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
• 
PAD wrote: “The first time I saw the name “Harlan Ellison” was on the credits of “City.”
Jeff Frawley wrote: “PAD: If my first awareness of Harlan Ellison’s name were from a Star Trek script, I think I would keep that information to myself. Rather than demonstrating the cultural significance of Star Trek, this fact only demonstrates your nonfamiliarity (at that time) with his work for at least a decade prior to the writing of that script.”
I think it should be pointed out that assuming PAD first saw “City” when it originally aired in 1967, he would have been about 10-years-old at the time. It’s entirely conceivable that at age 10, he hadn’t yet been exposed to Ellison’s written body of work (or not much of it).
Or take this example: When I was 11 or 12, I bought a book of cartoons called _Star Jaws_, which parodied _Star Wars_. The author was Will Eisner, but the name didn’t mean anything to me at the time, because I hadn’t yet begun to really collect comics; and, in fact, my first exposure to _The Spirit_ wasn’t until C. 1982 or later.
I don’t think it’s unrealistic that kids of 10 or 12 would have a limited knowledge of writers and/or artists more familiar to adults.
Rick
I strongly agree that “Terra Prime” was a much better ending for ENT than “The Pegasus: The Re-tooled Edition!” Even Riker’s resolution to “tell the Captain everything” was invalidated by the fact that the ship had to be in danger before he REALLY made his decision!
If “These are the Voyages…” had to be told as a flashback ep, why couldn’t it have been a Starfleet Academy exercise or a class lecture visual aid? At least we could appreciate what was happening from a “historical” perspective without being distracted by “familiar faces” (and voices) screwing up continuity “for the sake of the fans!”
I’d be very interested to read PAD’s take on this episode in his next entry.
Sure, there is no shame in PAD not knowing about Harlan Ellison prior to the Star Trek episode – nor is there any significance to the fact that he saw his name there. Everyone has to have a first exposure to a particular thing, but that signifies nothing. My first exposure to PAD’s name was in the credits of the Incredible Hulk comparatively early in his run: That is not significant to whether the run was good or what significance it has to the whole of his career. Some critical argument would be necessary to establishing anything about that. PAD and many others appear to be scandalized that OSC does not like Star Trek, and their argument is seemingly: “I like Star Trek, and it has such and such emotional significance to me, so obviously OSC has no business disagreeing.” Well, here is my opinion: I like Star Trek, although I am less enthusiastic than is PAD; I also recognize that some people do not feel quite so much affection for the Star Trek continuum: Somehow, I can live with this information, and do not need unanimity of opinion to be comfortable with my life.
While not a mind reader, from PAD’s choice of quotes from OSC’s article I inferred that PAD didn’t so much take issue with his not liking Trek. It was his insulting tone, obvious unfamiliarity with the bulk of Trek material, and smug sense of superiority being a “real” science fiction author.
I don’t think there’s an adult on this board that honestly care whether or not anybody likes the same entertainments as them, but I (and others, I’ll wager) don’t feel the need to tolerate being talked down to.
-Rex Hondo-
I don’t want to stretch this out further than necessary, but any adult who posts on and/or reads the internet should not be surprised at being talked down to. It happens all the time. It can be seen as “lively discussion” (If you agree with it or are spared its scorn). Less charitably, its just the ravings of someone you can be glad you don’t really know.
My own criticism of PAD is entirely because he very frequently calls on those who disagree with him to be quiet.
My own criticism of PAD is entirely because he very frequently calls on those who disagree with him to be quiet.
Funny, the only “calls” I see are against those who directly insult him.
My own criticism of PAD is entirely because he very frequently calls on those who disagree with him to be quiet.
Which is exactly why the likes of Bill Mulligan and Jerome Maida are never found here anymore.
“Which is exactly why the likes of Bill Mulligan and Jerome Maida are never found here anymore.”
Hopefully I’ll do something in life that will make for a better obit headline than “Bill Mulligan, constant thorn in side, dies in tragic yet freakishly amusing fire-ant mishap.”
But yeah, PAD has been pretty cool by me. Maybe Jeffrey was thinking of some OTHER well known comic book writer.
“My own criticism of PAD is entirely because he very frequently calls on those who disagree with him to be quiet.”
See, where my own criticism of fans is that they say things that are patently false.
PAD
Mr. David, you should reread your own website. The stream this appears in regards your calls for Orson Scott Card to stop criticizing Star Trek, since you like it and have met women and indirectly fathered (presumably very excellent) daughters because of it. Admittedly, all I have gotten out of Star Trek is a large number of hours of enjoyment, so you’ve got me beat there. I would just encourage you to imagine what your reaction would be if someone claimed you did not have a right to express your opinions, because that person thought you were a moron or a rude jerk. I think you would say such a person was out of line to call for your silence. I am referring to Orson Scott Card here. My respect for you goes only so far as thinking a lot of your writing is quite good. When it comes to the social graces, I judge for myself, rather than deferring to your opinion. What would impress me in a response to Card’s very intemperate comments would be something along the lines of a rebuttal: “OCD is wrong, because —- .” You are an able writer, and obviously capable of framing an argument; In this case, you did not. I can only assume that you felt the “argument” you offered was sufficient, but I don’t see any argument there, only intolerance of an opposing opinion.
No, Jeffrey, he disagreed with Card. Stated a wish that Card had showed fans a little more respect. But nowhere in his post did he tell Card to ‘shut up’. (to quote a popular conservative talk-host)
There’s a huge difference between expressing disagreement with something someone says, and being intolerant of their right to express themselves.
Or in other words…Card has a right to express himself, but he doesn’t have a right to express himself free from opposing views. Nor does PAD. Nor anyone else.
“So Mr Card…how about a little gøddámņ respect, okay?” PAD, May 7
“‘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? Allright, why wasn’t I told about this YEARS ago?'” PAD May 7
I didn’t say these things, PAD did. If I were to put such statements in his mouth, it would be very insulting and uncalled for. The first quote is a demand for “respect” (lockstep agreement?) from OSC without providing any persuasive argument for such a thing. The second quote is a gleeful and presumably sarcastic acknowledgement that PAD had been acting in a “rude and arrogant” manner for years. I really can’t say that I know this to be the case, but I am willing to take his word for it this time.
“So Mr Card…how about a little gøddámņ respect, okay?” PAD, May 7
“‘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? Allright, why wasn’t I told about this YEARS ago?'” PAD May 8
I didn’t say these things, PAD did. If I were to put such statements in his mouth, it would be very insulting and uncalled for. The first quote is a demand for “respect” (lockstep agreement?) from OSC without providing any persuasive argument for such a thing. The second quote is a gleeful and presumably sarcastic acknowledgement that PAD had been acting in a “rude and arrogant” manner for years. I really can’t say that I know this to be the case, but I am willing to take his word for it this time.
Sorry, I put the wrong date for the second quote when I posted a few seconds ago. Mea culpa.
“I would just encourage you to imagine what your reaction would be if someone claimed you did not have a right to express your opinions, because that person thought you were a moron or a rude jerk.”
