PeterDavid.net

Well said Peter! It's easy (too easy) to knock the Trek these days, but it really is a phenomenon. Respect.

You tell him PAD!

Besides socialization among fans, it also serves as a family bonding event. My mom and I don't necessarily like the same things when it comes to TV, but when it comes to Star Trek, we are always watching it together.

sometimes Card takes his self-appointed gadfly role a bit too seriously. If you've read any of his columns from his hometown newspaper (and many people have at least read his anti-gay column after he was announced as writing Ultimate Iron Man) you would see this.

However, I do like Card's writing. I've read all the Ender books and enjoyed them. I enjoyed the originals better than the more recent young adult sequence, but they are all very readable. In fact, I would argue that the YA Ender books do exactly what Card thinks Star Trek did: they introduce otherwise ignorant young readers to the possibilities inherent in SF. Given that Card can write perfectly fine adult SF, there may be just a bit of self-condemnation here, masked as lashing out at the Trek-fans.

and in your comments you didn't mention that for many,many people, James Blish's adaptations of the episodes led us to READING SF. You had to go to the SF section of the paperback racks or bookstore to get them. The back of the books listed other SF writers and books. It's a small step from them to reading other, more rigorous SF.

Nobody's perfect.

Back when I still didn't know what I wanted to write when I became a real writer, I read several books on writing. (I know. Bad mistake.) The first two were by Larry Block, were very well done, and had a tone of "This is how I do it" while throwing in some quick summaries of how other writers do it. First rudiments of how I write novels now.

Then I read Card's book on how to write science fiction. He spent most of the book in pompous ass rants about how his defnition of bad science fiction was STAR TREK.

I can seperate a lot of things from the author and his work. His personal life, his politics, his criminal record. What I can't seperate is a sneering "I'm better than your favorite icon" attitude at the keyboard. Can't. Which is why it's highly unlikely I'll ever read ENDER'S GAME.

Dear Mr. David,

Thank you for this. I, too, got into science fiction because of Star Trek. I'd never even *heard* of ST conventions before I found the show. I met many people, who remain my friends, to this day. Star Trek opened up my life :)

So, thank you for this. Orson Scott Card needs to learn humility.

The stuff Card says about Trek may not be all that worse than a lot of what Harlan has said--I heard Harlan speak at a time when he was REALLY down on Trek (or maybe he was just extra special mad at Roddenberry)and when Harlan Ellison gets his mad on he makes Card at his angriest sound like Fred Rogers.

That said, it seems unfair to trash Star Trek for not measuring up to today's high standards. TV is better written these days. TV is ALLOWED to be better written these days. If Rod Serling had handed in anything like a script for your average episode of CSI or THE SHIELD they would have carted him off. Special effects can be done on my home computer that blow away anything they were able to do on OUTER LIMITS.. It's not fair to penalize shows for being of their time. Yeah, METROPOLIS has poor sound editing, what the hell were they supposed to do about it?

Yeah, but Harlan feels he was rather ill-used by Trek personnel, up to and including Gene repeatedly stating that the original draft of "City" featured Scotty as a drug dealer when it never did. So if he's got an axe to grind with Trek, at least it's personal. All "Trek" ever did to Card was generate more potential readers for his work.

PAD

I met a lady at a Starfleet International meeting. We were different in many respects: she liked country music and dancing, I like classical music and computers. However, we had Trek in common. We enjoyed that part of our lives together. I read Imzadi to her.

Twelve years and one daughter later, I'm even more glad of Star Trek than when I was a socially challenged teen.

Now, as far as Card's editorial (http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-card3may03.story) goes, he goes on to praise "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" as one of the "finest science fiction films of all time so far". Well, Mr. Card, the moral lesson of that movie - that you should welcome the pain of life as much as the pleasure - was at the center of what's considered the worst Trek film (STV). I guess Trek has something going for it after all.

Personally, I think the finest SF film of all time is "The Truman Show," if for no other reason than people don't think of it as SF. But it is. It extrapolates on current technology to create an environment that does not yet exist...but could...and uses that environment to comment laceratingly on the current state of mankind. Plus it's a Biblical parable to boot, as Truman--the True Man--leaves Paradise. This time, however, he does so on his own terms, departing not because Paradise's creator is throwing him out, but DESPITE the creator's pleadings that he remain, so that he can carve his own destiny instead of having a "divine plan" shape it for him.

PAD

Well, whaddaya expect from a vocal supporter of the Bush/Cheney junta.

Mark

sometimes Card takes his self-appointed gadfly role a bit too seriously.

I agree - the man seems to think that bestsellers gives him the ability to be a total prick to the rest of the genre.

Thankfully, his novels aren't the end-all of science fiction (not that I've read any of his stuff anyways).

I'd hate to think what Card would have to say about Doctor Who. :)

I always liked it simply for the fact that it portrayed military women in their proper place: wearing short skirts and handing out coffee.

But seriously, we have played non-stop Star Trek DVDs from the first 2 seasons since our child was born a couple months ago (apparently it's good for let-down...go figure). I can see where a lot of women would find much offense in some episodes. Nevertheless, my wife loves it (they're HER DVDs).

At my work,a Waldenbooks, SF&F is one of our very successful categories. Every so often I get a SF person who wants real, hard SF. We get very little to stock our shelves because historically, it hasn't sold well enough to justify stocking it. The Fantasy side does very well, we have to get everything TSR publishes. And Star Wars. And every Star Trek release. One of the few SF things we do have is all of the Ender books. I showed it to a Herbert fan last night and pointed out that not many books win both the Hugo and Nebula. And then pointed out to my coworker that I somehow have no interest in reading it. While Card's stuff may be "Quality", it isn't what interests most of the audience, Star Trek and Star Wars are. And sometimes things like Dune when they make a TV movie.

I forgot one point. Was it the publisher twisting Card's arm when he and they pursued the Harry Potter audience by producing Young Adult versions of Ender? Or was it willing participation in an attempt to cash in?

Thanks Peter,

I was introduced to Star Trek at 15 and it turned my life around. Due to the principals of the Federation I worked hard and found a place at the United Nations for many years before starting my own non profit to help people.

I don't care much for the Star Trek shows myself but they did have some great concepts once in awhile.

Also Picard had some great moments and to call him a weak actor is nonsense. (Also I must advertise my favorite site dedicated to the man: http://picard.ytmnd.com/ Have your speakers on!!!!)

I agree that it is a bonding experience. The only times I would watch television with my parents and have them both be interested would be during reruns of the Next Generation. I didn't like it much but the fact that my dad (who never watches television) and mom (Who rarely pays attention to what is on the television) were enjoying the same thing made me stay in the room and politely watch with them.

Thought it was funny that the Borg eps are the most popular but my dad refused to watch them out of hatred. He was the same way with the Reaver eps of Firefly when I showed them to him on DVD and it's the only reason why he has no interest in Serenity.

Most people weren't reading all that brilliant science fiction. Most people weren't reading at all.
No, but some of us were having it read to us; my father read me Heinlein and Asimov and Bova and every piece of bad, hardcore SF he could find as my bedtime story, and I loved it. But Start Trek held a different kind of love, because it was something Dad and I could do together. He'd come home from work, and we'd tuck up in front of the TV and watch TOS (admittedly, on reruns), and then we could talk about it after and discuss the plot and morals. As much as I loved my original intro to SF via bedtime stories, those stories often went well over my head, and aren't things I've been able to appreciate until recently: as an adult who studies critical theory and can see the social commentary being made. Perhaps it validates Card's point, but Trek was something that I could participate in with my father; I could see the bolder story points with no problem, and as I got older, Dad and I could rewatch the episodes and discuss the finer points, too.

-K

The later spinoffs were much better performed, but the content continued to be stuck in Roddenberry's rut.

...Whereas Card rewriting his own books from a different character's point of view in order to keep on milking the Ender cash cow is "bold," "innovative" and "original."

In the immortal words of Bill Cosby's Noah:

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

You know, I've read and loved Ender's Game, and enjoyed a number of Card's novels.

Reading some of his weekly columns over on his website (particularly the anti-gay-marriage one)just made me sad.

I chalked his anti-Trek feelings up to "everyone's got opinions", but his other columns took me somewhat aback.

I guess this is one of those times that we're supposed to separate the creator from their creations. I don't know if I'll be able to look at his stuff again. I'll try (it didn't work for Mike Miller, but I'm an optimist by nature).

I have no problem with it that Mr. Orson Scott Card has a different opinion than me. But what I have a problem with is, how he is voicing that opinion.

I am sick and tired of these discussions of what is “real” or “better” SF or the media vs. non-media discussions in which the pro non-media crowd is looking down at fans like me, sometimes giving the advice that we should read something that is “original” and of course superior.

It is annoying enough when I encounter such discussions among fans and by now, I just sigh and move on instead of getting involved. But I find it even more annoying to see a professional voicing such attitudes in this manner. You don`t catch flies with vinegar. I have never read anything written by this author and after having read this, I also won`t be his customer in future.

What is “good” or “bad” is first of all a subjective matter. If this man had said something like this: “I am not a Trek fan because… but I understand why so many people like it”, showing a certain amount of respect, that could have been the start of an interesting discussion. It also worked for me when someone approached me this way: “You like Star Trek? Have a look at these non-media books. You might like them because…” This is how you invite people to try something new. Not by putting down what they enjoy.

I am not surprised that TOS was the first SF fandom with a big female interest as well. The few old SF classics I tried and movies of that time are usually pretty unwatchable and uninteresting. I am simply not interested in these characters. For example, when the actress who plays the new Dr. Who companion promised, she won`t scream, I thought, about time!

Star Trek also enriched me a lot, more than any other SF. I enjoy the discussions on the net and in our local Trek group – and one of my then-pen friends became my husband and we have a daughter together. She, by the way, is also enjoying certain aspects of Star Trek. She already knows who Kirk and Spock are and Porthos, of course! 

