No Need For Trek Anymore 790
dcsmith writes "In an article at the LA Times, Orson Scott Card says 'So they've gone and killed Star Trek. And it's about time.' SciFi blasphemy? Not really. Card makes several good observations about the growth of SciFi over the past 30+ years. The article also comments on several other genre gems, including Joss Whedon's Firefly." From the article: "...the hungry fans called their friends and they watched it faithfully. They memorized the episodes. I swear I've heard of people who quit their jobs and moved just so they could live in a city that had Star Trek running every day."
Orson Scott Card (Score:1, Insightful)
He thinks trek always sucked (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly, it's great that he doesn't like Star Trek. I'm happy for him. Really. But not everyone is looking to have their heads messed with when they watch Science Fiction. They don't necessary need to find the "deeper connection", "reveal the hidden truths", or "find another plain of existence". Sometimes people are happy addressing issues that are relevant today rather than issues from some dysotopian future. Star Trek did that. It used allegories (e.g. Klingons == Russians) and analogous situations (e.g. A Private Little War) to help put current issues into perspective. In addition, Roddenberry made Star Trek nothing more than a canvas for far more experienced writers to make their points.
In short, people loved Star Trek because it was both thought provoking and accessable to people who aren't interested in "hardcore sci-fi" visions of the future.
Side Note: Has anyone ever noticed that when Star Trek addresses a topic that some find to be a repulsive trait of hardcore Sci-Fi (e.g. telepaths), the blow is somehow softened to where the concept is easy to accept? Perhaps there's even more missing than Mr. Card realizes.
"I wonder sometimes if the motivation for writers ought to be contempt, not admiration." -Orson Scott Card
Well, that explains everything.
Star Trek gave us hope (Score:5, Insightful)
The hope that tomorrow can be better than today is what keeps all people going. Star Trek really connected with people on a level I've rarely seen.
Ummm.... yea (Score:5, Insightful)
Fantasy, yes... science fiction, no.
Card's a moron. What's your point? (Score:4, Insightful)
But let's be serious here. As far as "Sci Fi" goes, he's off the deep end. He's the sci-fi world's equivalent of some british royalty gimboid sipping tea from a saucer with their little finger sticking out, mumbling on about how the "unwashed commoners" don't truly appreciate horse racing, or polo, and how ghastly sports like soccer are.
So he champions the hardcore sci-fi shows. That's fine. I've watched them. Some of them, I've actually enjoyed.
I doubt if Orson Scott Card has seriously watched a Trek series, ever.
I doubly doubt if he's paid attention to some of the absolutely amazing episodes Enterprise has had this year.
And I really don't understand why anyone gives a shit what this ivory-tower sci-fi snob has to say on the subject.
I agree with the basic premise (Score:5, Insightful)
With Firefly and Enterprise canceled- and fewer stations than ever before carrying the syndicated version of Stargate and Andromeda (the second of which I'm sure Mr. Card would say suffers from the Roddenberry curse) what can step up to take the hole?
The problem with Star Trek (Score:2, Insightful)
Today, the civil rights movement has come and gone, there's equal rights and opportunity for almost everyone, and no one gives a crap about a mars base, much less colonizing space. The core themes of Star Trek have lost relevance with today's generation.
Now it's just another whiz-bang space opera. Might as well be watching Lost in Space.
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:3, Insightful)
Helpfull to see this as I'm reducing my... (Score:2, Insightful)
Guess Iron Man is off my list now, Mr. Card. Didn't really like what you did to the origin anyhow.
Why people think the mere existance of Star Trek somehow stifles thier ability to put other SF out there is beyond me.
As far as going to the pot to many times, I think that was proven with the Enders Game books (re-telling an entire book from a diffent character's perspective? *), so I guess in a way he knows whereof he speaks...
* of course the Card fans out there will deny that being in any way derivitive or limiting or "more of the same" and crow about how "innovative" it was. Meh.
I Don't Want To Admit It ... But It's True (Score:4, Insightful)
From the article:
I don't want to admit it, but Card is right. Star Trek was wonderful in large part because it was the first of its kind on TV. Now SF is not a gamble TV and is all over the place. That's a good thing since we can now concentrate on good story, characters and so on.
