Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Card: Star Trek Sucks!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Card: Star Trek Sucks!

    Strange New World: No 'Star Trek'
    By Orson Scott Card, author of "Ender's Shadow" (Tor Books, 2000) and "Ender's Game" (Tor Books, 1994). His most recent book is "Shadow of the Giant" (Tor Books, 2005).
    So they've gone and killed "Star Trek." And it's about time... The original "Star Trek," created by Gene Roddenberry, was, with a few exceptions, bad in every way that a science fiction television show could be bad... As science fiction, the series was trapped in the 1930s — a throwback to spaceship adventure stories with little regard for science or deeper ideas. It was sci-fi as seen by Hollywood: all spectacle, no substance...

    Why did it last so long? 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.
    ST:TOS was cheesy, no doubt about it. But most TV at the time was (as Orson Scott Card concedes in his rant). The 'Trek' franchise did grow to tell other stories (which Card also admits were better). Ultimately, to read one (living) science fiction writer slamming another (dead) science fiction creator reeks of sour grapes.

    At least he's a "Lost" fan:
    Now we finally have first-rate science fiction film and television that are every bit as good as anything going on in print... Jeffrey Lieber, J.J. Abrams and Damon Lindelof have created "Lost," the finest television science fiction series of all time … so far.

  • #2
    Re: Card: Star Trek Sucks!

    It's interesting that Card cites as science fiction some shows that few people explicitly think of as such. It goes to show how deeply science-fictional concepts have ingrained themselves into popular media. There are even authors like Margaret Atwood who, to the knowledgeable reader, are obviously writing science fiction, but who vigorously deny any such thing.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Card: Star Trek Sucks!

      We'll see if any of Scott's work 30 years from now have a lasting impression as Star Trek. Live long and prosper!
      Listen to KEITH AND THE GIRLsigpic

      Stupid people come in all flavors-buzz1941
      Flickr

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Card: Star Trek Sucks!

        Whoa, whoa. Wait a minute. You can disagree with Card's argument, sure, but don't forget who the intended audience is, who the author is, and whether or not there's a possibility he's right.

        "Sour grapes" from one of the best-selling SF writers of the past twenty years? I don't think so. Ender's Game is among the most revered of SF works in recent memory, and the Ender books that follow it are Science Fiction at its very, very best. Few SF writers pay as much attention to the art of writing as Card, and fewer approach his story-telling skills, not to mention the beauty of the language or the depth of his characters.

        It is not unusual for esteemed writers of SF to write criticism of others. Spider Robinson's essay on Robert A. Heinlein is a great example. You might like Star Trek for what it is, but surely you can see how devotees of the genre might agree with what Card is saying. I'm a religious baseball fanatic, but while I'll agree that Major League is solidly entertaining, as a baseball movie, it's not even in the same ballpark as Bull Durham, Field of Dreams, or even The Rookie. Likewise, as Science Fiction, perhaps Star Trek is a bit lacking.

        I love Glen's comment on Margaret Atwood for two reasons: it's a good point and I love Margaret Atwood. Now, I'm sorry, Trekkers, but Trekcan't hold a candle to Atwood.

        As for whether or not Card's work will still be reknowned in thirty years, I'd say you can count on it. I'm a literature teacher, and I have seen students who claim they despise reading pick up Ender's Game and read it in two sittings. If greatness is measured by the influence of a work on the people who consume it and on the work that follows, sure, it won't match Trek, but then it's a book. And as a great book, its equal in greatness is rarely seen.
        But I'm disturbed! I'm depressed! I'm inadequate! I GOT IT ALL! (George Costanza)
        GrouchyTeacher.com

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Card: Star Trek Sucks!

          Orson Scott Card is a supremely talented sci fi writer, and he'll definitely leave a great legacy. And yeah, writers are just about the most qualified and outspoken critics there are. But keep in mind, this diatribe didn't run in Science Fiction Quarterly, it was a syndicated piece carried in mainstream publications across the country.

          I call "sour grapes" because, even if you grant that Card might have had enough talent to run circles around Roddenberry, he was calling attention to the mass market success that "Star Trek" had. I'm certain every sci fi expert can think of a dozen creations and fictional worlds that deserved greater exposure than "Star Trek" or "Star Wars" or whatever, but the public has weird (okay, frequently bad) whims and tastes. It's one thing for a librarian to tsk tsk this, though, and another for a fellow artist to do it... again, in the press, not in some journal.

          And actually, re-reading it, it seems less a condemnation of Trek as it does a finger-wagging exercise against an ignorant public.

          It comes across like how "real" custom bike shops hate the folks on "Monster Garage" because the famous folks with the cable series are actually horrible craftsman, or the way "real" bounty hunters feel about our very own Duane "Dog" Chapman for the way he makes their livelihood look. On one hand, yeah, they have a point... but on the other, all the griping doesn't reflect particularly well on them, either.

          Card, you notice, goes on to say that we finally have "good" science fiction in the mainstream today. But I'd argue that "bad" sci fi like "Star Trek" and other cheesy space dramas from the 60s and 70s helped pave the way for that to happen.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Card: Star Trek Sucks!

            Originally posted by pzarquon
            Card, you notice, goes on to say that we finally have "good" science fiction in the mainstream today. But I'd argue that "bad" sci fi like "Star Trek" and other cheesy space dramas from the 60s and 70s helped pave the way for that to happen.
            That was all well-argued and I haven't a single decent comeback, since (a) you gave me more credit than I deserved because (b) I didn't read the piece. I will, though. I promise.

            Cheesy doesn't have to be bad, though. The Twilight Zone predates Trek and was frequently cheesy, but man, it was good. And many of the episodes were written by Ray Bradbury, the greatest SF writer ever, if you ask me.

            I'm off to read that article.
            But I'm disturbed! I'm depressed! I'm inadequate! I GOT IT ALL! (George Costanza)
            GrouchyTeacher.com

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Card: Star Trek Sucks!

              star trek was television, and as a product FOR that medium, it was spectacularly successful...especially with regard to the fact that people are so deeply attached to it 30 YEARS LATER...pandering? yes. pedestrian? yes. but along with (ahem) the flintstones, it was breaking ground in the yet-fledgling television industry of the time...to be sure, roddenberrry was no vonnegut, but he did get ratings...and merchandizing god-status...heck, "the nanny" ran just as long...
              Don't be mean,
              try to help.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Card: Star Trek Sucks!

                Card is entitled to have his say on the matter of Enterprise and Star Trek in general. And while Gene Roddenberry and with the help of Gene Coon, DC Fontana, Matt Jefferies, Bob Justman and other people during the 1966-1969 time frame crafted the original series to what it is, that 4 sequel and one prequel series and 10 movies are based on, it is the work of the people today who are doing Enterprise.

                So we won't have a TV series currently in production, so what, there was a period of 10 years that nothing came out (well there was some behind the scenes kind of thing).
                Last edited by helen; May 7, 2005, 10:12 AM.

                Comment

                Working...
                X