As usual, Peter, you hit the nail right on the head. To compare Harlan's gripes to Card's would be like comparing the preparation of ham and eggs with Harlan as the Pig and Card as the hen. If nobody bought eggs, it wouldn't hinder the hen's productivity, but if nobody bought ham, the pig was slaughtered for nothing! When Card wants to ply his writing trade to television, THEN he can gripe to his heart's content. Otherwise, he should show a little respect for the works of people like Harlan and D.C. Fontana (and the guy whom this website is named after, who wrote quality novels based on TOS and the spinoffs) who can do BOTH quality literature AND TV writing as opposed to being a diner of sour grapes because of the "illiteracy" of Trek fans. As Harlan said in print, "If [literary SF writers] think it's easy to do both, let 'em try!"

I started watching ST when I was in the 4th grade. Because of it, I read Heinlein, Pohl, Herbert, ect. I subscribed to Analog when I was older. All because of ST. I love the series, almost all of them, even if I felt like they were afraid to take chances later on. So, I only have fond memories of ST and its fandom. Oh and I work in a B&N, the ST books are still some of the biggest sellers. Along with Card's novels. ;)

Mark Walsh,
Please grow the f--k up.If Card was a Kerry supporter,would that make his comments any more disrespectful?No. Save your cheap shots for another thread.

To Everyone Else,
Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Myself,it took about 21 years to start actually watching "Star Trek" in ANY of its incarnations (not counting the movies,which I thoroughly enjoyed). That was 14 years ago. One of the main reasons I had avoided it was the "hokey"label so many in the media and general public throw at it. But,yes,a female a knew in college was in toit. So I started watching "Next Generation" so I would be able to talk to her about it and was instantly entertained. I gobbled up TOS reruns, Deep Space Nine and as many of the books and comics as I could get my hands on,particularly those written by a certain Peter David.
I also started going to conventions.
Along the way,I have encountered the Snobswho seem to think that much more "worthy"work is being ignored on the bookshelves.Which is nonsense. First,having so many "Trek" and "Wars" books being profitable allows everyone from the mom and pop bookstore to Borders to carry MORE sci-fi titles in the first place.
Second, by frequently perusing the sci-fi section for these books,I have on occasion gotten other sci-fi books that look interesting.
Third,"value"is in the eye of the beholder. Some of the non-Trek books I have read I have found to be enjoyable and thought-provoking (and the samd can be said of some Trek books) and some I have found to be huge bores.
I am very proud to call myself a Trek fan. For those who don't care for it,well,hooray for them.
And don't even get me started with how the mainstream media portrays "Trek" and it's fans...

Along the way,I have encountered the Snobswho seem to think that much more "worthy"work is being ignored on the bookshelves.Which is nonsense. First,having so many "Trek" and "Wars" books being profitable allows everyone from the mom and pop bookstore to Borders to carry MORE sci-fi titles in the first place

No kidding.

I did any eyeball count of title and shelf space for SF books a while back. Media tie ins (and I include comic-related stuff, whether there was a movie or not, and gaming tie-ins) never made up more than 20% of the titles and 33% of the shelf space of the shelf space of the stores I was in.

That can't be generalized beyond the Pacific Northwest, but I get similar accounts from folks from other parts of the country. Ya gotta think that media work helps SF in general...

It's ironic though that at a Star Trek convention one is very likely to run into the same kind of attitude as Card's, just targeted at some other show. Some Trekkers look down on Dr Who fans who make fun of Galactica fans who think that comic books fans are losers who think that anime fans are idiots. Everyone hates the furries. As it should be.

Why is it that it's not enough to enjoy something, people have to insist that anyone who likes something else is ignorant and misguided? Ther simply isn't enough time in the day for me to enjoy everything that there is to enjoy. I've had to pick and choose. That others have chosen differently is to be expected.

Star Trek isn't the only thing being attacked by classic SF writers. A New York Times article from last week has greats Ursula K. Le Guin and Ray Bradbury complaining about how Star Wars is bad SF. Which would make sense if it were actually SF and not space fantasy. In fact most of their arguments would describe Tolkein as well. Sory, not sure how to put the link, so cut and paste.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/weekinreview/01fount.html

As PAD said about many readers, Star Trek (and for me, Star Wars) got me into reading SF and fantasy. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, it is sad that anyone is purposely disparaging to their own fans or those who are also fans of the genre.

Heh, I find myself in the position of agreeing with Card about "Trek", even though his rudeness and arrogant delivery turns me off.

No, what really scares me about Card is his position about sexual matters. I am a believer of separating the work from the person, but once I know a person's ideals as being so radically different from mine, I can't stop but being irked when I think (rightfully or not) that their ideals are shaping much of their work.

I never looked the same way again at that Ender book when the guy who had an affair with his own half-sister (but they didn't knew they were siblings) ended up horribly paralyzed so he couldn't continue the "sinful" affair. The first time I readed it without knowing about Card's background it didn't bothered me none. It was only in retrospect that I suspected that Card was harshly and self-righteously "punishing" the incest.

Is it just me or does Card just need to get a hold of some good weed? By that I mean,lighten up dude! So someone makes Star Trek, someone else makes Star Wars....how does that effect you life? What, you can't breathe because TOS is out there?

As opposed to Card's raging homophobia. When he rants about how marriage should only be between man and woman, that actually hurts people by limiting their choices for their own relationships.

Sure, I'm pissed that Lucas has chosen to ignore everything we know about Yoda and how peaceful he is after 800 years of teaching jedi just to satisfy some fanboy wank to see him kick butt....but I don't think it occupies more than a few seconds a day in my schedule.

BTW,Peter...great latest issue Hulk. It's like Jurrasic Park on acid. :)

Michael J Norton

I first saw Star Trek: TOS when it was in syndication during the 1970's.

I enjoyed the characters, their friendship and loyalty towards one another.

For me, the emphasis was always on the characters and their situations.

The special effects came second, but were satisfactory to me.

TOS comes off as a morality stage play, where our attention are focused on the crew of the Enterprise, and their latest mission.

The ship, the phasers, the photon torpedos, the colorful uniforms were very cool and quite memorable.

I like the characters of Kirk, Spock, McCoy, et al.

The writing by D.C. Fontana and Gene L. Coon are among my favorites of the series.

The science-fiction was purely incidental.

At least, that's what I've always gotten out of it.

Steve Chung

Having written the above, did anyone else enjoy the episodes of Enterprise with Sheryl Lee Diamond ("Twin Peaks") as the Orion Slave Girl and the two-parter set in the Mirror Universe (complete with characters from TOS)?

Steve Chung

It always upsets me to see "proper" sci-fi/fantasy people dissing the Star Trek/Wars series, especially since sf and fantasy themselves are seen as lower forms of fiction by many. As a former English professor of mine puts it, he can remember a time when his local drug store stocked sci-fi books in the same section as the pornography. Given the reputation of the entire genre, sneering at one part of it (in many ways the most commercially successful part) is just elitist. Working off the topics others have brought up:
The Truman Show: Thank you for your concise words concerning this movie, Mr. David. My brothers and I regard it as our favorite Jim Carrey movie, and you perfectly articulated why.
Media's portrayl of Trekkies: totally unfair. Who decided it's socially acceptable to spread paints all over your body and go half naked to a sport event, but it's weird to dress up like a Vulcan?
Dark Mirror Star Trek episodes: My brother thought the first was the best ST episode ever, combining themes from two original series episodes (The original dark mirror and the Tholian Web) and delivering a great opener with the twist on the First Contact movie. I don't think it's really the best, but it was a far step up from most of the season.
Dr. Who: Out of curiosity, has anyone been watching the latest series incarnation? It's been my first experience to Dr. Who, so I don't know how it stacks up, but I've been enjoying it. (When I remember it's on... it views the same time as the Amazing Race, and I just can't get enough of those wacky Survivors...)

>It always upsets me to see "proper" sci->fi/fantasy people dissing the Star Trek/Wars >series, especially since sf and fantasy >themselves are seen as lower forms of fiction by >many.

I'm not defending Card, a man whom I really dislike, but try to look at it this way... for us SF/fantasy fans who don't like Star Trek/Wars, it's a bit like...

You know when you tell someone you're a superhero fan, and they think superheroes are Superfriends and Adam West ONLY? It feels a little like that.

I'm not sure my analogy is completely fair though, because as bad as I think Star Trek/Wars is, it's not like they're twisting or dumbing down something from novels.

But in the end I have to agree, it's just my oppinion, and it's as valid as anyone else's oppinion.

personally, I think the finest SF film of all time is "The Truman Show," if for no other reason than people don't think of it as SF.

That would be an interesting question for a thread--what other great SF movies that nobody considers SF movies are there?

I'd vote for SECONDS, the only Rock Hudson movie I've ever liked. And, considering the subtext and the implications we now all can clearly see in Hudson's performance, he was GREAT in this movie. Frankenheimer was never a better director than in this and the original MALCHURIAN CANDIDATE (another great SF film). The ending alone must have sent audiences out of the theatre reeling.

Check out: http://www.brunching.com/geekhierarchy.html

"Who decided it's socially acceptable to spread paints all over your body and go half naked to a sport event, but it's weird to dress up like a Vulcan?"

The same people who decided it's OK to spend your free time in high school playing football, but it's weird to play D&D.

While I like Mr Card's writing, I think he needs to take a big shit. It would help.

I think Star Trek and Star Wars have done more to destroy SF fandom as it existed prior to about 1980 than anything else I can think of.

While SF fandom has worked hard to be inclusive of media fans, I think it's been an effort which has fallen somewhere between futile and failed. Media SF has by-and-large drawn younger fans away from "mainstream" fandom (if there is such a thing). In effect, there is a diversity of fandoms, rather than a fandom which is diverse. And the popularity of media SF can mainly be laid at the feet of Star Wars and then Star Trek.

It's difficult to argue that this is, in a global sense, a bad thing. For people (like me) whose main interest is written SF, it's a bad thing, because the interest in written SF fandom has been declining, especially among my and younger generations. But clearly there are many people who enjoy the different fandoms, so to them it's presumably a good thing.

But the statement that Star Trek "may well be the single greatest contributor to the perpetuation of SF fandom in general" seems to me to be clearly wrong, and (at least) at right angles to the truth.