This is perhaps a natural step in the development of a genre. Even Homer was great mostly because he was the first (have you every actually read the Illiad (even in translation?) It's not that good!)
I still have a warm place in my heart for Star Trek that will never go away, but it must seem mysterious to those young whippersnappers who have never lived in a universe without Star Trek.
Re:So They Have Gone and Killed ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I was just re-reading his comments when I noticed these gems:
Charlie Kaufman created the two finest science fiction films of all time so far: "Being John Malkovich" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind."
Through-line series like Joss Whedon's "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and Alfred Gough's and Miles Millar's "Smallville" have raised our expectations of what episodic sci-fi and fantasy ought to be.
Malkovich? Smallville? *These* are what he thinks are the paramount of Sci-Fi? This guy needs his head checked!
Whedon's "Firefly" showed us that even 1930s sci-fi can be well acted and tell a compelling long-term story.
Well, at least he got one right.
If it were only that simple (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, anybody who disapproves of sodomy is really just scared of it. Don't dignify their positions by saying that they disagree or that they don't approve. Instead, accuse 'em of having a phobia. That way was can totally ignore their point of view without having to feel bad about doing it.
Re:He thinks trek always sucked (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, I mean, star trek was a "Wagon train to the stars", as far as I knew. It wasn't supposed to be deep. Think about the next generation - random alien shows up, strange problem happens, strange problem stems from a problem with random alien, who is outwardly scary but inwardly kind and vastly misunderstood, enterprise makes friends, credits. But, you know what? It was good.
If you enjoyed watching it, it was good. I'm not putting on ears and going to conventions, but come on - it's not cool to hate everything. Just like what you like, for your own reasons.
~Will
Make that "No need for Star Trek:TOS" (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should that even matter? ST:TNG was (by the third season, anyway) a far better series, and DS9 was better still, despite stealing ideas left and right from "Babylon 5". It's the last twenty years of Trek that's being cancelled, not the first three.
Postscript: Now we finally have first-rate science fiction film and television that are every bit as good as anything going on in print. If only....
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:5, Insightful)
And, there's the whole I don't want to support his bullshit views (by helping to make him rich).
I'll admit, this might not be a problem for everyone, but it is for me.
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, anybody who disapproves of Blacks is really just scared of them. Don't dignify their positions by saying that they disagree or that they don't approve. Instead, accuse 'em of having a phobia. That way was can totally ignore their point of view without having to feel bad about doing it.
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right, that's much better!
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:4, Insightful)
Interestingly enough it bothers many mormons when someone challenges their attempt to redefine the term Christian-- it also bothers them if you call the polygamist mormons, mormons. Go figure.
It's not a fair evaluation. (Score:5, Insightful)
Emphasis on the WAS.
The problem here is too many people view Trek as one big, indivisible thing. It's not. You can't have a rational conversation about "Trek is Good" or "Trek is Bad". Some Trek was good. The current state of Trek is bad.
The worst thing that can happen to a piece of Sci Fi is for it to become commercially successful. The more commercially successful something is, the greater the temptation to extend the franchise just for the sake of profit. The more money a franchise is worth, the lower you can set your creative standards and still justify releasing a product.
Why do half of the Star Trek movies suck? Because PAramount wanted to make a Star Trek movie, regardless of whether the script was any good. Sometimes they got good scripts, sometimes they didn't. But the people who get to decide whether a Star Trek movie should get made don't make that decision on whether the script is going to produce a good movie. They make that decision based on whether money in will be greater than money out.
The Original Series was a ground-breaking series that only happened because Roddenbery believed in it and made it happen. Next Generation only happened because Roddenbery believed in it and made it happen. Star Trek XXXVJWII, Voyager, and Enterprise was made because if Paramount didn't churn out new Trek they'd be wasting this huge, profitable sci fi franchise they'd built.
That can't go on forever though - eventually you produce so much crap just for the sake of making a buck that your franchise becomes worthless.
Unprofitable or New Sci Fi will only happen if it's good. Profitable Sci Fi will happen REGARDLESS of whether it's good.