Well,first of all, people HAVE said that any number of times. Particularly in instances where I’ve criticized the government, I’ve been told to shut up, that I’m unpatriotic, that in expressing disagreement with the government I was undermining our fighting men, etc., etc., ad nauseam.
Now as for you: I never told Card to shut up. Stating that I thought someone should show more respect than they were is not remotely the same as trying to silence them. I never said he didn’t have the right to say whatever he wants. In fact, when someone said they were going to cease supporting Card’s work because of his opinions, I told them I felt that they were wrong to do so.
So basically, everything you said was flat out wrong. And yet, here I am, not telling you to shut up or stopping you from writing insulting things about me on my own blog. What a bášŧárd am I.
And your attempt to hold up my joke about fighting fire with fire as anything other than a joke is just plain pathetic.
PAD
PAD: It was foolish of me to think I would convince you of anything. It is my impression, based on the words of an experienced and intelligent writer (you) that you did more than say Card should show more respect. If I were reacting to someone with limited communication skills, I would think it very likely the person meant well but couldn’t express himself well. With you, that does not seem likely. Writing is your profession, and the largest part of your work that I know shows very good facility with language and reason. As for your “joke,” what is amusing is that you did not recognize the accuracy of your statement about yourself, but rather felt everyone would think you very clever for saying what you did. What is pathetic is the assurance that, because you meant it to be taken as nothing but a joke, no one can draw extremely obvious conclusions from your statement. If I had found your remark funny, I probably would have had an easier time accepting it as a joke.
What I have said about you is insulting in the respect that I pointed out your words and actions and did not accept your own slant on them. My remarks about calling you “a moron or a rude jerk” were clearly statements that such an attack would be inappropriate. I believe, but realize that you do not, that your comments about OSC are analogous to that level of abuse, and I meant to express that in terms of how you would respond if someone were so dismissive of you. I have made no assumption that you are “rude and arrogant,” save being willing to take you at your word if you proclaim yourself to be so.
By the way, I have not enjoyed anything by Orson Scott Card since Ender’s Game. I do not even disagree with your belief that he should not have written what he did, but only with the easy assumptions that because Star Trek meant something to you it was obviously due great deference and that opposing positions were disrespectful.
I regret the loss of your cat, and would never wish such a thing on anyone.
It was foolish of me to think I would convince you of anything.
It’s also foolish of PAD to think that you’re going to grasp what he’s trying to say, apparently.
What you are trying to say is that you are correct and should always be understood as being in the right. Is there some misunderstanding there?
Since when is respect lockstep agreement?
It’s very easy to respect someone you disagree with. As it is easy to be disrespectful to someone who agrees with you. The two are unrelated.
“Is there some misunderstanding there?”
Actually, I understand you perfectly: From your snide comments about how I should “keep it to myself” that I was unaware of the work of Ellison for ten years previous to “City,” without bothering to consider the fact that Ellison doesn’t write a lot of material aimed at ten year olds, to your varied unsupportable contentions about how I conduct myself on this board, to your blatant misstatements or misconstruing of just about everything I’ve said…because of all that, you’ve made your intentions abundantly clear.
If you actually read my initial posting, you’ll notice that my dispute with Card was less over the quality of “Star Trek” as it was with his dismissal of the positive impact it had on fandom. The “respect” I felt he should show was for what is, to my mind, Trek’s positive impact on the growth of fandom…a fandom that doubtless includes readers of Orson Scott Card’s work. In short…I was defending the fans from what I felt was a dismissive and arrogant attitude on Card’s part.
But rest assured: If Card happens to single out one Jeffrey Frawley for condemnation, I will remain silent lest some consider me intolerant.
PAD
Is there any reason to expect respect from someone who disagrees with you? Is it at all likely you will get it from someone to whom you have said “…how about a little gøddámņ respect, okay?” If I were OSC, I would not find anything in PAD’s “argument” to make me repent my sinful ways. I might also add that it might be a little egotistical to believe that his meeting two women and fathering four girls qualifies as evidence of Star Trek being “the single greatest contributor to the perpetuation of SF fandom in general.” Some claim that these accomplishments are partial evidence, rather than conclusive proof, of Star Trek’s social significance. In any case, whether it is well-liked is not exactly the same thing as proof of its quality. I think PAD, in this case, was sloppy in his thinking, as he was preaching to the choir here, and didn’t really need to make a good argument in order to get numerous heads bobbing.
Jeffery, you’re really not getting it. The “respect” is for the contributions of Star Trek, not for Peter himself (or maybe I’m not getting it). Heck, I normally disagree with Peter on just about everything, but lambasting Trek (especially seeming to do so with today’s sensibilities on yesterday’s show) really is a slanted view.
Peter didn’t say Card should shut up, he was saying he disagreed and why. Nothing wrong or hypocritical about it. If I told you to show some respect, it wouldn’t mean “go back and change what you wrote or erase what you wrote” it would be a comment on your attitude.
This just isn’t a horse worth beating (especially when you only have to hang around here for a little while to find a horse that IS suitable for beating). 🙂
Calling for “a little gøddámņ respect,” whether for Star Trek or himself, is abusive. That PAD doesn’t think so is of no relevance whatsoever.
As a professional writer who has a good command of the English language, PAD can reasonably be expected to have enough reading comprehension to understand simply stated comments. “I think I would keep that information to myself” is what I said. PAD, are you saying that I am not allowed to have that preference? I would have found it irrelevant to any coherent argument that I did not know Harlan Ellison’s work prior to his work on Star Trek. As an example, it is perfectly true that I did not have any familiarity with Shakespeare before the early- to mid-1960s (I was born in 1959). This neither diminishes nor advances any possible argument about Shakespeare’s qualities; It supplies insignificant and irrelevant detail. I did not say you should keep it to yourself, but questioned the significance of such minutiae by declaring that I found it irrelevant to the argument you purported to be making. If you were to say that I did, that would be your very first unquestionable lie I have found in this stream. You have been very vocal about saying you would not approve of telling people what they have a right to say. Surely they are also allowed to hold opinions of their own and deem arguments valid or not on their own authority. Your argument that Star Trek’s fans are due some respect could certainly be made: You are entirely capable of framing such an argument in a convincing manner. I believe that anecdotes about your marriages and fatherhood are potentially entertaining, and certainly within your right to say whatever you want. I also believe that they are completely irrelevant to whether Star Trek, its writers, actors, producers, fans and merchandisers are due whatever degree of respect you deem correct. If I called on you to think, speak, act and feel differently from your preferences, wouldn’t you think I should just “keep it to myself”? I certainly would, but want to be careful not to put words into your mouth.
What this all comes down to is this: PAD calls on OSC to show respect for Star Trek/Trek fans/Trek writers/Trek actors because – PAD likes Star Trek and has many fond memories intimately connected with the show and its fandom. I ask this: What has PAD said that should be persuasive to OSC? Why, after calling for “a little gøddámņ respect” (by the way, many Mormons, which OSC is, and I definitely am not, would consider such cursing very DISRESPECTFUL – perhaps blasphemous) does PAD believe he, as a surrogate and spokesman for Trek and its associates, can command such a thing?