My first exposure to SF, besides seeing the occasional Heinlein that my father left lying around, was on my sixth birthday, when one of my favorite uncles gave me a box filled with back issues of Analog, Galaxy, Worlds of If...

It wasn't until a couple of years later that TOS went into syndication in our area. I promptly gobbled it up, of course, especially when I saw that one of the first episodes I was exposed to ("Amok Time") had been written by Theodore Sturgeon. Theodore freaking Sturgeon, people! I was in eight-year-old happyland! Since then, I've remained a fan of the other series (except the first seasons of TNG and Voyager, and most of the last season of Enterprise), and I've kept reading the hard stuff, too.

And incidentally, I don't see where the perpetrator of the "Flinx and Pip" stories has much leeway to criticize the maturity of anyone else's writing...

Dr. Who: Out of curiosity, has anyone been watching the latest series incarnation?

I've been downloading each episode as they are released to the torrenting community at large. I'd *gasp* actually watch them on tv, but as of yet, no network here in the States has picked up the rights to the new Who.

I grew up watching Doctor Who on PBS. So, while I'm not a complete die-hard Whovian, I've watched episodes from each previous incarnation of the Doctor - Sylvester McCoy as the 7th is my favorite, but Eccleston's 9th Doctor has been excellent so far.

My favorite SF movie that no one realizes is SF is Brain Candy starring the Kids in the Hall. Go rent it and keep in mind it came out in '95.......pretty staggering early commentary on the whole "zoloft" culture that would pop up a few years later.

I see PAD's point, but I also see Card's.

I see PAD's point because as a lonly SFF geek, it's exciting to meet others who like the same stuff you do, and the more popular something is, the more likely you are to meet someone you like in that fandom. I've experienced this myself with the Harry Potter phenomena--finally, finally a large book fandom! And actually, I am here in the first place because of PAD's Sir Apropos of Nothing series. Not his comics or anything else, just that one particular series, because it's darn good fantasy. But anyway...

I see Card's point, too, because people get consumed in the popularity of Star Trek/Star Wars/etc and don't even see what I, personally, consider to be the POINT of SFF--the idea. The "What if". The forward thinking into what our future may hold, the fascinating ideas of what may come about from all our new technology. A lot of SFF tv is rehashing what has already been done in books, often not even as well as the books themselves, so the beauty is lost, and the thoughtful futuristic parts of it are getting lost too because everyone is borrowing ideas without keeping the...the thoughts, or the what-ifs, or the like...below it. The Ooooh! PRETTYSHINY! is being borrowed, but not the fascinating thoughts below it all. You get the shiny silver rockets, but none of the scientific "what ifs" about how the rockets may work. You get horned aliens, but barely a glimmer of how evolution might work to make them horned in the first place. You get gutteral alien languages, but not a hint of the secrets of linguistics. And...that is so painful for me to behold. I realize that perhaps the medium of TV isn't cut out for teaching, but I rarely even see a glimmer of where the ideas started in the first place. The popularity of Star Trek/Star Wars is causing more of the same to be produced by money-hungry people, things that are near-clones if not out right rip offs, and it is drowning out the thoughtful, forward-thinking SFF literature* in popularity numbers, and it's painful.

(*forward-thinking as in genuinely new ideas, cutting-edge sci-fi ideas that have barely been touched by any medium anywhere)

TV sci-fi and literary sci-fi is very different. But TV is more accessible to new people, so while the popularity may bring a few people to literary fiction--but from what I read, it's not all that many compared to the total of tv fans, not many tv fans go into books that aren't related to the tv shows they love as novel adaptations or whatever--I'm sure it's also driving away people who might enjoy the literary counterpart even if they don't like the TV stuff.

All in all, it's very hard on me and I think people with similar viewpoints as me to see certain things in Trek/Wars fandom, as they mock what I personally see as the greatest asset of literary SFF by celebrating sometimes what I think to be the franchies' worst flaws.

So I can see Card's frustration, totally.

But I can also see PAD's point too, the community aspect is very important--they just are two different viewpoints and goals.

PAD feels the community aspect is very important. Card is most likely most fascinated by the ideas behind the SFF. Two different people, two different viewpoints. ::shrugs::

BTW--the reason I liked the movie "I, Robot" is because it's one of the few TV/movie things where I have felt/seen the Idea being explored, thought of. Sure there's action in it, but it deals with what it is to be self-aware, but not human, unlike most of the rest of SFF that ever has an android or robot. And yes, I know Data from Trek is the same thing from another angle--he's one of the ideas/characters I really like from Trek. But I, Robot did it without being mired in Star Trek lore--it's cleaner, more seperate. When you add something new to Star Trek, it has to be bent a little to fit in with that world convincingly, which is why I like to see seperate explorations of the same idea, to unhook it from any Trek (or whatever-show's) lore.

But anyway...this is just my opinion. Sorry if it's long and rambling, I am tired and didn't set out to do an essay on the differences, pros, and cons of the two siblings in genre, tv and literary SFF.

Nice post, Domini.

I'd add that, beyond the science aspect you mentioned, one thing that I think is essential in science fiction is the sense of awe. And that is one of the main problems Star Trek has for me. In traditional TV series, at least until the 90s, you need a never-changing (or rarely changing) status quo peopled with easy-to-relate-to characters.

While there were lots of weird aliens, monsters, robots, and stuff in Star Trek, it has always more or less stayed at arm's length, a view screen away, the crew would meet the "it", and then solve whatever and go to another place, but the crew itself would more or less stay the same pretty ordinary fellas (with some exceptions like Spock who isn't ordinary but is still unchanging).

I think that pretty much kills it for me, as I always thought the several science-fictional elements in the series stayed in the background.

The first SFictional series in TV that really hooked me was Babylon 5, but as good as I think B5 was occasionaly, it still pales next to the good written stuff. But at least there you seemed to have the characters more involved in the thick of things, since they were allowed to change and grow, with some corrupted by some ancient power, others becoming messiahs, or transfigurated by psi powers or racial changes, etc.

Though I heard that B5 motivated the folks writing Trek to do some of this too, I'm not sure if it was really done.

A few months back, Boston held WorldCon,and a few members of my Dr. Who club were there to promote the club as well as the convention we hold each year. According to one of them, a lot of folks that were there would go by the table, noses upturned because the club was a MEDIA based club.

I tend to think that fandom is made up of various levels, mostly by how they were introduced to science fiction. I tend to think that a vast majority of fans got into SF because of media-related things, rather it me a film of a tv series, or maybe a comic book.

As for me, I got into SF from watching as a kid episodes of Dr. Who, Star Trek and being a big Star Wars fan. It's led me to travel to other areas of the country, to meet people that made me enjoy the shows and films, and to make friends who share the same interests. So I don't think its a bad thing.

I think Mr. Card must forget that Star Trek/Wars, Dr. Who, B5 all have books that are based on the series, as well as expanding to go beyond them in themes. Trek is more than a tv show:Its been a film franchise as well as a book section in the SF/Fantasy area of bookstores around the country.

Mr. Card is entitled to his opinion and I am to mine. Its a big universe and I'm sure we won't have to meet up.

There's a thread over at Orson Scott Card's website about OSC's original essay: http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/forum/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=003086;p=1

In the thread, OSC posted this opinion, part of which Peter David might agree with:

"Look, folks, I only had 700 words. I couldn't go into nuances. I couldn't talk about how much better the acting was in the later stories.

But I could also have gone into the rigid formula that the writers followed in writing their Star Trek episodes in the more recent series. But once locked into that mindset, they couldn't escape. Had a chance to see it up-close-and-personal, and the obliviousness of the writers so damaged is astonishing.

Sure, Star Trek was the introduction to sci fi for many people - but that was my POINT.

And look at the result. In REAL science fiction, the readers are constantly looking for new worlds, for revisions of reality, for ideas they haven't had before.

But Star Trek fandom devours books that return them to the SAME world, the SAME "characters," the same experience, over and over. Like Harlequin romances. Ditto with Star Wars fans. What do you think all those novels are about? Endless repetition. Safety in familiarity.

That's just not science fiction, folks. It's a different experience; Star Trek fans sometimes make the transition to be part of the science fiction community, but most of them have found a safe haven and put nothing at risk in their reading. That's fine - everybody should have the stories they want - but because it's CALLED science fiction, people who read this poorly imagined, safe-as-mommy's-arms writing are NOT getting anything like what science fiction actually can be and IS - outside the media-centered stuff.

If only they could have called it something else, and erased the confusion. THEN nobody would have asked a sci-fi writer to comment on Star Trek, and we wouldn't be having this discussion."

(By the way, for anyone wanting to participate in OSC's forum: it's a very good forum, with a broad range of folks from liberals to conservatives... but if you do come over to participate, you have to behave and not throw around crude insults.)

(Yes, I know that OSC's own rhetorical style in his columns doesn't seems to encourage respect for other ideas. But most folks at the forum aren't fans of the rhetorical style of his columns, and instead prefer the more complex and humane moral ideas in his fiction.)

Best SF film that most people don't think of as SF: "Charley" starring Cliff Robertson as a mentally retarded man who becomes a genius through surgery. It's based on the brilliant SF novel "Flowers for Algernon" by Daniel Keynes.

Check out "The Ender's Game Movie" website to read how Orson Scott Card presents himself as the Official Apologizer for changes necessary to adapt a novel into a film.

As a multi-colored hair songstress once sang, "Money changes everything!"

Rene wrote:
>I never looked the same way again at that Ender
>book when the guy who had an affair with his own
>half-sister (but they didn't knew they were
>siblings) ended up horribly paralyzed so he
>couldn't continue the "sinful" affair. The first
>time I readed it without knowing about Card's
>background it didn't bothered me none. It was
>only in retrospect that I suspected that Card
>was harshly and self-righteously "punishing" the
>incest.

Rene, I doubt this was Card's intention. One of Card's children was a boy, Charlie Ben (now passed away), who had celebral palsey. Disabled characters figure in many of Card's books, and the sex lives of the disabled characters have no relation to the cause of their disability.