If Star Trek hadn't been successful, it would have died after DS9 or earlier, and we'd all still think Trek is Good. But it didn't. But new trek being bad doesn't make old trek any less good.
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:2, Insightful)
But if one is slightly interested in maintaining the term Christianity to refer to a set of beliefs that have existed for a bit of time now-- you can't apply it to Mormonism.
Re:I Don't Want To Admit It ... But It's True (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? I can't name a single space-opera style show OTHER than Trek that has made it more than two seasons on broadcast network TV since Babylon 5 ended. Not everybody knows enough about sci-fi to spend money subscribing to a cable or sattelite service just to watch BattleStar Galactica on Friday nights.
For entry-level kid sci-fi, there is nothing on broadcast OTHER than Enterprise right now- and while I agree with the Bring Back Firefly or at least something better than Trek clan- there is an evolutionary niche for space opera.
RTFA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:He thinks trek always sucked (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, ST might have lasted longer if they had fired Berman and Braga. Those guys have obviously been phoning it in for a while.
I think that a real opportunity was missed when the powers that be didn't let Frakes do more directing. The movie that he was in charge of was extremely well done. Must have been a power struggle with the B+B buttheads...
Re:Make that "No need for Star Trek:TOS" (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't attack, for example, DS9 on the same grounds as ST:TOS.
The only conclusion I can reach is that OSC is speaking out of bitterness...maybe he has been burned one too many times by television or something. Really, his article is simply a statement of his inability to understand why TOS became such a cult hit and inspired such extreme fan loyalty. I've read better assessments of ST shortcomings on fan sites.
And then he really goes overboard by calling Being John Malcovich one of the greatest science fiction films of all time. He's trolling, of course, just dying for you to write in and say Hey, that's not science fiction!. Sure, Being was a fun ride, but a little too clever for its own pants, and certainly one of the most overrated films of all time.
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So They Have Gone and Killed ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Card is not a saint, people. (Score:5, Insightful)
We all like to believe that we are special. Geeks like to believe they are smarter than the average person. Is it so crazy to believe that maybe it wasn't Card's extraordinary writing and plot that made Ender's Game so popular -- perhaps it was because Ender's Game was the ultimate braniac dream? To be smart enough to save the world, and get the accolades that go along with it.
His blatant religious proselytizing in his other books, most notably the Alvin Maker series, choked me with its sickly-sweet taint. I enjoyed the series at first because it was well written and fun, but it soon turned into a carousel of reptition. Alvin did and said the same things over and over, Card using him as a hand-puppet to express his Love Thy Neighbor and Turn the Other Cheek platitudes until I was racing through to the end of the novel not out of enjoyment and eagerness to see what happened, but just to be able to put the book down and go wash the veneer of his homophobic Christianity from my hands.
Card is not a saint. He wrote something that we all very much wanted to read; that we were alienated from our peers as children for a reason. There's a destiny waiting for us so we can use these big brains. We were humiliated on the playgrounds in grade school, but we'll show them! Someday!
Card gave us this pipe dream. But it's time to let go of the security blanket, Linus. You're smart, but you don't need a writer to give you a raison d'etre in a science fiction fairy tale.
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:3, Insightful)
What's funny is, you've just proven him absolutely correct. About the above quote, not the rest of his article.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Insightful)
To further this point, think about the ones that have. I can name "quantum leap" as one of these series, but how sci-fi was it really? It had a sci fi premise, but the theme wasn't steeped very deep in sci-fi. It was a great show don't get me wrong, but in order to be successful with sci-fi and the american viewing public you have got to either mask it a bit, use an established name like star trek, or go onto the sci-fi channel.
Bab5 was an exception, and even then, in the height of its popularity, it wasn't pulling enough of a ratings share and the time slot moved a hell of a lot until TNT finally said enough, we'll air the last season and shut the networks up.
Sci-fi still is a big risk and it will be until general fan base for sci fi grows. It hasn't for years and won't for a long time.
Re:So They Have Gone and Killed ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:4, Insightful)
But then after reading his marriage essay, you quickly realize, progressive and social change are things that OSC is not comfortable with, so then it makes more sense that he was not a fan.