If I had ever found any evidence that PAD has some small degree of respect for other people’s opinions, I would give him much more of the benefit of the doubt on awkward and unconvincing arguments. If I thought him too foolish or uneducated to express himself coherently, that would also merit forebearance. Unfortunately, I am convinced that he is no more than a clever fellow who thinks too highly of himself and is thoroughly incapable of recognizing that HE is at least as disrespectful and irreverent as OSC. OSC is a writer who does not think highly of a property PAD likes. PAD is a writer who does not think highly of OSC for daring to disagree with his own prejudice. Where is the moral high ground here?
OK Jeffrey,
Let me try since you don’t wanna get what PAD and others are saying (over & over & over again.)
First: Go find a complete transcript of OSC’s remarks.
Second: Go back to the top of this thread and reread PAD’s post.
Back yet? Good. First problem with your statements is bringing up “quality” and that PAD was the one who disagrees with OSC. The OSC & PAD comments from above are…
OSC “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.”
PAD “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.”
Trek was fun but it was never the “high art” standard of SF. It was the summer popcorn movie of SF TV. A lot of Trek fans will admit this. And that’s not a bad thing to be.
An SF TV show aimed at the people who only want their SF to be the deep, meaning of life, high art version will make a good one off or mini but will die fast on the nets. Sad thing about anything made for TV is that it has to attract a large group of viewers and the product will be watered down to appeal to the largest numbers. OSC and others can hold their noses and bash Trek (and other SF TV) as “not real SF” or as a poor man’s version of SF while holding their own work and their faves up because you don’t have to sell anywhere near the number of copies of a book to make it a best seller as you have to have veiwers to keep a show on the air.
Was a whole lot of Trek “average” as far as SF standards. Yeah. But it was almost always a hëll of a lot of fun and dámņëd entertaining “average” SF. Sometimes it even managed to pull off a few well above average SF stories as well. It also created a lot of charecters that a lot of people grew to like. That’s a combo that’s going to bring people back and grow a fan base.
The thing I (and others) disagree with OSC about is that he feels the need to insult Trek and the fans of Trek in order to make the point of how great other SF is. It’s the “this is garbage, anyone who likes it can’t be that bright and is so much less then I” attitude that grates.
I’m a fan of Trek but didn’t like the last two shows. Whenever I spoke about the last two show I kept my comments (unless joking with friends) to the topic off why it wasn’t to my liking or how I thought it could have been/could be better. I can listen to, respect and even debate with someone who is pointing out those things about something I like that they don’t as well. But I have little respect for some one who uses the “it’s stoopid and you’re stoopid for liking it because I’m smart and I think it’s stoopid so I’m better then you” tactic that most of us grew out of in the 4th or 5th grade. Don’t tell me I’m stupid just because I have different tastes then you and expect me to not point out that you’re a jáçkášš.
PAD: “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.”
That comment has nothing to do with PAD’s family (personal note on how it impacted his life aside.) It’s a point blank fact. Don’t think so? Star Trek, Star Wars and maybe Doctor Who to a lesser degree are the three biggest, longest running SF phenoms in SF history. Name anything else that has been as big for as long as Trek and brought more people into the SF fold WORLDWIDE then Trek.
I don’t do the whole dress up thing but more power to the people who enjoy it that much. They have found something that they can enjoy together and that they can HAVE FUN WITH. It’s not illegal or immoral so who cares? And guess what else they do Jeffery. They share things.
“Oh, you like this version/ep of Trek? Have you tried (fill in the blank)?”
“Fill in the blank” may well be just another average TV SF show but it may just as well be a really strong SF novel with a like theme written by a great SF master. And the person getting the tip on the book may never have picked it up if it weren’t for the tip from a fellow Trekker. But what does that mean to OSC and others? Well, I would bet a few $$$ that a chunk of their readership started out with Trek or Wars or Who at a young age and “went on to high school and college” as they got older. And then they spread the word to, pardon the usage, the next generation.
Trek and Wars mainstreamed SF in huge ways that nothing else ever did. Was it watered down versions? Yes. I said so above. But the easy to digest versions of SF brought people in and led many of them to the deeper, high art form of SF that OSC loves by baby steps and degrees.
OSC wants to point out the weak points of Trek? Fine. OSC wants to say that he doesn’t care for trek? Fine. But he needs to think a little bit before he insults such a huge group of people just because he wants to be snide and point out that he’s so much better then us/me.
Last point.
I read PAD’s statement as a pointed request to give some respect, and more then a little due, to Trek and its fans for all that it has done for SF fandom. Where did PAD say that OSC should just shut up and not say anything that PAD disagrees with? When did PAD say that to anyone? Please point it out to me. You see, I’ve agreed with PAD quite a few times in the past but I’ve also busted his chops more then a few times over the years in CBG, on BB’s, at a con and here and I have never seen him react in the manner you say he does when someone addresses his point of veiw with reason, logic and respect to the idea that different people can have different POVs and debate them like adults. If I’m wrong then please direct me to the proof of your statement.
Later
1) “If my first awareness of Harlan Ellison’s name were from a Star Trek script, I think I would keep that information to myself. Rather than demonstrating the cultural significance of Star Trek, this fact only demonstrates your nonfamiliarity (at that time) with his work for at least a decade prior to the writing of that script.”
2) “As a professional writer who has a good command of the English language, PAD can reasonably be expected to have enough reading comprehension to understand simply stated comments. “I think I would keep that information to myself” is what I said. PAD, are you saying that I am not allowed to have that preference? I would have found it irrelevant to any coherent argument that I did not know Harlan Ellison’s work prior to his work on Star Trek. As an example, it is perfectly true that I did not have any familiarity with Shakespeare before the early- to mid-1960s (I was born in 1959). This neither diminishes nor advances any possible argument about Shakespeare’s qualities; It supplies insignificant and irrelevant detail. I did not say you should keep it to yourself, but questioned the significance of such minutiae by declaring that I found it irrelevant to the argument you purported to be making.”
If that’s the point you wanted to make it was poorly made the first time. You also still miss a huge point that shows that it’s not an “insignificant and irrelevant detail” in the debate.
PAD pointed out the intro to Ellison in his life through Trek. Would he have found it without Trek. Yeah, I think he would. So would many people. But not everyone. I found Ellison through Trek (I’m 34) and a whole lot else. My intro to SF reading was because an aunt and uncle saw that I, like they, liked Trek. They tossed a few books at me that they thought I would like since I liked Trek. Lensman and Asimov’s Lucky series. That, at my young (ten-ish) age got me into ERB’s Mars series. Those got me into Bradbury. Those got me into Clarke and so on. As I grew my tastes grew and I never stopped reading. Would I be a heavy reader without Trek? Yeah, I think so. But my SF bloom would have been later and maybe not as strong.
