Orson Scott Card on Trek & Rebuttal

[Raven Crowking]

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."

Out of curiosity, what did you see as Card's "X, Y, and Z"?


RC

 

[Vigilance]

You know, I could handle that Card's opinion differs from mine AND that he's an arrogant SOB if he wasn't also a hypocrit.

Here's what a DS9 staffer has to say about her brush with Card's "greatess".

5/3/05


(originally written as a letter to the editors of the L.A. Times in response to an opinion piece written by Orson Scott Card)

I would like to take a moment to respond to Mr. Card's commentary on the irrelevance of 'Star Trek'.
I'm a science fiction fan with a degree in literature who had the lucky opportunity to work as a writers' assistant on 'Star Trek: Deep Space Nine' for a few seasons. One of my favorite memories of that time was during a weekend off when I attended a small academic literary conference and had the opportunity to meet one of my (at the time) favorite authors, Orson Scott Card, writer of the absolutely brilliant novel 'Ender's Game'. With the kind permission of 'Deep Space Nine's' producers - many of whom were fans of Card's work as they were big science fiction readers themselves - I extended an invitation to Mr. Card for a personal tour of the set of our show and to watch some of the filming. Mr. Card seemed excited by the invitation and asked if he could bring his family along on the tour (wife, two kids). The producers granted permission for this and when Mr. Card showed up to the writers' offices, the excited 'Trek' writers provided him and his family with several signed scripts from the show and many compliments towards his work. Mr. Card seemed overwhelmed by their welcome and their familiarity with his work. I got to bring the Card family down to the sets, showing them through the various stages until we finally got to where the show was filming. They stayed for a few minutes, then seemed to lose interest and chose to leave. Still the entire family thanked me profusely for the opportunity to see how 'Star Trek' was produced. And when they left, I thought I'd done a nice thing for everyone - the 'Trek' writers got to meet a great science fiction writer they admired and a science fiction writer got to see how a show he acted like he respected was produced.

So to say I was disappointed by Mr. Card's lack of graciousness in his recent commentary to the Times about 'Star Trek' would be an understatement. In fact, it's like a slap in the face to those of us who went out of our way that day to show respect to him. But rudeness aside, I would like to address a few points in his commentary, specifically his idea that "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." And his belief that "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."

The latter first. The original 'Star Trek' series, contrary to Mr. Card's opinion now, THEN was actually not only cutting edge in its concepts, but in its casting as well. A woman on the bridge of a ship? An AFRICAN-AMERICAN woman? An Asian man? A Russian? Like that was ever going to happen… oh, wait. The show employed many, many literary science fiction writers from Theodore Sturgeon to Norman Spinrad to the infamous Harlan Ellison. Isaac Asimov and Ray Bradbury were friends of Gene Roddenberry as well. Each week the show promoted ideas of tolerance, inspiration, imagination, risk, respect, all wrapped in a science fiction framework and reference base. This show that Card would so quickly belittle and dismiss inspired men and women of all races, colors and creeds to become doctors, scientists, engineers, leaders... not to mention writers, environmentalists, and teachers.

That the fans could find not only inspiration, but solace, kinship, and even familiarity amongst the relationships and struggles of the Enterprise crew bound them together in a way no show had before. A culture of fandom grew up around 'Star Trek', and yes, it included those stereotypical fans that William Shatner mocked in his infamous 'Saturday Night Live' sketch, telling them to 'get a life'. But we laughed along with that sketch because 'Trek' fans also had a sense of humor about themselves. 'Trek' fans are teased for being anti-social losers, but really, we're as social as anyone else - we just like to associate with people we have something in common with. And that common ground is not just spaceships and pointed ears. It's exploration, examination of the human condition, and the asking of the most important question in speculative fiction: WHAT IF?

'Star Trek' fans are those who ask that question on a daily basis. What if people were that kind, that brave, that respectful? What if we went out there? What would we find? Who would we meet? Will we survive it? 'Star Trek' fans are intelligent. They are not just mindless TV viewing automatons. They are readers. Heck, they are even readers of Orson Scott Card.

By Card listing his preferences in science fiction entertainment, though oddly, short of 'Firefly', naming nothing but fantasy series and films, he shows why 'Star Trek' doesn't appeal to him. Okay, his prerogative. Though if he perhaps watched the show he'd come to see filmed that day, he might just find that drama and compelling continuing storyline he craves.

But to make the judgment call for the rest of us that 'Star Trek' is no longer necessary seems quite a bit of hubris. While I will grant that not everything that has had the 'Star Trek' name on it, especially of late, has lived up to why original fans fell in love with it in the first place - its challenge, its tackling of current topics from war to intolerance - this does not mean that 'Star Trek' as a concept is either dead or irrelevant. I believe that as long as mankind strives to better itself, there will be a place for 'Star Trek'. As long as we look up at the stars, and out at the stars and out FROM the stars, there will be a place for 'Star Trek'. Because to me, it shows there is always a place to grow to, a behavior to strive toward, a new goal to look for. And perhaps, even something that Mr. Card could learn from as well: a respect for beliefs different than one's own.

IDIC - Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.

And that's really what 'Star Trek' is all about.

 

[mojo1701]

Everything he said about it is what made me love the show, although, granted, I didn't live in the 60s.

 

[Rackhir]

Sounds like OSC's head is firmly planted up his ass.

 

[takyris]

So basically, he's someone who thinks of himself as literary dissing something he thinks of as a pulp serial. Except that Star Trek was a bit deeper than he believes it is, and his stuff is a lot shallower than he thinks it is.