SF writers can't wait for Star Wars to end, too (Score:5, Insightful)
I've written that media SF has often been a good few decades behind written SF, especially movies [slashdot.org]. They quote Richard Morgan in the NYTimes article ("That's the past of science fiction you're talking about, . .
The literature is filled with writing by Greg Benford [authorcafe.com], the 'how to empathize with ordinary deathless people' [netspace.net.au] writer Greg Egan [netspace.net.au], Ken Macleod [blogspot.com], Richard Morgan [infinityplus.co.uk], Ian Banks, Cory Doctorow [craphound.com] , or Charlie Stross [antipope.org]. Movies haven't made it past the 70's (Bladerunner, the Matrix) other than perhaps 'Eternal Sunshine' (similar to a few 80's stories), and T.V. shows have only tentatively reached the 80's or early 90's (some Outer Limits and Twighlight Zone episodes). With Star Wars and Star Trek out of the way perhaps there'll be more room for the average media SF to catch up to at least the 80's.
Wow - so much wrong with this post... (Score:2, Insightful)
Equal rights and opportunity for almost everyone? Really? You honestly believe that? I mean, that's not even entirely true for the U.S. anymore, much less the rest of the world.
No one gives a crap about a Mars base or colonizing space? Really? You honestly believe that? Maybe it's just politicspeak but Junior says he believes in it, and that's something. Then of course there are the Mars hotbutton folks that frequent this site. I doubt they're all nom de plumes for Junior.
The core themes of Star Trek (freedom, equality, exploration, hope, optimism about the future, exploring the human condition, etc.) are core themes for humanity, probably for as long as there will be humanity. That those things are not relevant (according to you) to "today's generation" says more about "today's generation" than it does about Star Trek. And in case you were wondering, what it says isn't good. That people like you and Card can't get past the styrofoam boulders and green alien chicks to see this indicates a lack of insight on your parts.
While I'm ranting, there was nothing soap (space) operaish about TOS. There was one multipart episode, and that done for budget constraint reasons. There were no ciffhangers, no see what happens next week, no dead people coming back from the dead a year later, no ongoing romances, so on and so forth.
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:4, Insightful)
The ramifications of the trinity are huge. They show up in the places where the mormonism and Christianity don't meet. God being spirit. The incarnation. Humankinds destiny in regards to after this life. The list is long.
Re:He thinks trek always sucked (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I Don't Want To Admit It ... But It's True (Score:5, Insightful)
And don't forget the Odyssey. Have you ever seen a "military guy gets revenge on his enemies and slays them all single-handedly" scene in a movie that came anywhere near the one at the end of The Odyssey? Man, when he strings that bow and those jackass suitors realize it's him and then find out all the doors are locked? Fantastic!
Re:He thinks trek always sucked (Score:5, Insightful)
Good point regarding the allegories...the technique is classic, and Star Trek (has been at times) one of the finest examples in popular fiction.
Take issue A. Not everyone really wants to deal with issue A in a serious context all the time. And if issue A is something so divisive or ugly that people don't even want to consider it, you may be in danger of offending people in any discussion or scenario in a realistic setting. So take issue A and set it on another planet, (or in another country--Shakespeare was always lifting recent English politics into Rome/Italy/Denmark) where you can explore the bejeazus out of it without naming names or identifying your readers or viewers as villains.
I'd have to say that science fiction used to be a prime place for this, particularly on highly-censored media like television. Frankly, though, television doesn't need to worry as much about offending anymore...can anybody find me a social issue that isn't dealt with in documentary or mainstream fiction these days? (Within a script-cycle on Law and Order, for one.)
Also, with that breed of social sci-fi/fantasy has always been at risk--see Utopia, Erewhon, Planet of the Apes (the book, folks)--of becoming a preachy polemic on the author's ideals. Roddenberry and the original writers rode the edge well, for the most part, for their time, and they really made "ripping good yarns" out of some of the episodes. (Anyone wants to argue "all" is kindly asked to watch "Spock's Brain before posting).
But I think that long-term interest--both the kind that makes the whole dorm show up for each new episode AND the kind that makes every succeeding generation turn to their kids and say, "Hey, you're old enough, read/watch this," have been lacking for a -long- time in too many of the shows.