And that’s a big point in this debate. Trek brought people into the fold. Some may have found their way in anyhow but no way would all of them come in to the levels that Trek brought them. Trek mainstreamed SF. It brought in book sales (and not just Trek books)and it made inroads for fandom. How many good shows (B5, Farscape, etc) came to us because a station/network and its money men were, as most TV SF creators have said they have been told, looking for the next Trek.
OSC’s full comments dismiss this while insulting Trek’s fans and seemingly saying that Trek in some way hurt SF and SF fandom or its/their image in some way. Nothing could be farther from the truth. PAD, myself and others on this blog and everywhere else have pointed out what Trek led us to in our SF development. Again, many of us would have gotten there without it (although more slowly) but a fair sized chunk of fandom may never have gotten there. As I stated above…..
If you can point out a force in fandom that has brought as many and as much to SF or fandom as Trek, Wars or Who worldwide I would like to see it. Until then OSC can be as free as he wants to be the Trek critic but he dámņ sure needs to realize that Trek and its fans are owed their credit and their due. To insult them just to be better-then-you-are snotty and without giving any credit at all for what it has done shows a lack of respect on his part and the attitude of a grade schooler. Is it really so much to point that out or ask that he join those of us who moved on to high school and college debate/discussion wise?
“PAD: If my first awareness of Harlan Ellison’s name were from a Star Trek script, I think I would keep that information to myself. Rather than demonstrating the cultural significance of Star Trek, this fact only demonstrates your nonfamiliarity (at that time) with his work for at least a decade prior to the writing of that script.”
“As a professional writer who has a good command of the English language, PAD can reasonably be expected to have enough reading comprehension to understand simply stated comments. “I think I would keep that information to myself” is what I said. PAD, are you saying that I am not allowed to have that preference? I would have found it irrelevant to any coherent argument that I did not know Harlan Ellison’s work prior to his work on Star Trek. As an example, it is perfectly true that I did not have any familiarity with Shakespeare before the early- to mid-1960s (I was born in 1959). This neither diminishes nor advances any possible argument about Shakespeare’s qualities; It supplies insignificant and irrelevant detail. I did not say you should keep it to yourself, but questioned the significance of such minutiae by declaring that I found it irrelevant to the argument you purported to be making. If you were to say that I did, that would be your very first unquestionable lie I have found in this stream.”
I think you are being disingenuous.
This is a response to Jerry, so perhaps PAD will not suffer unneeded palpitations over my comments.
I don’t really care what OSC said. My response was to what PAD said, and I did read every word of that.
“Quality”: The word I used was “qualities” – which is a synonym for “characteristics.” Since YOU brought up “quality,” here goes. PAD said “…a considerable quantity of those “grade school” fans went on to high school and college.” There is no doubt that this is true. So what? He acknowledged that Star Trek was primitive fare watched by people with little background in or knowlege of science fiction. I might not have allowed so much of OSC’s argument, but so be it. PAD did. The comparison to grade school, from this point on, is relevant. In first grade, I read “Ðìçk and Jane” primers. They served their purpose rather well, but I would be insane to call them excellent literature. I went on to high school, college and graduate school, and at each level, the quality and complexity of reading material increased, as it should. Do you believe I have made anything approaching a defense of “Ðìçk and Jane” as fine literature? I do not.
OSC can hold up Star Trek as poor science fiction if he wants to, because he finds it to be substandard material aimed at large viewership – as you yourself have already admitted – (Again, I might not have been so ready to give up the high artistic level, but you have done so.) rather than what he considers serious, high quality literature.
You state that Star Trek was average, but “a hëll of a lot of fun” and that it “pulled off a few well above average SF stories as well.” Gee, it was run of the mill but sometimes a bit better? That is not a rebuttal to OSC’s claims, now is it? I enjoyed and even found quality in many episodes of most of the incarnations of Star Trek, so perhaps it impressed me more than it did you: I just think that proclaiming something a little better than the average is pretty unpersuasive.
PAD: “‘Trek’ got me into conventions, and I met both my wives at conventions…”
JERRY: “That comment has nothing to do with PAD’s family….(personal note on how it impacted his life aside.)”
ME: “Personal note on how it impacted his life aside,” that comment does not exist. There is no content beyond a statement of what happened in his own life followed by the statement that “Star Trek, if NOTHING else, may well be the single greatest contributor to the perpetuation of SF fandom in general.” What does this say, other than to make the bold assertion that his (not unleavened) success with women establishes the significance of Star Trek to SF fandom? I would characterize this as rather egocentric.
As to Star Trek being important because it brought so many fans into the SF tent, I am not convinced it is SF, really. Science and reasonable speculation as to future developments have played only limited roles in the formulation of Star Trek. It is fantasy, some weeks, allegory others, pseudo-western on others, but no more SCIENCE FICTION that astrology is legitimate astronomy. I would call it “Space Opera” if it had to bear one name only. Fantasy is a perfectly respectable genre, but somewhat distinct from “science fiction.” Possibly OSC believes that “SF” should have some grounding in “S,” and be “F” of notable quality. If so, this is more than arrogance on his part. It is legitimate to believe that product should rise above mediocrity before it is recognized as art. In any case, popularity has no bearing on quality, which seems to be the subject OSC took on. The two can be associated with the same work, but they do not have to. Horatio Alger sold much better than Herman Melville. Please don’t believe he was a better or more enduring writer. I think you would scandalize the beloved PAD if you were so “just plain pathetic.”
Yes, “different people can have different POVs and debate them like adults” as you suggest. The best tactic for the person taking PADs position, however, is NOT to call out for “a little gøddámņ respect, okay?” THAT, Jerry, was abusive. Respect, like patriotism, must not be demanded, but only earned. Apparently, OSC does not respect PAD’s sacred cow. Apparently, PAD does not respect common courtesy. You wanted my proof that PAD’s conduct was discourteous and immature. Like PAD’s refutation of OSC, I thought the truth of my position was so obvious that I could skip some of the steps in the proof. That was an error. Unlike him, I have gone back and made some effort to back up my argument.
Sorta Trek related sad news. A few cuts from the MSN mainpage.
‘The Riddler’ Frank Gorshin Dies at 72
BURBANK, Calif. — Frank Gorshin, the impressionist with 100 faces best known for his Emmy-nominated role as the Riddler on the “Batman” TV series, has died. He was 72.
Gorshin earned another Emmy nomination for a guest shot on “Star Trek,” for a 1969 episode called “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield.”
http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=191415>1=6542
Bill Mulligan: Well, now I know that you think I was being disingenuous. I am very enlightened now. Please tell me, though, whether PAD has really given any coherent defense of those qualities OSC savages in his article, or if, as I think, he has done no more than pretend that his own preferences are persuasive without any real explanation.