He's certainly entitled to his opinion, but he comes off as a bit of a pretentious turd, and generally, while I've got no problems with an author saying what he likes and dislikes, once you as an author start telling people that they are wrong to like something that happens to be different from what you do... that's more or less the moment you've just admitted you're being beaten.

Yeah, more people enjoy Star Trek than like your books. Yeah, more people stuck around for (insert mediocre movie or mediocre spinoff series here) than read your "Oh, oh, this time I'm going to tell the complete story of this minor character from Ender's Game!" sequels. You are less popular than Star Trek. Telling people that they're stupid for liking Star Trek in greater numbers than they like you is not going to solve the problem. In fact, it makes you look like a bit of a jerk who is intimidated by a franchise that was doing better than either your "One good book, and then a bunch of Ender Sequels" or "Retelling the Book of Mormon" series and is now taking the opportunity to kick the franchise while it's down. (Mind you, that's all separate from the criticism of Star Trek. I consider the actual criticism of Star Trek secondary to the attitude with which he addresses people who enjoy Star Trek.)

One particular aspect of his criticism gets to what currently bugs me about the SF field: there's this "It's the fiction of ideas" ideology that says that SF always has to be new, and that any SF that isn't sufficiently new in the ways that the blowhards declare are acceptible is not REAL SF. So Star Trek is not REAL SF, because it's just a western that happens to take place in space and address racism and the cold war and other topical issues. And having Star Trek on TV is bad, despite the fact that the authors he's named would look really really bad if their fiction were taken to TV, because you can't put three-page infodumps about (tech-device the author wanted to write about and so dropped a few cardboard characters and a half-baked plot around) up on television. People expect an exciting and engaging ride. Often, they expect character development as well, something that is profoundly lacking in a bunch of the work of the people he mentions.

 

[Captain Tagon]

I like my sci-fi to be entertaining first, thought provoking second. If I want to read something that's primarily though provoking any form of fiction isn't going to be my first choice.

Card's arguement seems to be that Trek wasn't "sophisticated" enough to be sci-fi. Maybe not, but it entertained me quite well and even had a few nice thought provoking moments to add on top of things.

 

[mojo1701]

Maybe not, but it entertained me quite well and even had a few nice thought provoking moments to add on top of things.

I refer you to Exhibit A: episode 526 of TNG, "The Inner Light."

 

[Desdichado]

Out of curiosity, what did you see as Card's "X, Y, and Z"?

Based mostly on what he claims... I agree with the first two; I don't have as much of a problem with the third, or really even the fourth. Although I'd rather get my fix of that somewhere other than Star Trek...

• For a science fiction show, the science is incredibly sloppy to non-existant, or even flat-out wrong, even by the standards and beliefs of the 60s.
• Badly acted and scripted screenplays. Lame dialogue. Lame delivery of said dialogue.
• Campy 1930s pulp-era space opera slash planetary romance disguising itself as science fiction. This isn't unique to Card; lots of SF hardcore folks really don't like the idea of westerns in space.
• Bad effects and sets.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Name That Story!

Due to a lack of understanding about another species' life cycle, members of one species begin murdering members of the other. The murdering species does not realize that it is doing harm. The problem is further augmented by a lack of clear communication between the two species -- they simply do not understand each other. The victim species begins attacking members of the other species in retaliation, and the first species does not understand why the second species is doing this.

Enter someone who has a lot more experience with interspecies communications. With his support team he is able to realize what is going on, explain the first species' life cycle to the second species, and avert a genocidal disaster.

Now, here's the fun part: Did I just describe the plot of Orson Scott Card's Speaker for the Dead or the original series Star Trek story "Devil in the Dark"?

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Based mostly on what he claims... I agree with the first two; I don't have as much of a problem with the third, or really even the fourth. Although I'd rather get my fix of that somewhere other than Star Trek...

• For a science fiction show, the science is incredibly sloppy to non-existant, or even flat-out wrong, even by the standards and beliefs of the 60s.
• Badly acted and scripted screenplays. Lame dialogue. Lame delivery of said dialogue.
• Campy 1930s pulp-era space opera slash planetary romance disguising itself as science fiction. This isn't unique to Card; lots of SF hardcore folks really don't like the idea of westerns in space.
• Bad effects and sets.

Okay, now let's also note that Card suggests that Lost, Smallville, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Firefly are counter examples to these problems.

Obviously, the "science" in Lost, Smallville, and Buffy are going to suffer under the first criteria. It is arguable whether any of these series mentioned is "science fiction" under the hard definition Card uses. As for acting/screenplays, I direct your attention to Smallville, our current King of Melodrama. Are we really to believe that no one has the brainpower necessary to realize what the connection between Clark Kent and everything else that happens to everyone is? No wonder they don't realize that Superman is Clark without his glasses when he grows up! Meteor rocks apparently lower IQ.

EDIT: Again, the original rebuttal points out that such luminaries as Stephen Hawking have found Star Trek to provide interesting and illuminating takes on current science issues. Who do we trust about the relative merits of Star Trek's science? Orson Scott Card or Stephen Hawking?

Bad effects and sets? This implies that sf requires spectacle rather than substance, doesn't it? Which is brought up in the original rebuttal.

Which leaves us with acting and dialogue.

I'll certainly grant that Joss Whedon can write some snappy dialogue, and that the cast members of Lost can deliver on the acting side of things. But I have a hard time granting that these things imply substance. To me, Star Trek seems a lot more real simply because the characters don't always have a bon mot on the tips of their tongues.


RC