Its my understanding that television is a totally different animal then novels. I see on the internet movie database that nr card has written and directed a video release movie called Remind Me Again. I am familiar with Mr. Card's books, and I know star trek, but I've never heard of Remind Me Again. It is easy to bash star trek, but I would like to see Mr. Card come up with a television series that lasts 3 seasons. Then I would be happy to let him bitch about Star Trek to his hearts content. As far as Roddenberrys rut, has he seen some of the drek that the sci-fi channel has produced over the last decade. Sure we have had our farscapes and battlestar galacticas, but snakehead terror? eep. I just think there are many more bitch worthy things than Star trek.

JAC

on a more humorous note, Someone needs to pull the warp nacelle out of Card's ass.

JAC

OSC says:
But Star Trek fandom devours books that return them to the SAME world, the SAME "characters," the same experience, over and over. Like Harlequin romances. Ditto with Star Wars fans. What do you think all those novels are about? Endless repetition. Safety in familiarity.

This, coming from a man who's written home many Ender novels?

Money doesn't change anything for Card (in regards to the Ender's movie). It's taken over a decade for the Ender's Game movie to get made precisely because OSC refused to have major changes made to the script (for example, the first movie studio to buy the rights originally wanted to make Ender a teenager - Card actually lost a lot of money buying the rights to the film back from the studio).

>Rene, I doubt this was Card's intention. One of Card's children was a boy, Charlie Ben (now passed away), who had celebral palsey. Disabled characters figure in many of Card's books, and the sex lives of the disabled characters have no relation to the cause of their disability.

Well, I'm the first one to admit that I can be paranoid when it comes to such things. Like I said in my post, before I knew of Mr. Card's positions regarding politics and social issues, this particular plot point hadn't bothered me none. So, I may be just seeing things. I'm very sensitive when it comes to such things as morality politics. I remain wary.

As far as this thread is concerned though, I think Card is right about Star Trek in particular and "media" SF in general. They smack of security and aversion to change and I agree with him that that is the very anti-thesis of science fiction.

"If only they could have called it something else, and erased the confusion. THEN nobody would have asked a sci-fi writer to comment on Star Trek, and we wouldn't be having this discussion."

Okay, now he's just weaseling. This isn't Card's first broadside at "Trek," merely his most recent over a period of years. My heart doth not bleed.

And Michael, I don't disagree that the interest in written SF has been waning. But that has jack-all to do with media SF, in my opinion. To me, the observation that people are reading less SF is akin to when Ted Sturgeon was asked about ninety percent of SF being crap, to which he replied that ninety percent of everything was crap, and thus was born Sturgeon's Law. Reading is shrinking overall. Periodical circulation is spiraling, book sales are down overall, and people have been pondering why Johnny Can't Read since the 1960s.

To say that media SF has drawn fans away from mainstream fandom is to presuppose that, if media SF did not exist, that fans would somehow have found their way on their own. With Americans reading less and less, I don't entirely see on what that theory can conceivably be based. I simply don't see the harm of media SF drawing in fans if even five percent of that fandom then is drawn into reading literary SF that they would just has likely never have come to on their own.

"Shore Leave" in Maryland had James Marsters as a guest a few years ago. All of a sudden, for the first time in years, the convention was packed to capacity and beyond, mostly with female teens who had never set foot in a convention before. Most of them planted themselves in the main programming room and sat there the whole day, waiting for Marsters. But a percentage of them became so involved in everything else they saw that they came back the next year.

What's sad is that many editors share Card's POV. When I was shopping "Sir Apropos of Nothing," editor after editor stated that my current readership base "didn't count." Because fans of "Star Trek" wouldn't be interested in fantasy, and as for comic book readers, why, comic book readers didn't read normal books. People whose stock in trade is ostensibly imagination simply don't have the imagination to believe that "Trek" fans can expand their interests beyond the "Enterprise."

And I would be most interested to know how many "Trek" novels Card has actually read.

PAD

>Because fans of "Star Trek" wouldn't be interested in fantasy, and as for comic book readers, why, comic book readers didn't read normal books.

Real offensive and condescending of that editor guy. From personal experience, I think comic book readers are much more likely to pick up "normal books" than people who just don't read anything besides the occasional magazine or sports page in the newspaper.

And as much as I personally dislike Star Trek and Star Wars, I also don't think they have anything to do with "real SF" readership shrinking. SF readership was shrinking in the middle-70s already when Trek had been cancelled and Star Wars was still to come...

"Best SF film that most people don't think of as SF: "Charley" starring Cliff Robertson as a mentally retarded man who becomes a genius through surgery. It's based on the brilliant SF novel "Flowers for Algernon" by Daniel Keynes."

Oh yeah, great choice. It would be an even better movie if one could go back and edit out some of the more dated segments--the musical numbers have that awful editing technique that happens when 50 year old directors try to be hip (Ralph Nelson also did the perfectly dreadful EMBRYO but he was the director of SOLDIER BLUE, which scars me to this day and was probably my first taste of an uncompromising gore film.)

Good call, David.

What Card points out as a flaw of Trek is more indicative of the desires of the AUDIENCE. And it's that audience that goes out to seek material that fits their needs.

There's nothing unique about that....written SF has had much of the same elements over the years, particularly in the pulp years. It's only more apparent now as there's more money flowing into SF books.

And I repeat my point above: "standard" written SF outnumbers media SF by at least 3 to5 to 1. And that volume wouldn't have been there without the media SF.

Thomas Disch's appraisal of Card -- that he's the Edgar Rice Burroughs of Generation X -- has always stuck with me. I've enjoyed some of Card's work, but someone whose work is dominated by audience-pleasing super-powered/super-intelligent children probably shouldn't be lecturing the world on what adult sf should be. Whatever such a thing is, it's a lot closer to the best of Trek than it is to Ender's Game. Oh, wow, a super-powered child saves Earth by playing video games really good! That's adult sf in a nutshell!

Cheers, Willie

Card sneering at Trek like that really isn't terribly useful. He's right that it owes more to 1930s SF than to the more cutting-edge SF being written today, but then so do Star Wars and most other space operas that make it to TV and film. This is not necessarily a bad thing, however, since such stuff is an easy and obvious entry point into SF those who might be daunted by the cutting edge stuff if i was the first thing they encountered. And if people don't progress on from Trek to more challenging material, so what? Sometimes you want fillet mignon but other times a burger hits the spot, and Trek makes for perfectly good burgers. I've been reading SF books for decades and watching TV and movie sci-fi for as long. They scratch different itches, but I enjoy both on their own terms.

To the person who asked how the current DR WHO stacks up to the original, well I have to say I'm loving it, and I speak as someone who saw the very first episode broadcast over here the day afte JFK was assassinated, and who followed it every week thereafter (yes, I saw all those black and white episodes that have since been lost). The effects were much cruder than on Star Trek (there's always been higher budgets on US shows) but I always preferred it to Trek since the scripts were usually darker and more quirky. Rather than the older 30 minute multi-parters, the new show has been made in the traditional US 42 minutes format with most episodes being self-contained episodes (though there is a series arc concerning the Timelords, whose fate has been gradually revealed as the season progresses), which only makes commercial sense and should help foreign sales. Some older fans have moaned about this, but I have no problem with it.

There's a difference between UK and US SF TV series that's always intrigued me. In the US, the protagonists are usually working for the military, or otherwise agents of the State - Trek, Stargate, Babylon 5 - whereas over here they're more likely to be lone agents or actively opposing the State - Dr Who, Blakes 7 etc. Yes, I know there are counter-examples in both cases, but I think the general trend is as I've described it.

Sounds to me like Mr. Card had the best all-time ever idea for a Trek episode and then someone told him, "Dude, that just sucks." So of COURSE it's all crap.

I honestly find it hard to disagree with Card's comments; Star Trek was been derrivative rubbish for years, a Paramount cash-cow that gets more embarrassing with every new incarnation. If Star Trek gets no respect from Card then it his eyes it hasn't earned any and again I find myself unable to disagree with him. Its tiresome, repetative and totally uninspired. It strikes me that even the actors from the show are totally fed-up with it. May be it's time to move on to something new.

Posted by Bill Mulligan at May 7, 2005 02:40 PM
"It's ironic though that at a Star Trek convention one is very likely to run into the same kind of attitude as Card's, just targeted at some other show. Some Trekkers look down on Dr Who fans who make fun of Galactica fans who think that comic books fans are losers who think that anime fans are idiots. Everyone hates the furries. As it should be."

HA!

There's also two breeds of Trek fans... Trekkers, which just watch the show, and the somehow much scarier Trekkies, which buy EVERYTHING associated with the show and dress in costumes. I'm more a casual Trekker, in that I'll tune in if the plot sounds good (I skipped the slave girl story and the mirror universe twoparter, for example... Plus the entire original series...). But I absolutely LOATHE Star Wars and can't pull up any interest in Dr. Who.

In any case, I fail to see why ANYONE ever feels that their fandom is superior to another. I'm a comic geek that loves anime and laughs every time the furry ep of CSI airs. Because we all hate those guys. They're scarier than the obsessive Klingon fans that file their teeth.

The moment you say that one fandom is superior to another, you've lost perspective. The truth is, we're all fans of IMAGINATION. Infinite variety in infinite forms.

I don't scoff at Star Wars fans. I shrug, tell them to enjoy it, and move on. People prefer the original Trek? More power to them.

Now if only people would take the same thought track when they see that giant Power Rangers collection I have in the basement...

You know, you don't stand up to a rude and arrogant person by fighting fire with fire.

Saying Ender's Game is about a super-powered child saving Earth is equivalent to saying "Genocides", Thomas Disch's novel, is about giant plants invading Earth. In a way, it *IS* about giant plants invading Earth, but it's also much more than that.

Card was a success due to his exploration of biology themes, his questions about ethics, and his characterization of young Ender. Those are what make Ender's Game distinctive from many, many other "super-powered child saves Earth" stories.

As much as I lean much more towards Disch than Card in the political spectrum, I have to say Disch isn't exactly a reliable and impartial critic IMO. If there is a guy that seems awfully bitter and envious of the "young guns" of the new generation of SF writers, this guy is Disch. He is as much an arrogant ***hole as Card was being when he attacked Trek.

(I mean, I agree with what he says about Trek, I just don't care much for the way he says it).