On the Harlan Ellison reference, please, what significance is there in the information? Yes, it is somewhat interesting; No, it does not further any argument that Star Trek was a good thing. There are quite a few arguments that CAN be made. I just haven’t seen any of them from PAD in this string. Some of PAD’s apologists have done a fairly good job of crediting their early-life exposure to Star Trek for their later, “finer” tastes in good SF, but he does not seem to have made that case himself. In any case, one could say that he would have starved to death if he hadn’t eaten some mediocre swill, prior to discovering fine cuisine, but that would not establish that the swill was good. Far too many of the attack on Card/Support for David posts have have ADMITTED that Star Trek was mediocre and shoddy; I would not have gone nearly that far, because the argument is already lost when one gives up this important point.
Yes, I have been quite sarcastic numerous times. I will not argue the disingenuous charge, and will move on from there. I am completely sincere when I comment on what seems like intellectual laziness on PAD’s part. OSC’s comments are probably offensive; They may be ill-considered; They are in no way refuted by anything PAD has said in this string. If he is as intellectually and verbally agile as I have long believed, I do not know why he has not exerted himself to MAKE HIS CASE. I also am very curious as to how he (truly, I believe) cannot comprehend the offensiveness of his demand for “some gøddámņ respect.” I am not particularly religious, and I cannot deny that I have cursed on occasion in my private life, but I think it is intellectually and ethically sleazy for a “man of letters” to stoop so low. The only conclusion I can draw is that he is an unpleasant and arrogant man who has sufficient contempt for his readers (the very crime of which he accuses OSC) to pander to their existing preconceptions rather than “bring his best game” and make the reasoned argument that would refute Card.
If I had ever found any evidence that PAD has some small degree of respect for other people’s opinions, I would give him much more of the benefit of the doubt on awkward and unconvincing arguments.”
Well, the fact that I haven’t banned your ášš after your repeated unsupported insults should qualify.
PAD
I didn’t bring up the quality issue. OSC did.
OSC: “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?”
Did he use the word “quality?” No. But that is what he was talking about.
Average, by the by, isn’t always a bad thing. I was talking from my point of veiw. I know people who think Trek is great. And yes, when somebody is stating that something is as bad as he stated Trek was the stating that it’s average or above is a rebuttal. I’m not the shows greatest defender because I’m not the one of the shows greatest fans. I just believe that it’s not anywhere near as bad as he claims it is and i believe it deserves a little more credit for what it has brought to fandom over the years.
But writting wise I think It was average to above average to very good depending on the ep I’m watching. Most, to me, fall in the average area. But, the thing with TV and movies (or sometimes music) is that a/some good performer/s can bring average up more then a few notches. It may be a subjective thing but it counts for a lot when you remove something from the realm of being only the written word.
To use my fave (none Trek) example:
Jack Benny, in the book Sunday Nights at Seven, wrote about how a critic just so loved a show of his that, after it aired, he wrote a glowing review of it and, in the review, stated that he wished that he could somehow get a copy of the radio script to have for his library collection. Jack, after reading the review, had a copy made up, placed in a very fine book format and sent it to him. The result? The critic wrote a second review that savaged the same program and stated that there was nothing funny about and wondered what it was that he found funny about it in the first place.
See, I love Jack Benny. I have enough of his radio shows to fill up every waking hour of a full week if I so wanted. But I would never read the scripts for hours on end. Why? Because, while there are more then a few moments of greatness, a lot of it just reads as average. It was Jack’s (and the cast’s) talent that made the show.
How does that fit into this debate? Storywise some of Trek was, to my opinion, average. Not a sin. But the cast made it better then the written word was. You could sit down down for an hour or so and enjoy Trek. And that enjoyment does not, as OSC seems to think, make Trek bad or Trek fans simple.
And on the subject of simple….
The Ðìçk and Jane arguement of yours is is really weak. A straw dog for you to knock over. OSC used the grade school line. I, and others, were paraphrasing him in our arguements. Trek was an adult show with very adult issues. There were hidden layers in even some of the average shows. But it was never so deep or without lightness and daring do that a youngster (or youngster at heart) couldn’t enjoy it as well.
You don’t care what OSC said? You only care about what PAD said? That’s a twisted bit of logic. You’re cutting out half of an arguement and setting up another straw dog for yourself to knock over. It must be easy to make strong points when, by your rules, you just get to brush aside any point you feel might undermine or weaken yours. Too bad they’re only strong points if the people you’re debating let you do that.
Again with the family comment? Just refuse to get it. One last time because you’re a slow learner it seems. Taking one line and shaking it about makes it easy to claim your arguement as the better one. But the entire post makes it clear that lots of people in fandom have like stories to tell.
Then there’s another factor to that all together. PAD has posted, written and spoken on Trek so many times that I’m sure he’s even lost count. He’s covered this ground before and gone into a whole lot more about Trek and what its done for fandom then he posted this time. I think he can be excused for thinking that the people who read or post here will have some knowledge of that since so many people here are regulars. Tell me Jeffery, do you explain your points from from point 1 to point 24,453 everytime you debate or state something amongst friends or do you assume that most of your friends know where you stand and you can make a statement with only a tiny bit of recapping? PAD’s given us points 1-24,452 before. Most of us know them. He doesn’t have to spend 20,000 word going back over them. If you don’t know them…. Sorry.
“It is legitimate to believe that product should rise above mediocrity before it is recognized as art.”
Hmmm…. I could get into the entire “what is art is subjective” thing here….. No. stuff that. So you believe that something must be of the level of “art” to be enjoyed? You must be a boring person to be around or so snobbish that it grates the nerves. You only watch, read or listen to things that raise themselves to the lofty level of “art” and nothing else then? Somehow I doubt it. Besides, it’s, again, a thin arguement on your part. Just because it’s not “art” does not make it as bad as OSC made it out to be. Nor does it mean that those who enjoy it are any less mature or smart for doing so then he for disliking it.
“In any case, popularity has no bearing on quality, which seems to be the subject OSC took on. The two can be associated with the same work, but they do not have to. Horatio Alger sold much better than Herman Melville. Please don’t believe he was a better or more enduring writer.”
OK. A point that has nothing to do with what is being said. No one said that something that is popular must therefore be good or be art. Another straw dog arguement on you side and not even worth pointing out how stupid it was to make. And I hate Herman Melville. Stupid dámņëd book about the whale.
“As to Star Trek being important because it brought so many fans into the SF tent, I am not convinced it is SF, really. Science and reasonable speculation as to future developments have played only limited roles in the formulation of Star Trek.”
Ah, more mid debate rule shifting attempts. It’s not really SF after all. Any credit it has earned for what it has done and what it has brought to SF and fandom is therefore off the table. I see. Sorry. No. It’s SF. It’s strongly based in SF, S and F. Maybe it plays about in Science Fantasy a bit but it is most strongly planted in the Science Fiction camp. Attempt overruled.
“Yes, “different people can have different POVs and debate them like adults” as you suggest. The best tactic for the person taking PADs position, however, is NOT to call out for “a little gøddámņ respect, okay?” THAT, Jerry, was abusive. Respect, like patriotism, must not be demanded, but only earned.”