Anyway, returning to my main point...there are other shows out there visiting an allegory a week, and there have been for a while. Original Trek had to compete with Lost in Space--no contest. STNG owned the dial at our place (Dr.Who came on late Saturdays only). Since then, though, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise have had to endure comparisons with B5, Stargate, Farscape, Firefly, Battlestar Galactica, and Atlantis...none of which are or were saddled with as much backstory...and all of which were free (see parent sidenote) to look at the grimy side of the future and present in ways that Trek was not.
Re:So They Have Gone and Killed ... (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, I don't understand how he left Battlestar Galactica off the list. I would love to know what he thinks of it, especially given the whole Mormon thing.
Roddenberry a secular humanist? (Score:3, Insightful)
1) The episode where Kirk meets an alien who was the god Apollo in Greek times -- Apollo wants people to worship him but Kirk says "Humanity doesn't need gods -- we find the one sufficient" -- implying that some sort of monotheism is still there in the Trek universe
2) The "20th century Roman Empire" episode the rebels fighting the empire are thought to be "sun worshippers" and the Enterprise crew is surprised to find how noble they are (pagans are evil, ya know) but then Uhurua figures out that they are "son worshippers" -- that is christians, and it all supposedly makes sense.
Re:Ummm.... yea (Score:3, Insightful)
I haven't read the article and don't intend to (I stay clear of Card's writings)
Why is that? Because you ran across one of his articles on ornery.org [ornery.org] and decided he was a Christian asshole?* Like most authors, some of his work is dreck and some is good. Card has produced some truly excellent fiction (the first two books in the Ender series and the Homecoming novels). He focuses on characterization, sometimes to the detriment of plot, but his best work is definitely worth reading. If you like science fiction, give him a shot.
*<flame-shield>I'm an athiest and don't always agree with his columns, but they're always well-written and provocative.</flame-shield>
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:2, Insightful)
In other words: Mormons don't believe in the trinity.
Mormonism and historical Christianity share almost nothing in common in their interpretation of scripture. I'm not sure why the need to be perceived as Christian.
What a jerk (Score:4, Insightful)
Mr. Card, perhaps you were not aware that Trek, when it's good (meaning not when Berman is running things), offers some of the best and most insightful social commentary and discussion you'll see on film. There is a group where I live that gets together monthly at a Unitarian Church to watch an episode or two and then discuss the social, ethical, and moral implications thereof. It's been meeting for about 6 years, I think. Are there any groups that do that with Firefly? Or Smallville? I didn't think so.
Just because more people like Star Trek than like your books is no reason to declare them all immature grade schoolers. That's very grade school of you.
Re:Star Trek gave us hope (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't say it was a vision of utopia, but a vision of a future that was further along that road, but still facing many of the same challenges that we face today. Nothing wrong in that.
Overall, I thought Card's article rather unfair. To say that Firefly is a far superior 1930's-style serial than Star Trek is to basically just give credit to the advances made in television drama over the decades. Let's face it, just about every show on TV has more developed characters, dynamic storylines, etc. than predecessors from the 60's and 70's.
It's like comparing CSI to Quincy and ruling that Quincy sucked eggs. But hey, give Jack Klugman a background with casinos, a cavalcade of sexual deviants and a sexually-overcharged female coworker, and Quincy would've ruled the roost.
Re:So They Have Gone and Killed ... (Score:4, Insightful)
However, I think for a lot of science fiction writers and "high brow" literary types who get into science fiction, the boundaries of the genre are much softer. In this case, any literature which uses some piece of unusual or advanced technology as a plot element through which some human theme can be explored counts as science fiction. Apparently for Card, the technology itself doesn't even have to be given much stage time, if he considers Being John Malkovich (which I think is deep in a gray area) to be sci-fi.
Personally, I prefer this final definition. While I frequently enjoy "rocket" science fiction and used to watch TNG and DS9 almost religiously, I tend to think of the period when all sci-fi was oozing with gadgets to be pretty typical for any genre in its infancy/childhood. Sort of like in early animation where EVERYTHING was moving CONSTANTLY, even many inanimate objects.
