Orson Scott Card on Trek & Rebuttal

[Andre La Roche]

I can see Card's point about TOS not being revolutionary when it comes to what it offered up to the sci-fi world in terms of innovation and plots, however as many posters have hinted at already, I think he really overlooks the various social contributions it made to widestream entertainment and the world as a whole. By exposing a wider audience to a critical approach of social issues and including a strong female black character (and as the rebuttal says, the first televised interracial kiss) it certainly boldly went where no one on television or the movies had gone before. Suddenly many people were made aware of this niche genre when they otherwise wouldn't have been and it helped to pave the way for a marketable sci-fi movie and tv genre. For those reasons that Card really does overlook, ST is a priceless piece of history.

 

[John Crichton]

I'll give the article and response a solid "meh."

Never read Card's work but since he is a published author I thought that he'd have some cool insight to the biz. Then I realized that he is a novelist and has had nothing to do with either film or television. Oops.

 

[Desdichado]

Most of the replies here are just as reactionary as the second "article" posted. They completely missed the point of Card's article in the first place.

While I could quibble with Card about what's good and not these days, in general I find his take on the Star Trek phenomena to be spot on. I've never understood it either, especially for the Original Series. Even watching syndicated reruns as a kid I thought they were bad. And y'know what? They were. All of Card's comments were accurate. Whether or not that bothers you in your science fiction that there's no science, and its a 1960s slightly hippified version of Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon is the only variable.

 

[Torm]

Yeah, I get Card's point, but I think he misses one. Sure it's great that some Sci-Fi on TV seems to be "growing up", and sure, Star Trek seems cheesy and bright and cheerful. But, to use a music analogy - sometimes, sure, I want to listen to Adult Contemporary, but at other times, I just want to hear some Britney Spears. Not everything has to be serious - sometimes it's okay for something to just make ya feel good.

Problems have developed in Trek, but I don't think Card is looking at it from the right perspective at all.

 

[Mallus]

In Card's defense he hasn't really wrote anything particularly novel or appealing since Ender's Game...snip...

Except for Speaker for the Dead, which for my money is one of the best SF novels of all time, particularly when paired with Ender's Game.

To Card's discredit, I will say he does have hands-on experience with "franchise-mining".

 

[Mallus]

All of Card's comments were accurate. Whether or not that bothers you in your science fiction that there's no science, and its a 1960s slightly hippified version of Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon is the only variable.

You know, I like both Card and Trek, but a few of his comments were way off the mark. Trek, particularly TOS, frequently tacked the same questions that infomed serious SF literature. The execution may often have been hamfisted --and ham-acted--, but to ignore the fact that Trek was attempting to deal with serious ideas in an adult way is just willful ignorance.

 

[Pielorinho]

Hmm. I was all prepared to hate it, because I've hated just about every essay I've ever read by Card, but I kinda agree with him here. He explains rather well why I've never much gotten into Star Trek.

Daniel

 

[Dimwhit]

Sorry, but I've gotta go with OSC on this one. The original Star Trek series was horrible. MST3K could have done 3 seasons on nothing but Star Trek, but then they probably would have been canceled, too.

 

[Desdichado]

Yeah, I get Card's point, but I think he misses one. Sure it's great that some Sci-Fi on TV seems to be "growing up", and sure, Star Trek seems cheesy and bright and cheerful. But, to use a music analogy - sometimes, sure, I want to listen to Adult Contemporary, but at other times, I just want to hear some Britney Spears. Not everything has to be serious - sometimes it's okay for something to just make ya feel good.

Problems have developed in Trek, but I don't think Card is looking at it from the right perspective at all.

Well, yeah, that was my point. Card said, essentially, "why has Star Trek survived all these years; it's got problems X, Y, and Z." And that rebuttal was sorta along the lines of "Star Trek is great because of completely unrelated items A, B, and C." So the question becomes, do you like A, B and C as elements, and do X, Y and Z bother you or not. Personally, I'm indifferent to A, B, and C elements that the rebuttal claimed Star Trek has, and I am bothered by items X, Y, and Z, so the mystique of Star Trek has also eluded me all these years. But the point is, what Card doesn't like and what that other guy does like are completely different elements of the show that have nothing to do with each other. They're not even having a conversation, as they're talking about completely different things.

For me, when I want A, B and C, I'll watch Star Wars instead. And I've never read any Orson Scott Card either.

 

[Desdichado]

You know, I like both Card and Trek, but a few of his comments were way off the mark. Trek, particularly TOS, frequently tacked the same questions that infomed serious SF literature. The execution may often have been hamfisted --and ham-acted--, but to ignore the fact that Trek was attempting to deal with serious ideas in an adult way is just willful ignorance.

How serious those issues were and how adult the treatment of them is certainly up for debate...