And you know what? Trek has earned it. You can try to brush it aside be claiming that it’s not SF but it is and it has brought more people into the fold then anything else out there. It’s opened doors for things that may have had doors shut on them. Maybe a few of the doors should have stayed shut but that’s for another time.
Trek has been a huge part of SF for years and will continue to be so. Trek fans will be around for as long time and they will continue to be a strong backbone of fandom in general. The phenom that is Trek has earned its gøddámņëd respect and then some.
“In any case, popularity has no bearing on quality, which seems to be the subject OSC took on.”
And that’s not the subject he took on. Or if it was he did a poor job of getting that point across. But since you don’t care what OSC said and don’t want to track down the complete transcript you really shouldn’t second guess at it. It comes across as bad debating tactics. Just more bad/straw dog arguements that don’t stand up very well.
Jerry – “First problem with your statements is bringing up ‘quality'” (7:01 pm)
Jerry – “I didn’t bring up the quality issue.” (10:25 pm)
Well, it would be rude to call you a liar, wouldn’t it? Perhaps you have a linguistic problem that I haven’t recognized: I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
No, stating that ST was average is NOT bad. It is also not any form of endorsement. Average is not good enough for praise. If PAD (used only as an example) could only write as well as the average person, no one would read him, nor would that be a surprise. Remarkably enough, he is rather better than that. Would you really pay to read “average”?
Grade school: well, I used that example because PAD used it as an extended simile. I don’t think he needs to be protected from his own choices of expression, because he does know his way around words. That one moves from grade school on to higher levels of education was his choice, and one that I thought was very accurate.
I don’t care what OSC said: No, I don’t. I would disagree with many things he said, but that is a different matter. Peter David is a grown man who writes for a living, often very well. He can be judged on his words and actions, like any person of adequate mental faculties. You probably noticed that is exactly what I have been doing. I am not “brushing aside” OSC’s remarks: I am ignoring them because it is PAD to whom I am referring.OSC’s article does not bear on whether PAD conducted himself like a civilized person.
“The family comment”: I have been exceptionally careful to say nothing critical of PAD’s family, as that would be stupid, cruel and uninformed. The family comment was in response to YOU making the “unsupportable statement” that PAD’s comment had nothing to do with his family, when it had referred to nothing but his family. To emphasize: He has a family; He discussed his family; You claimed that his comment had nothing to do with his family; I pointed out the inaccuracy of your statement.
Art and mediocrity: I never suggested that Star Trek had to rise to the level of “Art” to be enjoyed, but rather that OSC’s criteria for judgment could legitimately label the so-called “average” as less than “Art.”
“No one said that something that is popular
must be good or be art” No. You just bloviated about the commercial necessities of getting a lot of viewers, which writers like Card do not need to do (you think). In fact, sales, viewership, readership…all those things are important to anyone trying to sell a product. As a writer, PAD knows it is more profitable to have many readers than few. You, PAD and some others for some reason admitted Card’s major points and then decided they didn’t really matter. I cannot guess why you admitted these damaging points when it wasn’t necessary, but you did it anyway.
“Mid debate rule shifting”: Well, if you insist that something is great SF, vital to the genre, it is relevant whether it is the product advertised. If I said that a buffalo was a very handsome dog, you would be justified in reminding me that it was really not a dog.
“Herman Melville”: Trivializing Moby Ðìçk is very much within your rights, but it should make some people think your critical judgment is poor. I am making a serious effort to remain emotionally cool here, but the throwaway remark about a “Stupid dámņ book about the whale” is pretty galling. If PAD scanned your comments as carefully as he has mine, he really should inform you that you are “just plain pathetic” – just to be fair.
“Trek has earned it” I suspect it may have, but saying it is so is not the same as justifying that opinion.
PAD: You seem to very much enjoy harping on your tolerance at not having “banned (my)ášš after (my) repeated unsupported insults.” I hope you will not find “unsupported” my very specific criticisms: Irritating, yes. Not convincing to you, probably. Unsupported, no. Here is a last remark: I do not believe someone so inarticulate and crude as to ask for “a little gøddámņ respect” has much prospect of getting it.
Banning me will not be necessary: I will find no further value in speaking to you or your zombies. The only question I have which will have to remain unanswered is how a writer who has frequently demonstrated great skill at plotting human interaction could be incapable of any introspection or self-awareness.
After reading that last bit I was going to try and figure out on what planet is the blog that “Jeffery” is reading and how it actually relates to ours… And then it hit me!
Peter… Wotta Card indeed. You know, you could have filled us in before we got into this. At least it would have saved me all that typing. I didn’t know you were bringing the insane, rambling fanboy from hëll Vic Chalker back to life.
So this is just your trial run at working the rust off ol’ Vic’s venoms and nutty ramblings, eh. But, tell me, why the change of name in the charecter? Jeff doesn’t work as well as Vic to me. Or will you be going back to Vic when you’ve gotten all the writing kinks out? And quite a few kinks too. This version is as strange as the early version of Vic but no where near as funny.
Oh well. Keep working at it PAD. You’ll get it worked out in no time.
“Banning me will not be necessary: I will find no further value in speaking to you or your zombies.”
Ahhh, and now we’re into the usual saw: Anyone who agrees with me is a zombie or a brown noser or somehow mindless. In accusing me of insulting Card or being intolerant of those who disagree with me, you turn around and insult anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you. It can’t be that they genuinely think I’m right and that you’re wrong. It has to be that they’re incapable of thinking for themselves. As is typical with these sorts of exchanges, the overarching arrogance of the ostensibly even-handed fan makes itself known.
“The only question I have which will have to remain unanswered is how a writer who has frequently demonstrated great skill at plotting human interaction could be incapable of any introspection or self-awareness.”
And here’s the answer: My “great skill at plotting human interaction” indicates that I do, in fact, have great capacity for introspection and self-awareness. Whereas the considerable assortment of people who are telling you that you don’t get it, that you’re obtuse, that you’re lying…why, you dismiss all of them as being mindless zombies because it is, in fact, YOU who are unaware and incapable of introspection.
But, like those who have come before you and will doubtless follow you, you can now walk the land whining that that mean, intolerant Peter David and his coterie of goons treated you badly.
PAD
Gods, I’m going to regret jumping into this, but what the hëll…
Jeff, you seem to be giving off mixed signals. In one paragraph you call PAD inarticulate and crude, and in the very next you praise his writing.
In fact, you’ve repeadedly made reference to how good a writer he is. Have you even considered the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you misunderstood his intent? I doubt it.
You call him disrespectful, then turn around and call anyone who doesn’t agree with you one of PAD’s “zombies.” That, combined with a strong thread of artistic elitism (I won’t even go into how a great many “classics” are really boring rubbish) show that you’re just spoiling for a fight and flailing any which way you can to make yourself feel smarter than everyone else.
But why am I wasting my time? If you’ve told the truth and see no more value in reading this board, then I’m speaking to open air. If I get a response, though, we all know you’re just trying to stir up šhìŧ. *shrug* No skin off my nose either way…
-Rex Hondo-
Gee, I’ve never been a member of a coterie of goons before!