Re:I beg to differ! (Score:3, Insightful)
If that's true, why is it that the Right is firmly in control of the United States, the only remaining Western superpower? I call Troll. (Or Flamebait, take your pick.)
Yeah, we can see how badly beaten the political Right is. Please, spare me.
Re:So They Have Gone and Killed ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly you are right, some of the great "sci-fi" Card was talking about is fantasy, not sci-fi. More than Galactica, I'm surprised he didn't mention the change the studios/networks were willing to go to with Babylon 5 and it's 5 year story arc. Yes, the acting was cheesy, but the commitment to a long changing character cast and plot was a big leap for the networks vision of what a sci-fi show could be like.
Re:He thinks trek always sucked (Score:3, Insightful)
It was also made at a time when Scifi was virtually non-existent on TV. Roddenberry had a real difficult time getting Paramount to do it. For example: The rule about most aliens being basically humanoid with bumpy heads was a pitch to prove that the budget wouldn't need to be astronomical.
Star Trek TMP almost didnt' get made because of Star Wars. It was felt back then that the market could only sustain 1 science fiction movie. If Close Encounters hadn't have happened, the Star Trek movies wouldn't have. It proved that a significant amount of people out there really did like sci-fi.
To chew on Star Trek for not meeting high standards of science fiction books is like chewing on Nasa for not building a moon base yet.
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:2, Insightful)
that's only true if you believe that reserving marriage as the exclusive right of heterosexuals is upholding the fundamental meaning of marriage and isn't implicitly homophobic.
it's kinda like if i said: the fanatical Left will insist that anyone who calls black people niggers is a "racist." inevitably most people would respond that such sentiments are implicitly racist. would such a response somehow prove me right(or less wrong)?
Re:Card is not a saint, people. (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of us would contend that it's not even really Christianity. Card is, after all, a conservative Mormon apologist. This is the guy who wrote a now infamous article when I was an undergrad, in which he opined that it was a good thing for government to retain laws which proscribe homosexuality. Even though I wasn't as cravenly PC as my classmates, I found Card's thesis objectionable.
The man does not believe in the separation of Church and State. (My ex-Mormon friends assure me this is endemic to Mormonism, though that is entirely another topic.) He mixes religious themes freely into his Science Fiction, which in my humble opinion brings it closer to the realm of Fantasy than SciFi.
Mr. Card has a very specific view of what constitutes Science Fiction, and it doesn't mesh with mine. His opinions of SciFi are therefore suspect. It's not just that he chose to slay a sacred cow (Star Trek); his arguments are specious and slanted. Maybe he's suffering from Hemingway syndrome (i.e., wrote all his best material first). Part of me thinks his Ender series is just a cynical exploitation of empowerment fantasies shared by most geeks. But I never felt that Card was legit; I always felt that he was a poseur, that he never really "got" the genre he was writing in. I'd say this LA Times article is proof.
Re:Star Trek gave us hope (Score:5, Insightful)
Except, of course, when the federation is blowing up, or being blown up by, Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians, Ferrengi, etc.
One of the things I thought made DS9 really good, especially in the later seasons, was precisely that even though the Federation was supposed to be this nice happy place, DS9 showed that the only reason everything was hunky-dory on Earth was that there were people at the edge of the federation holding back the things that wern't so hunky-dory.
Even in the Star Trek future, peace and prosperity are only guaranteed by phasers and photon torpedoes. Star Trek just pushed the line between peace and conflict further away from home.
Re:Card is not a saint, people. (Score:2, Insightful)
Ender's game did appeal to me in the way that you said. But the book was also well written. Furthermore, it did have insight into the way we demonize our enemies and the cost that war has on personal morality.
I agree that his career after that has been one steady slide into mediocrity and thinly veiled religious peddling of religious doctrine.
It's the optimism, stupid! (Score:5, Insightful)
People slag Star Trek for having every alien be humanoid, but that is deliberate. Roddenberry wanted people to see the humanity in every character.
Personally, I don't watch much Sci Fi because most of it shows a future which sucks. Star Trek shows a future that I want to believe in.
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:3, Insightful)
1. He is a member of the fanatical Left (a loaded term to say the least)
2. There *is* a "fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation".
3. Grandparent thinks Card and all other "fundamentalists" are not only a homophobes, but also mentally ill (are the two synonymous? I wasn't aware of this).
