I don`t have much time for reading and I prefer to have a good idea right away if I find the book at least interesting.
Mr. David,
Thanks for this.
pkb
That’s about what I figured but given that sort of criteria, an awful lot of Science Fiction is mislabeled.
I wouldn’t say that as much as it seems that ‘fantasy’ is a more recent term that better applies to some of this stuff.
It’s why it’s so easy to put the two under one general genre of “sci-fi & fantasy”, because they overlap so much, or, as some do, consider fantasy a subgenre of sci-fi (or vise versa).
PAD,
Yes, it is amazing how clueless some editors can be about their potential readership, and it is downright depressing how many children – or people in general – don’t bother to read, if they can at all. Which is why I am constantly excited by things like Harry Potter or ANYTHING that gets people – especially at a young age – interested in reading.
I don’t care if it’s superhero comics or manga or Harlequain romances or – gasp – a newspaper.
Just SOMETHING.
I got into TREK via SF as the former didn’t start until I was in junior high and I was already a voracious SF reader by then. I think Card is wrong, but also somewhat right.
While there were many delightful, terrific, well-done (and one hilarious) episodes in the original series, let’s face it, there also were some cringe-inducing, Godawful moments. JOURNEY TO EDEN (or whatever it was called, I’ve avoided it for many years) for example: a bunch of space hippies take over a Star Fleet capital ship of the line? Kirk should have lost his command over that one.
As for STAR WARS, one person’s comment about it being terrible SF misses the point there, too. Lucas has repeatedly stated that it ISN’T science fiction. It was never meant to be. It is space opera. Fantasy with ray guns. But NOT SF.
An above post read:
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.
Puh-lease. ST and SW combined brought more people into SF then anything else in the last 30 years and a whole lot of those people became fans of all sorts of other SF and more then a few starting reading the ST or SW novels and that lead them in turn to reading other books like ST or SW and then beyond.
Do you have factions in our little corner of fandom? Yeah. But what doesn’t? Do you have Trek fans who like Trek and have no use for anything else SF because it’s not Trek or is “ripping Trek off” (a charge aimed at B5 more then once.) Sure. But, again, what doesn’t? Comics for years have had “Marvel zombies” for whom anything other then Marvel was below them, Anime snobs abound, horror has its hardcores for old school VS new (Dawn of the Dead remake debates ring a bell anyone?), Britcom have followers who will state as a matter of fact that no American comedy has ever been as clever or as funny as the best Britcoms, classic lit snobs pop up like weeds, more then a few readers in any genre have been known to give a coworker reading a romance novel a hard time and I know people for whom “wasting the time” to read a book that’s fiction rather then biography, history or informational is something they can’t fathom.
But you know what? I’ve seen a hëll of a lot more people out there who like lots of different things all at once and love to share it with others as well as learn a bit of new stuff on the way. And the biggest population of people who like to share that I’ve ever met fall under the SF fandom tag as a whole and lots of them call ST or SW their faves of all time.
Interest in written SF fandom has been declining? Yes it is. Interest in written anything is on the decline. Comics sales are down a bit, newspapers are almost all showing lower sales figures, some of the best selling magazines in the U.S. right now are made more for looking at then reading (Maxum, Stuff, FHM, etc) and other genres of books are feeling the same effects you point out for SF writings. Looked at the news lately? Entire sories about how READING is down in America. Hate to tell you but it’s not ST or SW that did that. As matter of fact I’ll bet more then a few $$$ that without the creations of ST or SW (or a like series in their place) that there would be fewer people reading SF now. Do I have a study or stats to show this? No. Nor do you for your statements. But what I do have is a whole lot of personal experience and years of meet and greets with SF fanatics like myself who’ve said that ST or SW started them down the SF road. And that includes SF readers.