One of my fictional alter-egos, a Gangrel who had been Embraced by mistake, was a member of a coterie that the local Prince regarded as a bunch of stooges, but it’s not quite the same, is it?
Ahhh, and now we’re into the usual saw: Anyone who agrees with me is a zombie or a brown noser or somehow mindless.
Is this guy a Byrne fan, or would such an assumption be a shot ‘below the belt’? 😉
Braaaaiiiiiins….
Whoops, sorry. Probably not helping any.
-Rex Hondo-
Wow, that whole thing was sort of surreal…
It’s nice to see that the ever quickening pace of modern life has caught up with flamers. A few years ago it would have taken weeks before someone like Jeffrey would accuse all who disagree with him of being mindless zombies unworthy of playing with his ball.
Gee, I’ve never been a member of a coterie of goons before!
If we get to choose our own weapons I call dibs on a sock full of marbles.
I call broken pool cue!
Yes, I said I was going, but these responses did merit response. Admittedly, by responding after saying I would not I am falling into a trap I built myself, with my eyes wide open.
Those I consider zombies are these:
Jerry, who seems to think PAD needs to be protected from his own words. I have been accused of ignoring obvious truths, and yet Jerry has not addressed the inanities of his own statements. On a much less significant matter, his general inability to look at my name and re-type it in the correct order of letters could be taken as a sign of a reading disability. If this is so, I regret sparring with him. Still, I would have liked knowing what he meant when he claimed PAD had not referred to his family – when the words were right there before him proving that he had. He likes to refer to “arguement” (sic). If it is such a favorite word, it might be helpful to do a spellcheck and remember this “argument.”
Rex Hondo: My references to PAD being a good writer were sincere. If I thought he could not express himself competently, I would not criticize him so harshly for demanding “a little gøddámņ respect.” If I truly suspected he couldn’t deal with plotting the complexities of human relationships in his fiction, it would not appall me that he was so crude as to think “respect” was something he could demand from OSC by his own fiat. As for many classics being boring rubbish, THAT is an “unsupported insult.” (Look above for PAD’s position on unsupported insults: Perhaps you should be banned.)
Bill Mulligan – Your previous posts did not seem to me to be particularly foolish, and after my comments about “zombies” I felt it might have been wrong to lump you with that group. Now, however, you have made a barely veiled threat with your bilge about “a sock full of marbles,” so if you are not a zombie, you are at least a jáçkášš playing at being a big man. I would not be comfortable issuing a threat to a complete stranger over a disagreement with my hero, but we differ on the matter, apparently. You can say “Lighten up, it’s meant as a joke!” if you want, but it is also a threat, and a very bad idea.
PAD, for thinking so highly of himself to think I would “walk the land whining that that mean, intolerant Peter David and his coterie of goons treated (me) badly.” [Readers: PAD is the one who characterized you as goons. With the probable exception of Bill Mulligan, above, I would not want to so tar you.] I would not, because I would be met by blank stares and the remark, “Yeah, so what?” Your opinion really doesn’t carry enough weight for it to support such conversation. That misapprehension of your authority, combined with a personal crudity disconnected from your manifest competence as a prose stylist, seems the most likely reason your rebuttal of OSC was no more than an assertion of your opinion and a demand that what you respect must be respected. In plain English, I know you can express yourself very competently in prose, because you have done so for an extended period. When your argument is sloppy, unpersuasive and crude, my assessment is that it demonstrates arrogance and personal crudity, rather than illiteracy, given your demonstrated abilities. That, of course, is why I was careful to admit you were a talented writer. As an example, I don’t know anything about Jerry except his sloppy, poorly spelled, badly reasoned comments in this string: More than one interpretation of his conduct can be made: If he can’t do any better, it’s not my affair to criticize him further.
As for the other posters and readers what you may not have expected from me: lumping you in with the zombies was inappropriate and sloppy. I was wrong and intemperate in that respect. There – PAD, it is not difficult to look at one’s own statements and find some of them ill-considered. When I slam you, it is for your manifest reluctance, perhaps inability, to do that with your own words. Calling on OSC for “a little gøddámņ respect, okay” seemed worthy of remedy. It has not been remedied or even addressed by you.
This is only peripherally related to the topic at hand, but Amazon is currently selling the first season of TOS for “only” $77. I was always more of a Next Gen/DS9 fan, but would it be worth it at the discounted price?
Bill Mulligan – Your previous posts did not seem to me to be particularly foolish, and after my comments about “zombies” I felt it might have been wrong to lump you with that group. Now, however, you have made a barely veiled threat with your bilge about “a sock full of marbles,”
Wow.
You really have absolutely no idea of how discourse around here usually presents itself, do you?
Bill’s statement bears about as much resemblance to “a barely veiled threat” as a random episode of “The Dukes of Hazzard” does to “The Sopranos.” He was playing with PAD’s reference to a “coterie of goons”, and frankly if you can’t see that you’re not even remotely as perceptive as you’re claiming to be.
Of course, since I just used the words “threat”, “dukes”, and “hazard” [sic] in the same paragraph, no doubt you’re going to think I’m threatening you as well. If so … well, booga-booga!
TWL
who might go back and address the original point of the thread at some point
[Oh, and to Gorginfoogle — yes, it’d be worth it at that price. Most definitely.]
It’s been a while since I’ve been targeted by a troll who types so much and says so little, and singled out as a zombie no less. Well, since I assume the definition of zombie we’re working with here is “One who looks or behaves like an automaton” as opposed to the literal walking undead or the beverage, let’s address that briefly, shall we?
I think it definitely falls under the heading of “unsupported insult.” (Since that seems to be the phrase of the week) Expecially given your choice to perceive my personal opinion about certain “classic” works of literature (without even knowing the titles in question, I might add) as some sort of insult. This is EXACTLY the behavior of which you accuse Mr David. Hypocritical to say the least.
If I say that Dickens is depressingly dull, that’s an opinion. If I say that I had to force myself to finish the Lord of the Rings trilogy, that’s a simple fact. If I call somebody a brailess prat because they think Dracula is wonderful literature, that’s an insult, and never once have I done that.
Also, forming a personal opinion about a work of literature contrary to the popular accepted perception of said work, after reading it, is hardly the action of a “zombie.” It’s the action of a person with their own preferences and tastes.
Now, admittedly, “taking up a weapon” in jest may not have been the most mature or politic thing to do, a couple of guys blowing off steam, but for you to perceive it as some sort of threat, especially after declaring that you were leaving and never coming back, shows a certain insecurity, if not a full-blown persecution complex.
Finally, I don’t know about you, but Mr David and myself, and I’d wager the bulk of the other posters here, live in places where we have the right of free speech. It’s obvious from your continued trolling that you don’t don’t give a rat’s ášš whether you offend anybody or not, so attempting to hold Mr David to some sort of “higher” standard is the act of a hypocrite of astounding proportions.