4. All others in the "fanatical Left" agree with grandparent.
Yeah, I don't think he's proven much of anything, except that he views such hyperbolic statements defending (what he views as) discrimination against homosexuals as homophobic.
-Dan
Re:So They Have Gone and Killed ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe Card realizes that there is a class of literature that is involves fictional settings (As opposed to just fictional people and plots.), and it really doesn't matter if the made-up setting is 500 years in a future, in another dimension where magic works, or 100 years in the past where the Confederacy won the civil war.
People who think there's a real difference are just silly. You can like 'fictional setting that involves future technology' and not 'fictional setting that involves magic', just like you can like Hercules Poirot and not Sherlock Holmes, but genre-wise, they are the same.
The genre, whatever you call it, just changes the 'universally assumed setting' that all other fiction is set in (Our universe, past or present, perhaps with a fictional town or president or something, but 'our universe'.) and explore how that difference affects characters and events.
Did anyone RTFA??? (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you Americans watching a different Lost than what we get out here? Because I've watched about 12 episodes of some drama/survivor series and *still* we don't know what killed the bloke in the first hour.
I'm trying to keep this post above the level of the average troll, but could someone *PLEASE* explain how Lost is a Sci-Fi, or
Re:So They Have Gone and Killed ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oftentimes fans and critics read much into a piece of work that an author/artist never intended. Some of the artists hate this. Others love it. Which is right? Neither. It's subjetive.
Why are there so many schools of thought? Why so many methodologies? Because it is subjective.
I can talk about my work to another scientist from the other side of the world, from an entirely differnt culture. When I talk about an experiment I did that show phosphorylation on the 7th amino acid of a particular protien under certain conditions, he can study the phosphorylation using a different experimental method, and he will come to exactly the same conclusion. It's a fact.
Good vs Bad is subjective. Always. Doubt it? Give me an example of something that is universally 'good'. Universally 'bad'. In philosphy, there is the study of 'truth'. Not the study of 'good'. Why? Good is subjective. There is the hope that truth isn't ;)
What about experts in the same field?
You mean like professional critics who have had all that fancy lurnin like you?
Lets look at professional movie critics. I guess they all agree if a movie is good if it 'truly' is, right? Nope. How about theatre critics. All the learned critics in New York must all give similar reviews to new plays right? Nope. How about artwork in galleries? Nope.
Why? Because it is all subjective.
Why do folks watch Siskel and Ebert (Roper now) or read the reviews of any critics? Do the two critics always agree? Nope. People are familiar with them and their reviews. They know roughly how they judge movies, what they generally like and what they hate. From these reviews, they can evaluate if the movies are probably to their taste, even if they aren't to the critics.
What I am pushing towards is that artwork and its interpretation are not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of facts. Facts about the author and his culture. Facts about the viewer/reader and his culture.
Yes, yes it is a matter of opinion. It is not fact. Just because an artist intended to express something, that doesn't mean he work was successful in expressing that intent to the audience. Even an audience of experts. Perhaps he expressed something entirely different to them than what he intended.
We can establish that there are certain facts about an author and his intent
No you can't. First of all that would require you have to direct information direct from the artist about that piece of work. Some artists don't like to express their intent. They prefer that you infer what you like. Some are just recluses and don't like talking to others about their work. Some die before anyone can ask them about some piece.
Even if an artist does tell you what he intended, how do you know he is telling the truth? What if he was intending something else subconsciously? Once again, you have no real FACTS.
I also say we can establish certain facts about person making the critique's ability to understand a given piece of art and his cultures ability to understand it.
That's a loaded piece of crap. You are making HUGE assumptions if you think you know my or any other critics background, training, or baggage. There is an entire industry in trying to figure out what the general public, as consumers/critics will like. The professionals fail at it regularly. Often quite horribly. You don't know all the FACTS about any audience.
If we take these four facts and judge someone's interpretation against them, we can make a value judgment about that piece of art within my context and within the artists context.