Now to OSC himself. Who cares? He doesn’t like ST. Big whoop. He, like so many other, seems to miss a point. Not all SF needs to be the types of stories that make you sit and ponder the meaning of life after you put it down or finish watching it. Some SF can be mindless fun or quick little popcorn movies as well. The people I come across that say stuff like OSC did tend to be the types who feel the need to defend their love of SF by pointing out that “those people and that suff” doesn’t really count and isn’t real SF. To these people I always say the same thing. Stop worrying about it, like what you like and quit spitting venom at “those people.” If you don’t like it then don’t watch, read or listen to it on your time. And if you just hate it so much that the sight of it or of people that enjoy it and express that bothers you so much then stay the f**k home and leave the conventions and get togethers to the people who want to share their love of the entire genre (stinkers to masterpeices) with others who feel the same or come, see what you want to see, wear blinders around the rest and let everyone else enjoy what they love.
I’ve no problems with anyone at a convention or event speaking their mind about why they think something could have been done better or could be improved. I have no problem with someone telling me that something I like/love they can’t stand (my wife and I love a lot of the same “upscale” SF but even she won’t slog through Killer Klowns from Outer Space with me.) But, please, if all you are going to do is throw insults at something and the people that love it or try to explain to people who don’t/won’t really get into SF entertainment anyhow why the stuff that you don’t like, no matter how popular, doesn’t count like the stuff you wish was more popular then go somewhere else or, better yet, try speaking on something that you love and want to share instead without acting like a snobish prìçk.
Out
Hard to really see the exploration of ideas in THEM….
Given when it was originally made, there’s plenty of subtext about the dangers mankind can visit upon itself in the newborn nuclear age.
Hey PAD,
Funny, I’ve always felt the same way about “The Truman Show.” It’s great SF. Jim Carrey seems to have a knack for him, as “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” was also stellar. It’s a shame he hasn’t won an Oscar by now.
The bottom line is that whatever the subject being discussed, there are ALWAYS going to be pompous jáçkáššëš whose whole sense of self worth is tied up in convincing themselves (since they rarely manage to convince others) how much better than other people they are, even within their own peer group. *shrug* Best to just let them piss and moan, nod occasionally, pat them on the head, say “that’s nice,” and send them on their way.
-Rex Hondo-
Hasn’t WON an Oscar? I don’t think he’s even been nominated.
PAD
In my mind one big issue is the idea of what constitutes a genre, and whether a particular story or series of stories exemplifies or transcends said genre.
I used to read a lot of sci-fi, especially Card. But as I aged I stopped looking for stories in a specific genre and instead looked for good stories regardless of Genre or convention (I haven’t read any of Card’s work in many years now simply because his work doesn’t entertain me as it used to). I have a hard time understanding the people who pigeon whole themselves into one specific ideal for any genre. I have never really been a start trek fan, and think of Star Wars as the ultamite soap opera, but I have nothing against them. I just don’t spend my time and money watching or reading the associated stories because they don’t appeal to my general sensabilites. I love comic books, but I’ve also been straying away from most sci-fi series and heading over to the comics (without trying to make a poor over generalization) with a more independent mindset (Mr. David’s work being an exeption, I’m still lamenting YJ turning into the Teen titans).
But It’s the story that grabs me, not the genre. One of my favorite books is Hard boiled Wonderland and the End of the World. by Haruki Murakami. I would consider it to be Sci-fi, but I’m sure there are others that wouldn’t. The important thing is not what genre it is or how it adheres to the genre rules, rather how good the story is (ahh bad grammar, but I’m lazy).
If an episode tells a good story then that’s all there is, all other critique is pointless. Card should quite gripping and go back to writing good stories.
Fandom is a strange thing for me. A lot of it doesn’t make sense when I really think about it. I mean, how often can people get together and talk about the same thing? How many “Bendis rulz” or “Bendis sux” discussions can we possibly have before everybody’s had their say and they don’t want to talk about it anymore? The answer: Infinite.