-Rex Hondo-
Frank Gorshin is GONE? After I just mentioned him in another thread????
I know there’s no cause and effect here, but gosh that’s creepy. I hope someone tries to profit off his death and puts out a DVD with a bunch of his appearances on it because as far as I know, one doesn’t exist now. Wonderful man.
Bummer.
It’s obvious from your continued trolling that you don’t don’t give a rat’s ášš whether you offend anybody or not, so attempting to hold Mr David to some sort of “higher” standard is the act of a hypocrite of astounding proportions.”
Y’think?
You know…this may be beneficial. Everyone reading this: Every time you encounter one of these guys complaining about how ill-used they’ve been at the hands of some evil pro, keep in mind the sheer inanity of this guy (Jeff, not Rex) and be aware that, as often as not, the incidents are like this: Hypocritical, high-minded badgering from the alleged abused fan who refuses to comprehend that he’s being like a fool.
PAD
“Bill Mulligan – Your previous posts did not seem to me to be particularly foolish, and after my comments about “zombies” I felt it might have been wrong to lump you with that group. Now, however, you have made a barely veiled threat with your bilge about “a sock full of marbles,” so if you are not a zombie, you are at least a jáçkášš playing at being a big man. I would not be comfortable issuing a threat to a complete stranger over a disagreement with my hero, but we differ on the matter, apparently. You can say “Lighten up, it’s meant as a joke!” if you want, but it is also a threat, and a very bad idea.”
You. Are. An Idiot.
This is not a joke, hoax, or imaginary story.
Would someone PLEASE contact Mr Frawley and tell him that some jáçkášš is writing idiocy and using his name?
I’d continue but making fun of Special Ed students is mean spirited so I’ll just stop.
But again–you are a total dope. Now please excuse me while I tremble in a corner over the possibility of my being jailed over my scary threat.
“If so … well, booga-booga!”
Tim, that made me laugh out loud. Thanks.
The funny thing is, as you figured out, the “sock full of marbles” bit had nothing to do with the delicate Mr Frawley. Hey Jeffrey–It ain’t ABOUT you!
Actually *Jeffrey*, it means that I am a listed dyslexic and have always had more problems on an LED screen (like the laptop I was using last night.)
Also, I did address every point that you made. The problem with you not getting it is that you either really are just that stupid or you just refuse to get it. I’ll be nice and go with “refuse to get it” for now. You pull one line or one part of a line out of threads and posts and choose to rule out or throw out the rest because you don’t care about that comment or thread. Of course you won’t get it that way. The rest of us are reading & using the entire thread and the starting point of OSC’s statements. We are all looking at the entire picture and how that drives the statements and debate here. You won’t or can’t grasp that. You keep pointing to one small corner of the picture only and then come off as an idiot because you want to carp on what you think about that tiny corner to the rest of us looking at the entire big picture.
“Still, I would have liked knowing what he meant when he claimed PAD had not referred to his family”
I didn’t say he did had not referred to his family. I said:
“That comment has nothing to do with PAD’s family (personal note on how it impacted his life aside.) It’s a point blank fact. Don’t think so? Star Trek, Star Wars and maybe Doctor Who to a lesser degree are the three biggest, longest running SF phenoms in SF history. Name anything else that has been as big for as long as Trek and brought more people into the SF fold WORLDWIDE then Trek.”
I still stand by that. He used his family as his own small example of what Trek did in his life. But the entire comment and his entire post makes it clear that many people have these types of “I owe Trek this” types of stories. It wasn’t about his family. It was about Trek. It was about what Trek has brought to and given to so many people (himself included). I, and every single other person on this thread seem to have gotten that little fact that you won’t seem to let into your skull without the use of an hatchet.
“Jerry, who seems to think PAD needs to be protected from his own words.”
No, I don’t think that. I’ve been reading PAD long enough to know that he can defend his own words quite well. I just started this because the staements you made just seemed so far out there. I just wasn’t sure at first if you had missed something or you were an idiot. I’ve got my answer now.
“On a much less significant matter, his general inability to look at my name and re-type it in the correct order of letters could be taken as a sign of a reading disability. If this is so, I regret sparring with him.”
Again, I’m a diagnosed dyslexic. I’m used to it. But, please, don’t regret sparring with me. I’ve had much worse bouts of it while debating people who are far more reasoned and intelligent then you seem to be. If it didn’t bother me then it’s hardly going to bug me when dealing with you.
You also keep going on about respect. Is your real name Todd? Never mind. You keep going on about respect and how it’s earned but you went the snide, snotty route as fast as you could with everybody here. you feel that PAD and we owe OSC respect but you seem to feel that you owe PAD or us none. A tad hypocritical. Since you feel that respect must be earned and not just given I am going to make my last post to you with the level of respect that you have earned.
If you can’t get the simple points that have been made to you by me or others here or grasp what is being said and meant by people here when a two year old could…..
You really must be PAD dusting off the old Vic Chalker gag or you are simply an idiot, a moron and a jáçkášš. Hee haw, hee haw.
PAD: calling me an “alleged abused fan” is rather inexact coming from a person well-versed in using language. I have not said I am your fan, and would be surprised to find anything suggesting I am in any previous posting. Nor am I a “fan” in the sense of being a committed attendee at fan conventions. I do not travel in such circles – seriously, that is not a slur on fandom, but a simple fact that I do not attend cons. You consistently give yourself far too much credit for both influence and tolerance. I have acknowledged that you are a talented writer, and perhaps even that some of your work was enjoyable to read; I have not proclaimed myself your fan, a fan of OSC (which I am not) or a “Fan” in the sense of being a devotee of any genre with which you have some association. It is a bit sloppy to presume I am. In my opinion (to which I am as entitled as you) your demand for “a little gøddámņ respect” was inappropriate and insulting, whether it was for you, Star Trek fandom, or the holiness of your exalted opinion.
Rex Hondo, Bill Mulligan, and others: Yes, I get it that you think references to thuggish behavior are funny. Using my freedom of speech, which you love until I disagree with you, I do not find it funny, and say so. “Booga-booga,” indeed.
Rex Hondo (specifically): You do not approve of my considering your dismissal of classic literature insulting? Gosh, just what was the start of this thread? PAD was outraged that OSC did not have the requisite respect for STAR TREK! He introduced language inappropriate to a polite debate. He dismissed opinions contrary to his own as pathetic and insulting. He remained quiet while his supporters sank somewhat lower than he had. The sock full of marbles and the broken pool cue were obvious references to thuggish weapons, and the references WERE made directly in response to my immediately preceding post. Saying otherwise is a lie. No, the posts did not frighten me, and I have not said so. I have said that making threats (as jokes or otherwise) is a bad idea.
Robbnn: “If I told you to show some respect” it would not be “a comment on your attitude.” It would be a demand that you do something you were not inclined to do. “You are wrong” or “I think you are a jerk” would be a comment on one’s attitude. Telling someone to do something is – TELLING SOMEONE WHAT TO DO. This is a fact.