Orson Scott Card on Trek & Rebuttal

[Captain Tagon]

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

Ouch, I agree with you and that burned me.

 

[mojo1701]

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?

One time, while Stephen Hawking was being given a tour of the set of the Enterprise-D, while in the Engineering set, he pointed to the Warp Core and said, "I'm working on that."

 

[Vigilance]

See, to me here is the essential problem with Card's essay.

I like TV Show A and you do not. You prefer TV Show B. We can discuss the various merits of TV Show A and B all day long and have many interesting conversations.

But if, after TV Show A goes off the air (after 40 or so years), and you say "ah hah! I told you that show sucked".

Well, that's kind of moronic on its face.

It reminds me of the scene from Dogma where the characters are discussing which is the better movie, Crush Groove or ET and the one guy won't let it go "f*** you ok, time will tell on that one".

Really his whole argument boils down to "millions of people like this show that I think sucks and now its finally gone, I was right all along".

And its pretty easy to see why he was jealous of trek. When was the last time anyone on this board talked about Cards books? Has anything he ever wrote generated as much discussion as his trek bash?

Chuck

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I have never liked the comparison of the works of top-tier authors such as LeGuin or Asimov to the writing of TV shows like Star Trek. If you could have asked those authors to pen a script for a show that will last one hour (less with commercials), that will capture your audience quickly and will explore interesting topics in a way that is accessible to a large number of people. You will probably find that they would have been hard pressed to succeed.

There is little risk to exploring a difficult topic with the written word - the costs to produce a book are much lower than to produce a TV show. With a book you can take several pages to expound upon topics and explain concepts - TV does not have that luxury. It is such a different medium that it is hard to make comparisons.

I would contend that the current state of Science Fiction television has benefitted as much from the Star Trek franchise as it has from quality science fiction novels as well as the maturation of the audience.

I am not a huge Star Trek fan, I lost a lot of interest after DS 9 went off the air, but I would not say that it no longer has a place in modern science fiction. I do think the franchise could do better than it has recently, but then again, so can Orson Scott Card.

 

[Raven Crowking]

First off, for the record, I am Daniel J. Bishop, co-owner of Golden City Comics, and I wrote the linked rebuttal.

For the record, I enjoy Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly, which are great examples of how the superhero genre can be worked into a television program. I agree that Firefly is as science fiction-y as it is superhero-y, but it really is both. I am looking forward to Serenity and hope for a trilogy (and maybe even a new series). Whedon writes great scripts and dialogue, but nothing that makes me believe his universe is real.

Lost seems real, but since we've only gotten glimpses of what is actually happening in the series, we can't possibly say whether it's going to pan out or peter out in the long run.

Also, when I say I prefer Show A over Show B, I am making a subjective statement. When I say that the only reason people liked Show B was because they were ignorant, unread, and immature, then I am making a claim that my preference is objective.


RC

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

If this is the defense of Star Trek as good science fiction, then its not a very good one. None of the ideas touted as big ideas attributable to the series really have much to do with science fiction. They are just dramatic elements, and most could just as easily be used to describe Cop Rock, the Partridge Family, or the Brady Bunch.

 

[Mallus]

• 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.

Does SF need to get the science right? Or at least are there cases where the actual science is less relevant?

Is 'The Time Machine' a bad SF novel because we're never given a solid explanation of how all that brass, glass and quartz rods propel the narrator into the far future?

 

[jasper]

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,
Speaking of sixties. Hmm what about the black cat woman? The single black nurse? Bruce Lee, Hmm Ivan whats it of the spy show, Hmm the woman and her daughter and the other Robinson clan.
Bill Cosby and whats his name in I,Spy.
What most scific people forget is other shows and other things were happening at the same time but have faded into the past due the lack of fandom.

 

[Vigilance]

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,
Speaking of sixties. Hmm what about the black cat woman? The single black nurse? Bruce Lee, Hmm Ivan whats it of the spy show, Hmm the woman and her daughter and the other Robinson clan.
Bill Cosby and whats his name in I,Spy.
What most scific people forget is other shows and other things were happening at the same time but have faded into the past due the lack of fandom.

Heh I must be a child of the 60's (ok the 70's but who's counting) cause I liked ALL that stuff as a kid lol.

But the point isn't whether or not Trek broke new ground. It did at times, it also pandered to the lowest common denominator at times as well.

However, even if another Trek production never appears, we have 5 TV shows that aired for a total of 28 seasons, 11 movies, 100's of books, and a run of 17 years in which there was always a new trek show on. All five series are still on the air.

And now that there has finally been a lull, Card has to pop up from his foxhole like the kid on the Simpsons and go "HAAHA!".

Which is, imo, as lame as he claims all us immature fans are.

Chuck

 

[Ketjak]

Check this out: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-card3may03,0,6007802.story.

Then check this out: http://www.goldencitycomics.com/NewsInfo.html.

RC

By spending so much time and energy on OSC's opinion, we're giving it far more weight and importance than it deserves.