>

You know, you don't stand up to a rude and arrogant person by fighting fire with fire.

Saying Ender's Game is about a super-powered child saving Earth is equivalent to saying "Genocides", Thomas Disch's novel, is about giant plants invading Earth. In a way, it *IS* about giant plants invading Earth, but it's also much more than that.

Card was a success due to his exploration of biology themes, his questions about ethics, and his characterization of young Ender. Those are what make Ender's Game distinctive from many, many other "super-powered child saves Earth" stories.

As much as I lean much more towards Disch than Card in the political spectrum, I have to say Disch isn't exactly a reliable and impartial critic IMO. If there is a guy that seems awfully bitter and envious of the "young guns" of the new generation of SF writers, this guy is Disch. He is as much an arrogant ***hole as Card was being when he attacked Trek.

(I mean, I agree with what he says about Trek, I just don't care much for the way he says it).

Disch comes across much like John Byrne to me, bashing anyone who dares to write science fiction not exactly in the way he would have written it and awfully jealous of other people's sucess.

Another interesting way to look at it is take a look at NASA and othe aerospace companies and judge the number of folks there that like Star Trek. Nearly 90% in some cases would be my guess.

"Real offensive and condescending of that editor guy."

Guys. And gals. Practically ALL of them said it.

"You know, you don't stand up to a rude and arrogant person by fighting fire with fire."

You...DON'T? And I'm just hearing about this NOW? All right, why wasn't I informed of this YEARS ago?

PAD

And incidentally, I don't see where the perpetrator of the "Flinx and Pip" stories has much leeway to criticize the maturity of anyone else's writing...

Umm, one note: the "Flinx and Pip" stories were by another three-name writer, Alan Dean Foster.

" Umm, one note: the "Flinx and Pip" stories were by another three-name writer, Alan Dean Foster"

Allan Dean Foster, Orson Scott Card...hey, unless you are some big name assassin (John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan Sirhan before he had it changed to just Sirhan Sirhan, Charles Nelson Reilly) you should just use two names like the rest of us.

PAD wrote:
'What's sad is that many editors share Card's POV. When I was shopping "Sir Apropos of Nothing," editor after editor stated that my current readership base "didn't count." Because fans of "Star Trek" wouldn't be interested in fantasy, and as for comic book readers, why, comic book readers didn't read normal books. People whose stock in trade is ostensibly imagination simply don't have the imagination to believe that "Trek" fans can expand their interests beyond the "Enterprise."'

Are you serious? That's pretty short sighted of those editors then. The Apropos series are a set of books I would NEVER have picked up if not for the fact PAD wrote them (I don't read too much fantasy). 50% of the comics I read are by PAD, and I make it a point to read every book PAD writes too (even if it if was about the life and times of a bunch of tulips growing in a field, I'd still probably pre-order it from Amazon)

That makes them more narrow-minded than the readership base to which they refer if they think we are interested in one subject only.

There's also two breeds of Trek fans... Trekkers, which just watch the show, and the somehow much scarier Trekkies, which buy EVERYTHING associated with the show and dress in costumes.

This distinction has made me chuckle for years. Outside of the hard core fan base, few people bother with it. The term Trekker was an attempt to say "I'm not THAT bad". In my experience, however, since it's primarily used inside of fandom, someone who says "I'm a Trekker, not a Trekkie" is usually much closer to the latter definition than they want to admit.

I've been a fan for 30 years. I own TOS and TNG on DVD, a few small trinkets, have been to maybe a dozen cons, have a couple of autographed photos in the drawer, and gotten in costume exactly once. I really don't care if I'm called a Trekkie or a Trekker, because the label isn't that important to me.

Wow. Nothing like trampling on someone's sacred cow to get people riled up.

I used to watch Trek. Trek in the 60's was campy, cheesy, and filled with 2-dimensional characters, but it was also fun. The Next Generation improved on the characters, but still had plenty of camp and cheese. DS9, IMHO, was the best of the Treks, because it dared to explore the idea that there were other people who didn't want to be part of the Federation's socialist utopia.

Voyager and Enterprise, though, were just completely unwatchable. Because the Trek machine has pumped out nothing but dreck over the past ten years or so, I've become turned off by the whole franchise system. I can't watch any of it any more.

So, OSC doesn't like Star Trek. Big deal. Not everyone has to like or even respect the things you like.

Plus it's a Biblical parable to boot, as Truman--the True Man--leaves Paradise. This time, however, he does so on his own terms, departing not because Paradise's creator is throwing him out, but DESPITE the creator's pleadings that he remain, so that he can carve his own destiny instead of having a "divine plan" shape it for him.

Actually, I would say "The Truman Show" (as you analyze it) is the antithesis to the biblical story; it is not a biblical parable but a parable as you would prefer it was written in the Bible. The difference between the two does matter.

RE: Card

I love many of his books, but would agree that this was a childish rant against Star Trek. I don't know what it is driving him, but it comes across as pet peevish as PAD's rant about the oringal quote concering shouting "fire" in a theater.

Card's last paragraphs were particularly intesting to me as he mentions Smallville, Buffy, and Firefly as examples of good Sci-fi. His comparing them to the orginal ST is absurd. Network standards, viewer demands, and the overall culture (including Star Wars and other movie sci-fi) has radically changed. I think ST stretched people at the time more than many contemporary shows.

Comparing Card's woldview to that of Star Trek's, there are some significant differences. Rodenberry's original vision of a utopian future is a compelling hope, but does not fit with the human nature we observe around us. I love Star Trek, but I find many of Card's books more compelling in their portrayal of the journey a character takes to being a better person. It is a shame that Card had to stoop to a childish rant rather than deal with whatever is really bugging him. I don't care if he hates Star Trek (or if some of you hate Card's books), it is a matter of opinion. But if he doesn't know the reason why, then he is just being reactionary and not helping bring about an improvement he seems to desire.

Live Long and Prosper,

Iowa Jim

I wonder if in other genre fandoms there is this kind of missionary sectionalism? Are fans of contemporary crime authors mad at e.g. the success of "Murder She Wrote" seeing that that series perpetuated the clichés and convention of old-style (Agatha Christie) whodunits? Do fans of Clint Eastwood westerns have it in for Zane Grey buffs (or vice versa)? Some of the positions taken in this respect does strike me as almost a "follower of the true faith vs. the unwashed heathen" kind of attitude (most participants in this thread excepted, of course ;-) ).

One thing that does seem to be more pronounced in when debating "good science-fiction" than e.g. in discussing "good crime fiction", "good horror" or even "good literature" is the (to some extent subconscious) view that good writing from the present is better than good writing from the past. Not necessarily because of more sophisticated literary styles or ways of looking at the world (at least as far as writing goes, most of science-fiction tends to be on the conservative side), but because old science-fiction stories may have been overtaken by technological progress (obviously a view especially prevalent among devotees and practitioners of "hard s/f"). Yet in the wider context of literature, I do not get the impression that today's "top" science-fiction writers may be less well recognized than their forbears a hundred years ago (Jules Verne - who was admired by Tolstoy, Turgeniev and Proust, for instance and who died in 1905 - and H.G. Wells come to mind). At which point did s/f become a literary ghetto and scholars start to say that if it's science-fiction its not real literature, and if it's "good literature" (e.g. Brave New World or 1984), it's not science-fiction? Still, at least for me, Jules Verne was probably the author who first got me interested in reading science-fiction. (That, and a certain TV series launched in September 1966 - no, not Star Trek, but the West German production "Raumpatrouille" (space patrol), the first episode of which was aired nine days after the first ST episode, but which ran for just one season of seven episodes).

But Star Trek fandom devours books that return them to the SAME world, the SAME "characters," the same experience, over and over.

I'm guessing that Card hasn't actually seen or read much in the way of Star Trek then.

And, to even begin to lump Star Wars in there? Somebody needs to tell the guy that SW is space fantasy. Science fiction doesn't even apply.

I guess he would have of approved of the Early incarnations of Doctor Who, which was low budget and never took itself too seriously.

I meant "would not," cursed typo gremlin.

>At which point did s/f become a literary ghetto and scholars start to say that if it's science-fiction its not real literature, and if it's "good literature" (e.g. Brave New World or 1984), it's not science-fiction?

In the 20s, I suppose, with the science fiction magazines, SF literature became a whole paralell world, beneath the radars of the "proper" literary establishment (though some would cross this chasm, like Kurt Vonegut Jr).

I suppose this chasm is a good thing, as proper literature became more and more inward-looking, with post-modernist emphasis on form instead of content (after all, one of the tenets of post-modern lit is that the 'real' can't ever be captured into words, so what is the point?), while SF has remained "commercial", thank God.

There was a discussion on Neil Gaiman's site about "Dantes" (artsy writers) and "Beowulfs" (genre writers, including SF) that is cool to show how huge a divide there is between "writers" and "writers".

Menshevik raises an interesting question. I think that part of the problem is that it is (or at least was) easy to be successful in the Science Fiction and Horror genres even if one was not a particularly terrific writer, as long as one had a good solid premise. The fiction could be weak as long as the science was sufficiently intriguing.

"And, to even begin to lump Star Wars in there? Somebody needs to tell the guy that SW is space fantasy. Science fiction doesn't even apply."

Is the science in Star Wars really all that less plausible than that in Star Trek? What makes one more science fiction than the other? Not trying to argue with you, but I've heard this before and wondered what the big difference between SF and Space Fantasy really is.

"Menshevik raises an interesting question. I think that part of the problem is that it is (or at least was) easy to be successful in the Science Fiction and Horror genres even if one was not a particularly terrific writer, as long as one had a good solid premise. The fiction could be weak as long as the science was sufficiently intriguing."

Was. I believe from the 1960s onward you couldn't become a hit in the SF field only by having intriguing ideas. Relativelly solid storytelling craft was required too. Nowadays, even the writers of "harder" sf are no slouches when it comes to tell stories. Greg Bear comes to mind.

"Is the science in Star Wars really all that less plausible than that in Star Trek? What makes one more science fiction than the other? Not trying to argue with you, but I've heard this before and wondered what the big difference between SF and Space Fantasy really is."