But it’s not really about what’s being said, is it? It’s about having someone to say it to. I think the quality of the original Star Trek is debatable–they had a few real gems, but a lot of those episodes were forgetable. Mindwipeable even. The weirdest thing about fandom, though, is that people will continue to like it and support it even when it’s really bad. How on earth did Voyager get a full seven seasons anyway? There’s no way Seven of Nine’s bra was big enough to support the show.
I think it’s great that Star Trek and Star Wars and other sci-fi shows brought so many people together… but it’s so big that I just can’t fathom it. I wouldn’t be the person I am today if I hadn’t gotten wrapped up in the Gargoyles fandom–that Disney show from a few years back. Most of the people I talk to online can be traced back to that. But I still don’t get fandom. It’s way too big.
All I can say is: Star Trek and Star Wars are both ending forever within 5 days of each other.
Needless to say, I’m on 24 hour suicide watch.
I read Card’s piece in the Oregonian. At the end he says that Smallville is well written SF.
What the hëll?
I’ve watched every episode, and I have no idea what the hëll is going on. And talk about non-progression of characters. “Clark has amnesia? – again?”
(Okay – I watch because every episode Tom Welling rips his shirt off. I also like it when he runs really fast. )
“Not only do you have no idea if you like the writing style, you have no idea if you will be able to find an emotional connection with the characters, if you find the topic of the book appealing to you and what SF style it is after all. You would need a lot of time, a lot of trial and error in order to find what you like and many people are simply not prepared to invest that.”
Okay, I’m NOT spoiling for a fight here, but whenever I hear this sort of argument I can’t help but think this is a little… too lazy? After all, there are lots of places where you can go to get info on every subject conceivable.
As a rule, I despise reviewers and critics, but after a while you learn how to read reviews and separate what is the reviewer personal oppinion from what the book is about and get a reasonable idea whether it’s your stuff or not.
In this day and age of the Internet, all this is just some seconds away from you, friend.
Media tie-in books, dunno, I think most of them suck, but then again 90% of everything sucks, right? So there must be 10% out there that are good. I really liked that Incredible Hulk novel Mr. David wrote some years ago.
But the reason I’m not into media is that I don’t form such strong connections with characters. I may love Amazing Spider-Man when writer X is doing the title, but I’ll go away when it’s another writer, and there is no particular reason I’ll pick up a Spider-Man novel over any other sort of novel…
To me it’s about the writer, more than it’s about the characters or the setting. If I like a novel by a writer, I’ll probably like his other novels too, no matter if now he is venturing into post-holocaust horror when before he was into space opera SF…
How on earth did Voyager get a full seven seasons anyway? There’s no way Seven of Nine’s bra was big enough to support the show.
Yes. Yes it was.
Well, Im surprised he said that (Card). Thats 2 bad i really liked his Ultimate Iron Man. oh well, off the list he goes….
“All I can say is: Star Trek and Star Wars are both ending forever within 5 days of each other.”
Forever is quite a strong word, especially considering that both have a strong ongoing expanded universe in the realm of novels and comics, some of which is admittedly mediocre, but some of which is quite good, certainly better than some of the most recent “official canon” offerings.
OSC’s comments really aren’t all that much to get riled up about, since he’s little more than a pretentious prìçk who hasn’t actually bothered to learn the facts. New Frontier, IKS Gorkon and (to a lesser extent) continuation of Deep Space Nine are all very entertaining series that try to move outside that comfortable cocoon of familiarity. The same thing with the X-Wing series and Tales of the Jedi series. (On a side note, if it weren’t for franchise work, I never would have discovered PAD, Michael Stackpole, or Robert Jordan, among others.)
So, you can put the safety back on the shotgun and return the antifreeze to the garage. ST and SW aren’t ending. They’ll be continuing in the same form in which many people have been following them for decades anyway.
-Rex Hondo-
All I can say is: Star Trek and Star Wars are both ending forever within 5 days of each other.
Except, they’re likely not (for Trek) and not at all (for Star Wars).
Star Trek will be back (whether it’s good or utter crap), and Lucas has already announced small-screen projects for Star Wars.