How pompous can you get? You are making a subjective value judgment about how well someone else has made
Episodic programming vs sitdramas (Score:5, Insightful)
Being John Malkovich was a popular, excellent movie, and while I'd put it more in the category of fantasy than Sci Fi, if you read Card's books the distinction is academic. Plus the characters to go through an immense arc throughout the film, falling in love, falling out of love, changing... evolving as characters in exactly the way that Homer Simpson doesn't. Again, the focus, as in all good Sci Fi, is on the character evolutions.
Smallville isn't the best series ever by a long shot. But like Buffy it is a popular show that opened people's eyes to what can happen when characters evolve across episodes.
Trek did and does follow an antiquated model, and he's right in thinking that it would only continue to do so. Probably the best bit of Trek, the last few seasons of DS9, took place when Paramount's main people were focused on Voyager and allowed a smaller group of people to create a broader story focused more on large story arcs and developments. The best season of Enterprise has been this last one, when multi episode story arcs were plentiful.
Orson's books reflect this thinking, of course. His most popular work, the Ender's series, follows one character along his evolution from a weak abused nobody kid to a reclusive man hiding from unwanted fame from his past, to an old man accepting of his place in the world. And the latest Ender's book takes place in the same time frame as the original, exploring another character who isn't the hero, but who evolves from a lone troubled genius striking out at anyone or anything that might subjugate him, to being a mature, willing second, giving himself over to a man he believes deserves it.
Oddly enough, I've always felt Asimov was at his best in short stories, but even then his characters were undergoing tremendous evolution within the span of several pages.
Re:Card is not a saint, people. (Score:3, Insightful)
You'll notice that the original poster wasn't complaining about the fact that Card is a conservative Christian, but rather about the way in which Card's books are often filled with thinly veiled propaganda for conservative Christianity in general and Mormonism in particular. This drags down the overall quality of his stories, and often ruins books that had the potential to be very interesting. Most people probably wouldn't care if Card wrote great books and also just happened to be a religious fundamentalist. Sadly, he doesn't seem to be able to write much without cramming it full of his personal ideological beliefs.
Re:He thinks trek always sucked (Score:2, Insightful)
You forgot the bit where Jordi reroutes power to the main deflector dish to tickle the alien with a tachyon particle stream. Alien laughs, humans cheer, Picard says something inspirational to the crew, Riker eyes off Troi, Data says something logical but funny in the circumstances and looks bemused at the response, Wesley chimes in with something annoyingly childish but loaded with wisdom beyond his years as he finished his nobel prize winning science experiment. THEN the credits roll.
PS there's usually a game of poker in there somewhere too
Re:OSC is not known for judgement... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Star Trek gave us hope (Score:4, Insightful)
Even in the Star Trek future, peace and prosperity are only guaranteed by phasers and photon torpedoes. Star Trek just pushed the line between peace and conflict further away from home.
That strikes me as a recofnition of an unfortunate reality. Of course, without that reality, the whole show would be a lot less believable.
There's nothing to be done about that reality n ow or in a more developed society. The hopeful part is quite interesting to compare to today's reality. It is thought provoking if (like anything thought provoking) the viewer allows the thoughts to happen.
Notice that nobody frets about being downsized and how they will pay their bills? Nobody's concerned about being wiped out by unexpected medical bills?
Career focus is on achievement and fulfillment rather than on pay.
That all sounds rather idyllic compared to today's society. It's too easy to dismiss that entire aspect as fiction and focus on the action.
Instead, what we should really be asking is why does that seem so unrealistic? Why is it that anyone can't afford food in a country that pays farmers to NOT produce? Why do people work such long hours in an economy that doesn't have as many jobs as there are people to fill them? Why do we have human beings doing the job of a robot? Any of that would be repugnant to the people of the Star Trek universe. Even a failed Ferengi (Oa society clearly modeled as a natural extension of ours today) has better prospects than a laid off factory worker.
Those are the questions implied by the shows. The background of the show offers an alternative to the idea that if such conditions were made true, everyone would become a couch potato and society would collapse.
Given the number of people in our society who are still inclined to screech about the evils of communism (promptly drawing examples from states that were communist in name only) the only way to even ask those questions and make those suggestions in mass media is under the cloak of science fiction.
WTF ? (Score:3, Insightful)
--LordPixie