I don't think it's only about the plausibility of the hard science involved. SF has been lauded as a literature of ideas and theories, and in Star Trek (without going into the quality or depth of it), there are attempts to explore ideas about society, about our future, about alien contact, etc.

While Star Wars is simply an action-adventure story (also without going into a discussion about quality), a modern fairy tale...

Alan Dean Foster, Orson Scott Card - neither one of them writes well, in my personal opinion...

Hey, if he's going to try comparing Star Trek (and even Star Wars) to classic science fiction, doesn't that mean I get to compare his work to, say, Robert Heinlen and Harlan Ellison?

Earlier in the thread, someone had mentioned the Outer Limits.

I love the earlier series, filmed in black and white, with such fine episodes as "Demon With A Glass Hand", "Adam Link", and "The Architects of Fear."

Filmed on a shoestring budget, I enjoyed the performance of Vic Perrin as the Control Voice, who would add to the denouement of each episode (which always implied hope for the future, whether or not the characters got through it unscathed).

Steve Chung

SF has been lauded as a literature of ideas and theories, and in Star Trek (without going into the quality or depth of it), there are attempts to explore ideas about society, about our future, about alien contact, etc.

While Star Wars is simply an action-adventure story (also without going into a discussion about quality), a modern fairy tale...

That's about what I figured but given that sort of criteria, an awful lot of Science Fiction is mislabeled. Hard to really see the exploration of ideas in THEM or INVASION OF THE SAUCERMEN other than "Big ants would be a very bad thing indeed." and "There are saucermen! And they are invading!" respectively.

Are superhero movies technically SF?

It is sad and very regrettable that so many editors have the prejudices PAD has to deal with but unfortunately I can`t say that I am surprised. Sometimes I think certain producers are living in a different world. British magazines described in sometimes shocking detail what problems JMS had, especially with Crusade, of course. Things like (roughly) that the new pilot had to start with a fist fight in order to satisfy WWF fans. I also remember something JMS said what he experienced with Jeremiah (roughly) when he was told: “I don`t care if she can act. What counts is her looks.”

Fortunately the Star Trek book editors who post on the net are fans themselves which makes a huge difference here!

With me personally, it is the other way round: When I like the work of a media SF writer I am much more likely to read a non-media book written by him or her as well. Without knowing PAD`s work from Star Trek I would never have tried the Apropos and Knight novels I bought and read.

Media SF has one big advantage: People buying it have a pretty good idea what to expect. They know the characters, they know the world they are living in. All they have to find out is if they like the writing style of the author in question. When you have no idea at all what non-media books offer, you simply don`t know where to start looking. Not only do you have no idea if you like the writing style, you have no idea if you will be able to find an emotional connection with the characters, if you find the topic of the book appealing to you and what SF style it is after all. You would need a lot of time, a lot of trial and error in order to find what you like and many people are simply not prepared to invest that. It is also that media SF, like Trek books, offers already more than enough new releases in order to keep you busy reading.

Thanks to recommendations I read a few other non-media SF but I will always be a media reader who only occasionally reads something else. I don`t have much time for reading and I prefer to have a good idea right away if I find the book at least interesting.

Mr. David,

Thanks for this.

pkb

That's about what I figured but given that sort of criteria, an awful lot of Science Fiction is mislabeled.

I wouldn't say that as much as it seems that 'fantasy' is a more recent term that better applies to some of this stuff.

It's why it's so easy to put the two under one general genre of "sci-fi & fantasy", because they overlap so much, or, as some do, consider fantasy a subgenre of sci-fi (or vise versa).

PAD,
Yes, it is amazing how clueless some editors can be about their potential readership, and it is downright depressing how many children - or people in general - don't bother to read, if they can at all. Which is why I am constantly excited by things like Harry Potter or ANYTHING that gets people - especially at a young age - interested in reading.
I don't care if it's superhero comics or manga or Harlequain romances or - gasp - a newspaper.
Just SOMETHING.

I got into TREK via SF as the former didn't start until I was in junior high and I was already a voracious SF reader by then. I think Card is wrong, but also somewhat right.

While there were many delightful, terrific, well-done (and one hilarious) episodes in the original series, let's face it, there also were some cringe-inducing, Godawful moments. JOURNEY TO EDEN (or whatever it was called, I've avoided it for many years) for example: a bunch of space hippies take over a Star Fleet capital ship of the line? Kirk should have lost his command over that one.

As for STAR WARS, one person's comment about it being terrible SF misses the point there, too. Lucas has repeatedly stated that it ISN'T science fiction. It was never meant to be. It is space opera. Fantasy with ray guns. But NOT SF.

An above post read:

I think Star Trek and Star Wars have done more to destroy SF fandom as it existed prior to about 1980 than anything else I can think of.

While SF fandom has worked hard to be inclusive of media fans, I think it's been an effort which has fallen somewhere between futile and failed. Media SF has by-and-large drawn younger fans away from "mainstream" fandom (if there is such a thing). In effect, there is a diversity of fandoms, rather than a fandom which is diverse. And the popularity of media SF can mainly be laid at the feet of Star Wars and then Star Trek.

It's difficult to argue that this is, in a global sense, a bad thing. For people (like me) whose main interest is written SF, it's a bad thing, because the interest in written SF fandom has been declining, especially among my and younger generations. But clearly there are many people who enjoy the different fandoms, so to them it's presumably a good thing.

Puh-lease. ST and SW combined brought more people into SF then anything else in the last 30 years and a whole lot of those people became fans of all sorts of other SF and more then a few starting reading the ST or SW novels and that lead them in turn to reading other books like ST or SW and then beyond.
Do you have factions in our little corner of fandom? Yeah. But what doesn't? Do you have Trek fans who like Trek and have no use for anything else SF because it's not Trek or is "ripping Trek off" (a charge aimed at B5 more then once.) Sure. But, again, what doesn't? Comics for years have had "Marvel zombies" for whom anything other then Marvel was below them, Anime snobs abound, horror has its hardcores for old school VS new (Dawn of the Dead remake debates ring a bell anyone?), Britcom have followers who will state as a matter of fact that no American comedy has ever been as clever or as funny as the best Britcoms, classic lit snobs pop up like weeds, more then a few readers in any genre have been known to give a coworker reading a romance novel a hard time and I know people for whom "wasting the time" to read a book that's fiction rather then biography, history or informational is something they can't fathom.
But you know what? I've seen a hell of a lot more people out there who like lots of different things all at once and love to share it with others as well as learn a bit of new stuff on the way. And the biggest population of people who like to share that I've ever met fall under the SF fandom tag as a whole and lots of them call ST or SW their faves of all time.
Interest in written SF fandom has been declining? Yes it is. Interest in written anything is on the decline. Comics sales are down a bit, newspapers are almost all showing lower sales figures, some of the best selling magazines in the U.S. right now are made more for looking at then reading (Maxum, Stuff, FHM, etc) and other genres of books are feeling the same effects you point out for SF writings. Looked at the news lately? Entire sories about how READING is down in America. Hate to tell you but it's not ST or SW that did that. As matter of fact I'll bet more then a few $$$ that without the creations of ST or SW (or a like series in their place) that there would be fewer people reading SF now. Do I have a study or stats to show this? No. Nor do you for your statements. But what I do have is a whole lot of personal experience and years of meet and greets with SF fanatics like myself who've said that ST or SW started them down the SF road. And that includes SF readers.

Now to OSC himself. Who cares? He doesn't like ST. Big whoop. He, like so many other, seems to miss a point. Not all SF needs to be the types of stories that make you sit and ponder the meaning of life after you put it down or finish watching it. Some SF can be mindless fun or quick little popcorn movies as well. The people I come across that say stuff like OSC did tend to be the types who feel the need to defend their love of SF by pointing out that "those people and that suff" doesn't really count and isn't real SF. To these people I always say the same thing. Stop worrying about it, like what you like and quit spitting venom at "those people." If you don't like it then don't watch, read or listen to it on your time. And if you just hate it so much that the sight of it or of people that enjoy it and express that bothers you so much then stay the f**k home and leave the conventions and get togethers to the people who want to share their love of the entire genre (stinkers to masterpeices) with others who feel the same or come, see what you want to see, wear blinders around the rest and let everyone else enjoy what they love.
I've no problems with anyone at a convention or event speaking their mind about why they think something could have been done better or could be improved. I have no problem with someone telling me that something I like/love they can't stand (my wife and I love a lot of the same "upscale" SF but even she won't slog through Killer Klowns from Outer Space with me.) But, please, if all you are going to do is throw insults at something and the people that love it or try to explain to people who don't/won't really get into SF entertainment anyhow why the stuff that you don't like, no matter how popular, doesn't count like the stuff you wish was more popular then go somewhere else or, better yet, try speaking on something that you love and want to share instead without acting like a snobish prick.

Out

Hard to really see the exploration of ideas in THEM....

Given when it was originally made, there's plenty of subtext about the dangers mankind can visit upon itself in the newborn nuclear age.

Hey PAD,

Funny, I've always felt the same way about "The Truman Show." It's great SF. Jim Carrey seems to have a knack for him, as "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" was also stellar. It's a shame he hasn't won an Oscar by now.

The bottom line is that whatever the subject being discussed, there are ALWAYS going to be pompous jackasses whose whole sense of self worth is tied up in convincing themselves (since they rarely manage to convince others) how much better than other people they are, even within their own peer group. *shrug* Best to just let them piss and moan, nod occasionally, pat them on the head, say "that's nice," and send them on their way.

-Rex Hondo-

Hasn't WON an Oscar? I don't think he's even been nominated.

PAD

In my mind one big issue is the idea of what constitutes a genre, and whether a particular story or series of stories exemplifies or transcends said genre.

I used to read a lot of sci-fi, especially Card. But as I aged I stopped looking for stories in a specific genre and instead looked for good stories regardless of Genre or convention (I haven't read any of Card's work in many years now simply because his work doesn't entertain me as it used to). I have a hard time understanding the people who pigeon whole themselves into one specific ideal for any genre. I have never really been a start trek fan, and think of Star Wars as the ultamite soap opera, but I have nothing against them. I just don't spend my time and money watching or reading the associated stories because they don't appeal to my general sensabilites. I love comic books, but I've also been straying away from most sci-fi series and heading over to the comics (without trying to make a poor over generalization) with a more independent mindset (Mr. David's work being an exeption, I'm still lamenting YJ turning into the Teen titans).

