Card says that Trek not needed anymore

[Hugh Casey]

Orson Scott Card, award winning SF author, wrote an editorial about Trek for the LA times.

You can read it here.

Discuss...

[BouncyCaitian]

I rather disagree with OSC on this one. Crappy Writing has been one of our worse plagues so far. That and the need to play it 'safe'among the community and at Paramount. this is why I like Starfleet Universe. Scenes are familiar, but things have taken so many twists and turns that you end up with something completely different and interesting.

while Continuity can be retained, even with all thats gone before, a Babylon 5ish spin on trek would be interesting. And I'm not talking wars (tho interesting), but actual character development other the pablum we got spooned up with Voyager

[templartiger]

I find it amusing that someone as intelligent as OSC would write an opinion piece failing to mention several major points of what was within Star Trek. there was a lot of political and social commentary for the time it was on the air .

Times have changed, sci-fi has changed, the fan base has changed. Which OSC fails to mention.

As BouncyCaitian noted, poor writing and a failure of executives to brave the rapids destroyed the show.

OSC states:

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.

Broad generalization as this is, I have a question: Is it because of Star Trek that people got their first introduction to Sci-fi and therefore started reading the genre? Or is it, as I think OSC implies, people already knew what quality sci-fi was and just didn't bother picking it up? I think this statement is a little confusing.

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. Whedon's "Firefly" showed us that even 1930s sci-fi can be well acted and tell a compelling long-term story.

Yet he fails to mention Farscape, Babylon 5 and Battlestar Galactica? Buffy was amusing but it was based on a movie with Kristie Swanson, Luke Perry, and Paul Rubens. Firefly, for me, wasn't that interesting and did not make a lot of sense when I had someone try and explain it to me.

Maybe its me... but it seems that OSC is giving the television Sci-Fi genre and Trek fans in general the finger.

Just my thoughts.... MMV

[REG]

Meh. I don't think I have ever read any one of his works.

[TFVanguard]

So, an author who never much had 'need' for Trek, and was wrong about its popularity and staying for 35 years, now says that others don't have 'need' for Trek so he was right all along.

Feh.

[Rayaru]

Wow, that editorial is a bitter and blind lashing out at something he clearly harbors feelings of contempt towards. Kind of pathetic, really, coming from someone who I had previously considered to be a somewhat intelligent author.

[D.S.McBride]

I may be completely misreading the man's intent, but this has to be one of the most poorly thought-out and illogically constructed screeds I've ever had the misfortune of coming across.

Where Card completely lost me was in his "Let us now praise famous men" bit, venerating '60s stalwarts such as Harlan Ellison, Isaac Asimov, Ray Bradbury, et al. Yet the man fails to note that any number of these individuals contributed episodes to the goddam show. Harlan Ellison? "City on the Edge of Forever". Norman Spinrad? "The Doomsday Machine". Theodore Sturgeon? "Amok Time". Jerome Bixby? "Mirror, Mirror", "Dave of the Dove", "By Any Other Name", "Requiem for Methusalah"; the list goes on and on. And let's not forget the rather lengthy talk Mr. Asimov gave on Gene Roddenberry's Inside Star Trek album back in '76 - I don't think anyone would be able to say he gave the show anything less than a passing grade as far as a respect for the principles of science and good storytelling were concerned.

Using ad hominem attacks unrelated to the main point - "cheesy special effects"; what, like they weren't cutting edge for the time? Check out Lost in Space if you want cheesy. Give me a f*****g break - reduces the level of effectiveness even further. Whatever bug Card's got up his butt regarding Star Trek and its continued popularity is utterly beyond me; the essay indulged in such a plethora of unrelated, scurrilious attacks that the main point got completely lost in the shuffle. I'd give him the same advice I give my students in English and Writer's Craft: Avoid using SOAP (Sarcasm, Over-exagguration, Ad hominem attacks, and Personal references) in your writing and you won't get dirty. This one gets a D-, Orson; best to do a rewrite and try using the basics of good essay construction next time.

[IceGiant]

What D.S. said. /nod

[First of Two]

Speaking of "playing it safe," Just how long is OSC going to keep milking the success of "Ender's Game" into new books? What're we on now, the story of Ender's Brother's Best Friend's Former Roommate?

to that.

[Doug Burke]

Wow, that editorial is a bitter and blind lashing out at something he clearly harbors feelings of contempt towards. Kind of pathetic, really, coming from someone who I had previously considered to be a somewhat intelligent author.

I found out what a boorish, opinionated loudmouth Card is a few months back. This diatribe surprises me not at all...

[black campbellq]

Not a great editorial, mostly for reasons mentioned above. Many period writers worked on TOS. I do agree sci-fi was in its infancy at the time and Trek was the first real exposure for many people (it certainly was for me and others I know.) This show was a gateway into better sci-fi, once the taste was acquired.

The movies were, in general, decent; a few were really good. TNG had a couple of really good writers, but I agree that they were limited by both Roddenberry's rather self-important view of TNG, then by the B&B team. Good stories got through this. So did a lot of bad. I occasionally talk to Melinda Snodgrass at the local coffeeshop: there were a lot of limitations on what the writers could explore, under both R and B&B.

So I semi-agree with some of his points: Trek was the icebreaker for TV sci-fi to start getting aired, but there have been much better series -- particularly in the last 10 years or so. they all owe Trek for making it possible, IMO. But sooner or later, the children have to replace the parents, to badly paraphase the Cylons in the new Galactica.

It's obvious, however, that he has a particular bug up his ass about the franchise...I wonder if they turned down a few of his stories? I'll have to ask MS.

[Balok]

Card's a good author, but I generally read only the first books in his series; he can't finish a multi-part story well enough to justify the usually interesting first part. He's talented, but he's not Asimov, Bradbury, or Heinlein talented. So I'm not sure he's qualified to judge the works of others to the degree he does here.

[templartiger]

OSC fails to give proper respect to the those that came before him and slaps the faces of everyone that will come after him.

Either A.) he has no concept that Science Fiction began with Jules Verne, or B.) has no understanding of how Sci-Fi and Hollywood evolved. I am willing to go with both.

Venom aside... OSC points out something that is a problem with media in general and that is over commercialism. Now don't get me wrong, a tv series doesn't survive unless the money is coming in, and thats a good thing. However miliking a series for all its worth is another.

Star Trek became a cash-cow for TPTB in Paramount and Rick Berman became the head Accountant. Money in, Paramount happy. Weeeeee!!! When you sacrifice quality for quantity you run into the problems that plagued Voyager and Enterprise.

Again OSC deludes his arguement with what apparently is his disgust with the series.

[REG]

Card's a good author, but I generally read only the first books in his series; he can't finish a multi-part story well enough to justify the usually interesting first part. He's talented, but he's not Asimov, Bradbury, or Heinlein talented. So I'm not sure he's qualified to judge the works of others to the degree he does here.

Meh. After this, I don't think I can be convinced to read any of his works.

[Evan van Eyk]

I for one never regarded Trek so much Trek, but more Utopia. However up to now there were episodes who were only remakes of others, imho, but in general the series are quite different ( not counting the very bad Xindi arc ).
And so far Trek was alwas able to entertain and make you think ( if you wanted to ), so I think everything is in order with Trek. If not then why are still so many fans around?