But It's the story that grabs me, not the genre. One of my favorite books is Hard boiled Wonderland and the End of the World. by Haruki Murakami. I would consider it to be Sci-fi, but I'm sure there are others that wouldn't. The important thing is not what genre it is or how it adheres to the genre rules, rather how good the story is (ahh bad grammar, but I'm lazy).

If an episode tells a good story then that's all there is, all other critique is pointless. Card should quite gripping and go back to writing good stories.

Fandom is a strange thing for me. A lot of it doesn't make sense when I really think about it. I mean, how often can people get together and talk about the same thing? How many "Bendis rulz" or "Bendis sux" discussions can we possibly have before everybody's had their say and they don't want to talk about it anymore? The answer: Infinite.

But it's not really about what's being said, is it? It's about having someone to say it to. I think the quality of the original Star Trek is debatable--they had a few real gems, but a lot of those episodes were forgetable. Mindwipeable even. The weirdest thing about fandom, though, is that people will continue to like it and support it even when it's really bad. How on earth did Voyager get a full seven seasons anyway? There's no way Seven of Nine's bra was big enough to support the show.

I think it's great that Star Trek and Star Wars and other sci-fi shows brought so many people together... but it's so big that I just can't fathom it. I wouldn't be the person I am today if I hadn't gotten wrapped up in the Gargoyles fandom--that Disney show from a few years back. Most of the people I talk to online can be traced back to that. But I still don't get fandom. It's way too big.

All I can say is: Star Trek and Star Wars are both ending forever within 5 days of each other.

Needless to say, I'm on 24 hour suicide watch.

I read Card's piece in the Oregonian. At the end he says that Smallville is well written SF.
What the hell?
I've watched every episode, and I have no idea what the hell is going on. And talk about non-progression of characters. "Clark has amnesia? - again?"
(Okay - I watch because every episode Tom Welling rips his shirt off. I also like it when he runs really fast. )

"Not only do you have no idea if you like the writing style, you have no idea if you will be able to find an emotional connection with the characters, if you find the topic of the book appealing to you and what SF style it is after all. You would need a lot of time, a lot of trial and error in order to find what you like and many people are simply not prepared to invest that."

Okay, I'm NOT spoiling for a fight here, but whenever I hear this sort of argument I can't help but think this is a little... too lazy? After all, there are lots of places where you can go to get info on every subject conceivable.

As a rule, I despise reviewers and critics, but after a while you learn how to read reviews and separate what is the reviewer personal oppinion from what the book is about and get a reasonable idea whether it's your stuff or not.

In this day and age of the Internet, all this is just some seconds away from you, friend.

Media tie-in books, dunno, I think most of them suck, but then again 90% of everything sucks, right? So there must be 10% out there that are good. I really liked that Incredible Hulk novel Mr. David wrote some years ago.

But the reason I'm not into media is that I don't form such strong connections with characters. I may love Amazing Spider-Man when writer X is doing the title, but I'll go away when it's another writer, and there is no particular reason I'll pick up a Spider-Man novel over any other sort of novel...

To me it's about the writer, more than it's about the characters or the setting. If I like a novel by a writer, I'll probably like his other novels too, no matter if now he is venturing into post-holocaust horror when before he was into space opera SF...

How on earth did Voyager get a full seven seasons anyway? There's no way Seven of Nine's bra was big enough to support the show.

Yes. Yes it was.

Well, Im surprised he said that (Card). Thats 2 bad i really liked his Ultimate Iron Man. oh well, off the list he goes....

"All I can say is: Star Trek and Star Wars are both ending forever within 5 days of each other."

Forever is quite a strong word, especially considering that both have a strong ongoing expanded universe in the realm of novels and comics, some of which is admittedly mediocre, but some of which is quite good, certainly better than some of the most recent "official canon" offerings.

OSC's comments really aren't all that much to get riled up about, since he's little more than a pretentious prick who hasn't actually bothered to learn the facts. New Frontier, IKS Gorkon and (to a lesser extent) continuation of Deep Space Nine are all very entertaining series that try to move outside that comfortable cocoon of familiarity. The same thing with the X-Wing series and Tales of the Jedi series. (On a side note, if it weren't for franchise work, I never would have discovered PAD, Michael Stackpole, or Robert Jordan, among others.)

So, you can put the safety back on the shotgun and return the antifreeze to the garage. ST and SW aren't ending. They'll be continuing in the same form in which many people have been following them for decades anyway.

-Rex Hondo-

All I can say is: Star Trek and Star Wars are both ending forever within 5 days of each other.

Except, they're likely not (for Trek) and not at all (for Star Wars).

Star Trek will be back (whether it's good or utter crap), and Lucas has already announced small-screen projects for Star Wars.

How on earth did Voyager get a full seven seasons anyway? There's no way Seven of Nine's bra was big enough to support the show.

I think that was the only thing that did support the show.

Seven of Nine, the two best reasons to watch Voyager.

-Rex Hondo-

For those fellow Long Islanders, the full Orson Scott Card article appears in today's 95/9/2005) NEWSDAY editorial page.

Y'know, before I saw this thread, I didn't even *know* that Erik Larsen also wrote novels under the name Orson Scott Card....

(And why do I picture Card laying on the couch like Homer in the episode where he decided to stop going to church and thinking the thought, "Everyone's an idiot but me"....?)

Seven of Nine, the two best reasons to watch Voyager.

There were other reasons?

"Forever is quite a strong word, especially considering that both have a strong ongoing expanded universe in the realm of novels and comics, some of which is admittedly mediocre, but some of which is quite good, certainly better than some of the most recent "official canon" offerings."

I've heard that Walter Jon Williams wrote some Star Wars novel. To any Star Wars fans around here, is it any good?

I have a dislike for Star Wars in particular and tie-ins in general, but I'm a big fan of Walter Jon Williasms. So I feel kinda tempted to again break my rule about tie-ins.

I'll warn you now that I have extremely low taste in popcorn fiction. I enjoy ST, but not SW (much). I don't like fantasy at all (big fan of C.S. Lewis, not a fan of Tolkien). I like stories about "just folks". Star Trek was about people, set in a futuristic setting. The "good stuff" leaves me cold. I want to be able to relate to the characters (LotR did nothing for me... Hobbits in danger? I don't CARE!) Stranger in a Strange Land - boring. I wander the SF shelves looking for light fair. I don't want the impact of aliens on the universe, I want the impact of aliens on the next door neighbor. (Anybody got some suggestions? I'm looking for something "low" to read...)

The piece is now on Nesday's web site:

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-opcar094251509may09,0,7591770.story?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines

I've been reading this with a chuckle; it might interest you to know that the "pure" SF fans have discovered a form of fandom that is even lower than the media fen: the anime fans.

I attend a midwest convention every year, and it's kind of sad to see the increase in canes, walkers, wheelchairs, gray hairs, etc. Not to mention the fewer numbers. And yet I went to Anime Central a few years ago, and there were all these energetic, young fans running around all over creation. And more importantly, THEY HAD MONEY TO SPEND.

I've been fighting the SF convention committee since then, begging, pleading, arguing for them to see the light and get some anime guests in. The dealers would love it. It'd bring new blood in, blood that is desperately needed.

Why, you'd think I'd pissed on Isaac Asimov's grave, to hear them tell it.

And because I'm an attention whore, I give you one of my better (IMHO) filks: "Fandom Brotherhood Week":

Oh the lit fans hate the media fans
And the media fans hate the lit fans
To hate all but the right fans
Is an old First Fandom rule

But during Fandom Brotherhood Week
Fandom Brotherhood Week
Doctor Who and Louis Wu are dancing cheek-to-cheek
It’s fun to eulogize
A fanboy you despise
As long as you don’t let them in your con

Oh the comics fans hate the gamers
And the gamers hate the comic fans
All of my fen hate all of your fen
It’s the I.D.I.C. way!

But during Fandom Brotherhood Week
Fandom Brotherhood Week
Trekkies all read Heinlein ‘cause it’s very chic
Step up and shake the hand
Of some fanboy you can’t stand
You can tolerate him if he’s bathed

Oh the lit fans hate the costumers
And the Trekkies hate the furries
And the gamers hate otaku
And everybody hates Mundanes

But during Fandom Brotherhood Week
Fandom Brotherhood Week
‘We’re all fans here so let’s be nice’-hood Week
Be kind to morons who
Are inferior to you
It’s only for a week so have no fear
Be grateful that it doesn't last all year!

JSM

People are entitled to an opinion, but to just slam something simply because it isn't your particular cup of tea smacks more of malicious intent than of honest criticism.

I'll admit that of late I just haven't felt the itch I did for Star Trek. Everything post-First Contact has just been kind of 'eh' for me. Still, there have been some elements of the franchise I've enjoyed, Mr. David's New Frontier novels for instance. I like ideas that expand upon the core concepts of the original Trek, that respect what's come before but aren't afraid to do their own thing.

Unfortunately, of late that hasn't been the case with contemporary Trek. Voyager wasn't all it could be, and while Enterprise started off strong, it just never found it's footing after the first season, going from a potentially cool series about the beginnings of Starfleet and the buildup to the founding of the Federation to some kind of odd mix of time travel and 9/11. It's the catch-22 of a franchise; you can tell good stories within the framework, but you can't take chances with it anymore, because it's tied up in the moneymaking of a vast corporation and we need it to sell t-shirts and commemorative plates, etc.

I like classic Trek, it was a part of my childhood and I'll always have fondness for it. But maybe we do need a break from it for a time. Star Trek seems to be showing some wear and tear, maybe it's time to take five and come at it again from a fresh angle, or move on to explore and create other venues. It's an intriguing time regardless.

Stacy

"Well, Im surprised he said that (Card). Thats 2 bad i really liked his Ultimate Iron Man. oh well, off the list he goes...."

Well, you do what you want, of course. Me, I never consider that the appropriate response. If you like his work, then personally I think dropping it hurts you (because you don't get to keep reading material you enjoyed) and it hurts the retailer who's not going to make money off it. Card will neither know nor feel it. Plus I'm not a big fan of punitive response over someone who's merely exercising his free speech.

PAD

Like PAD said above... I'm not a big fan of Card personally, but I'll keep reading him. He writes good stuff, when he's not waxing maudlin about whatever pet peeve he's got stuck in his craw week-to-week. (Honestly, does he not realize he's talking down to at least half of his fan base?)

So I'll keep reading him. And the Trek spinoffs, and the Star Wars tie-ins, and whatever else I want to read. Sorry, Orson; I'm always open to positive suggestion, but I don't ever let anybody tell me what I shouldn't read.

I'm not surprised at the sheer number of responses so far. The Star Trek fans I've met over the years are some of the most intellegent and articulate (at least in writing, if not in person) people I've met.

I will show my age by saying that my grandmother raised me on TOS reruns in the 80s until TNG came on when I was in first grade. I had a huge crush on Captain Kirk when I was in preschool--when I found out he had become older and fatter, I decided I would marry Indiana Jones instead. I watched most of DS9, but couldn't get into Voyager until late in the series and never got into Enterprise. But, I spent many of my late childhood and early teenage years reading the books. I can attribute most of my vocabulary acquisition in these years to Star Trek, in fact.

Throughout junior high and high school, I was, of course, a nerd (though not an unpopular nerd, if that's possible). However, when I arrived at Stanford my freshman year, I was surprised that as many as half the people were talking about Star Trek in one incarnation or another in the dining hall. I'm not just saying that smart people like Star Trek. The beauty of it is that all sorts of people like Star Trek. It tackled their issues before other shows and dared to be optimistic about the future for once. It is for the same reason that new generations of SciFi television writers throw Trek references into their writing (e.g. Buffy). I say if Trek inspires people to be into SciFi, so much the better.

That said, Mr. Card has a right to his opinions. I've never read any of his material and probably never will, simply because I'm genre surfing right now (from poetry to Jane Austen to the novels of Haruki Murakami). Anyway, I guess I'm just agreeing with you all. (^.^x)

Incidentally, for those of you with a bend for "harder", idea-driven SF, may I recommend the 'Manifold' books by Stephen Baxter, and Baxter's collaboration with Arthur C. Clarke, 'Time's Eye'? It looks to me as if we've left Baxter off the list of relevant SF authors of today, at least in terms of this thread.

I kind of choked when I read that Trek was "a solid socialization experience for many people--including me--who had no social life to speak of."

Mr. David, I've seen you at almost every convention where you and I happen to be. You are perhaps the most friendly, gregarious, and delightful writer I've ever met. You've even stooped to singing your community theatre parts before con audiences. You've married twice, and not to disparage your first wife, but your current lady is someone who could have blessed the life of any man on Earth - but she chose you.

Don't tell me you were ever a stammering, foot-shuffling, intimidated geek like most of us! And if you were, could you describe some of your most embarassing moments as such a person with us to make us feel better?

By the way, for those complaining about Orson Scott Card, I suggest you hunt up his audio tape lecture, "The Secular Humanist Revival." He may be conservative, but he's the kind that firmly believes that church and state should be separate. It's probably time for him to give this sermon again at a major con. I can't say his writing is my favorite, but I can't insult his politics the way people here have done.

I think Smallville has gained fame not so much for its sci-fi/fantasy elements but for it's soap opera elements. I know a lot of fangirls are particularly interested in seeing Clark's and Lex's "relationship" develop. As an action show, however, I don't find it very exciting.

I did appreciate it when Card mentioned Charlie Kaufman's flicks as science fiction. I'm especially fond of Eternal Sunshine. But I like the Truman Show too. Ever notice that some of the best science fiction out there somehow avoids the sci-fi label?

All I can say is: Star Trek and Star Wars are both ending forever within 5 days of each other.

Call off the suicide watch. The Star Wars TV series is slated to begin airing in 2007. ;-)

Was there ever a SW suicide watch? The merchandising along would be enough to provide life support for at least a decade. I've not read most of the published fiction, but enough to know that you could add another 10 years on top of that.

And that puts us 20 years out (I'll be in my fifties) and looking forward to the fully immersive 3D, all new re-telling of the Star Wars saga...this time starting with Ep I.

Yeah, I realize Star Wars has the TV series, and Trek is friggin Trek and will never die. I'm just in denial that thier most recent incarnations are calling it quits (both of which I actually like). Its just the one-two punch of both franchies "ending" in such a short period of time and moving onto different things (which are years away at this point) that's got me in such a tizzy.

Also, while I'm excited for the SW TV series, I think penny arcade nailed it when they said it could turn out to be really, really bad. Check out this possiblity, and shudder in horror: http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2005-04-27

Thing is, I actually kinda like New Found Glory.

At this point, I consider cancelling Entercrap a mercy killing. On the bright side, this will allow Berman and Braga to move onto other projects. Maybe in few years, someone who actually knows what they're doing will revive Trek and create something worth watching again.

Manny Coto was the show runner for "Enterprise" for the last two years I believe. Paramount should have shown Berman and Braga the door and given the show to him. Coto created a terrific SF show for Showtime called "Odyssey 5" that was canceled after one season.

For years I have given Berman the benefit of the doubt because I believed that you really do need one person to lead the show even if I didn't agree with the direction. But if what I hear about the "Enterprise" finale and the character of Trip turns out to be true, then forget all that. Screw your Berman.

As for hard SF, well I made it through Benford's "Galactic Center" series. I liked the first two and then found myself really struggling through the remainder but I'm glad I read them.

I don't know if I want to get involved in any more series (are you listening to me, David Gerrold?) butI've always wanted to give the Ender novels a shot. His politics repel me but then I'm Jewish and have raptly gone through 4 separate cycles of "Der Ring des Nibelungen," 3 "Parsifals", 3 "Der Meistersingers," 2 Tristan und Isoldes", 2 "Tannhausers", and a "Lohengrin" and "Der Fligelinde Hollander." No one was more repulsive than Richard Wagner but, against my will, I have become passionate about his music.

"I've heard that Walter Jon Williams wrote some Star Wars novel. To any Star Wars fans around here, is it any good?"

He wrote one of the New Jedi Order hardcovers, I don't recall which one at the moment. I generally enjoyed the series, and certainly all the hardcovers, but it is one of the books around the middle, so you may feel lost coming in blind. I think he's got more in the pipeline, so check Amazon.

Uh, make that screw YOU Berman.

Mr. Card is certainly welcome to his opinion, the overwhelming success, not to mention the influence on popular culture, of Trek is indsputable.
"Not just for the Yangs, but the Coms, as well"

A few weeks ago, Anthony Martorano and Steve Gargano, the afternoon hosts on WIP 610 Sports Radio in Philadelphia were discussing just who are the bigger geeks- Trekkies? or Sports Geeks
( the folks who dress up in their team outfits for the NFL Draft, play in Rotisserie baseball leagues, etc) The consensus was that Trekkies are
not so far gone because one does have a chance at meeting a woman at a Star Trek Convention and no shot at all to meet a woman at the NFL Draft.
Hmmmm... Food for thought....

Don't know if anyone has already posted this (and someone probably already has), but here is an interesting link about Star Trek vs Star Wars: http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050508/ART09/505070336

There's always www.newvoyages.com for Trek...and Walter Koening is in Episode 3!

About if what someone said should make any difference if you buy his books or not: I can only speak for myself but to me the answer is not so clear cut. If I have read something written by that author and loved it - and then I read something he said that might not only be annoying but offensive - I would most probably continue reading his books nevertheless.

On the other hand, it is a different matter when it is about to not only try out a different author but also one who writes books of a genre I rarely buy - namely non-media. The more I read about Mr. Card in this thread, the more it puts me off. As I said, I have more than enough to read and unless a good friend whose taste I know well tells me that I should try him nevertheless because I would probably love what he is writing, my opinion won`t change.

The person who mentioned that I can get information about all kinds of books on the Internet and by reading reviews is right. Yes, some of my attitude has to do with "laziness" but I would classify that as lack of motivation. It is not that I NEED more to read, I have more than enough.

Backpage descriptions don`t give me enough information to make such a choice, often they are also misleading, sometimes even wrong.

Manny Coto got to helm Enterprise for this season only. He promptly hired Judith and Garfield Reese-Stevens to write for the show. Sadly, Berman and Braga (or, as we like to call them over at Television Without Pity, Bermaga) have insisted on writing several episodes, including the series finale. You know, the one that the actors on the show are calling "disappointing for the fans" (John Billingsley) and "appalling" (Jolene Blalock).

BTW, don't go on suicide watch - the second season of the new Battlestar Galactica starts July 15, and it's actually good! (Of course, with Edward James Olmos as a star, it could hardly help it...)

Jonathan (the other one)--
Can we compromise and make that a season-and-a-half (grin). IIRC, O5 was given the boot in late summer or early fall of 2003. I can recall seeing Coto's name on "Enterprise" sometime later that season and being cheered by his presence but didn't know if this was a fill-in or what. I looked for his name during this season opener and was reassured to see it, thinking he would give "Enterprise" the shot in the arm needed to keep it going. Now I'm an original Trekkie/er, age 51, so my mind may be getting confused.

And let me put in a good word for poor, maligned "Voyager." It's my favorite of the sequels/prequel because for me it comes the closest to mirroring the original but with more sophisticated costumes, sets and effects. When I need a "Trek" fix I usually turn to "Voyager" because as much as I love the TOS, it looks shabby next to it's children.

Voyager wasn't complete crap, there were a few nuggets of gold in there. "One Small Step" (co-written by Brannon Braga!) was actually the best pro-space exploration episode of any of the Trek series, ever. No joke.

It's probably been said before, but the worst thing to ever happen to Trek is UPN. Once any new Trek series was guaranteed a sure time slot, there was no incentive to actually create good TV any more. Voyager may have had potential and been closer in theme to TOS than DS9, but it also had some of the worst failing