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 failings of TOS, a near complete lack of lasting character development and repeated "planet/ship/spatial-anomaly-of-death" scenarios which were resolved by some contrived means in the last 5 minutes or so. Also, it managed to do what I never thought thought possible, it made the Borg into just another recyclable enemy of the week, like the Klingons or Kazon.

Enterprise over the last couple of seasons has finally started to live up to its potential, but, sadly, too many people had already completely lost faith in it.

Oh well, I guess it's a good thing I love to read.

-Rex Hondo-

Star Trek? I'm still devastated over the loss of Babylon 5

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.

Maybe. But I think the worst thing to happen to Trek was the myth of Trek. So many of the people in charge semed to point out what Trek was or wasn't in interviews while seeming to wear blinders about Trek. Trek seemed to have been locked into a set design by people who didn't understand it and each version that followed NG felt more and more like the photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy of the idea of the first.
Trek took SF Ideas and played with them in the Trek setting. STNG (after a really bad first season) did the same for a while. After that it seemed like the idea in most the heads in charge was how to write "Trek" (and a far more PC version then the first ever was) rather then how to write good SF in the Trek universe.
The second worse thing that happened to Trek was the rabid fans. I know a whole lot of Trek fans who complained about the poor writing and lack of new ideas on the Trek shows for years who continued to tune in week after week for no reason other then because it was Trek. These same fans would sometimes give a new series (Farscape, B5, Battlestar, etc) no more then a one or two ep chance before dropping it. The problem with that was the ratings were always telling the money guys, "we're doing Trek right."
It was only until the last two series that even many of the hardcore fans were throwing their hands up and giving up.
There may well have been fewer versions of Trek had more hardcore fans tuned out when good Trek became just Trek but the versions that did exist would have been better and stronger in the long run.
Of course, looking at some stuff on TV that's huge..... I could be really wrong about that last bit.

Trek seemed to have been locked into a set design by people who didn't understand it and each version that followed NG felt more and more like the photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy of the idea of the first.

And yet, DS9 ends up being the "red headed stepchild" because it did not follow in the exact footsteps of TNG, that it went off on its own and explored things that, from what has been said, would have Roddenberry turning in his grave.

DS9 tried to find its own strong voice in the Trekverse after its second season or so and, I'll put more then a few $$$ on this, it will be remembered and looked at after 15 or so years of Trek repeats as a better series then the ones that came after it. Why? Because when you have TOS, a good reboot/copy (STNG), two not so good copies and a pretty good show that worked to expand the myth a bit (all my POV I know) and do its own thing then you have a show that will stick out and seem the better spin off over time.

what I think is sad, is I know people who watched trek religiously and quit during the first season of enterprise. Why? Didn't like the characters? no. Didn't like the effects? no. They quit because the opening theme music had lyrics. That still blows me away.

JAC

No, friend Jeff, it wasn't that the theme song had lyrics - it's that the theme song had lyrics that would have Barry Manilow thinking, "You know, this is really wimpy."

Some of us stuck with it anyway - my remote has a Mute button, after all - only to be "rewarded" with bad acting, bad writing, and highly mutable characterizations, including the militaristic Vulcans, a First Contact with the Romulans that >i>didn't lead to a hundred-year-long conflict, and Klingons that actually seemed to like humans.

I missed most of the second season, and won't willingly watch most of the third season again if, somehow, this thing ever winds up in reruns. (And I even watch some of the syndicated episodes of Voyager!)

it will be remembered and looked at after 15 or so years of Trek repeats as a better series then the ones that came after it.

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree. I used Netflix to rent all the discs for all seasons so I could finally watch everything.

Besides the fact that I dropped my Netflix account, I don't think I'd do that for any other series of Trek.

Heck, it won't take 15 years or so, I know a lot of people (myself included) who believe wholeheartedly that DS9 was far and away the best Trek series. It did everything right which I mentioned before as being done wrong by Voyager.

It wasn't just good Trek, it was good TV, period.

-Rex Hondo-

There's more imagination in one minute of the original Star Trek than 100 hours of today's "reality" TV programs, with its whining, self-absorbed contestants. How many "Survivor" or "Apprentice" conventions will be going on four decades from now?

Well, after seeing the finale, maybe Card wasn't too far off the mark....

You know, it's an interesting bit of symmetry. There was an 18 year gap between the end of first-run episodes of_Star Trek_ and the debut of _Star Trek_ the Next Generation_; and then we had an 18-year run of first-run episodes from four series. Back in 1987, who'd have thought first-run _Star Trek_ episodes would be on the air for such a long time?

Some might argue that the franchise ran on too long, and thus ran itself into the ground. Maybe. Or maybe Rick Berman stayed too long, and bringing in someone new, years ago, would have given the franchise a shot in the arm. As it is, I gave up on the franchise years ago, save for the occasional episode here or there.

Yes, I did watch the _Enterprise_ finale. Strange that the episode was essentially about Riker, a character from a different show. Everything that Archer and his crew dealt with seemed to reflect back on Riker's delimma about his decision.

I'm going to assume that the holographic representations of private conversations and of the rescue mission were extrapolated from subsequent log entries, and thus reflected an "educated guess" by the computer as to who said and did what; who stood where, etc. Otherwise, it would disrupt my willing suspension of disbelief.

O.K., I liked that the Riker/Troi scenes were set during a specific _Next Generation_ episode ("The Pegasus", which I watched immediately after _Enterprise_), and it was kind of cool to see some Enterprise D sets dragged out of mothballs (or rebuilt, as the case may be); but I can't help but wonder if Scott Bakula and company wouldn't have liked to have had their _own_ swan song- one not overshadowed by appearances by two stars (three, if you count Brent Spiner's voice) from _Enterprise's_ more successful big bother series.

Speaking of Spiner, does anyone know if his dialogue was lifted from a _Next Generation_ episode, or if he recorded those lines specifically for _Enterprise_?

I thought it was nice that Kirk got a mention, and that _Enterprise_ (and perhaps the franchise itself) ended with the "Space, the final frontier..." narration, by Stewart, Shatner and Bakula, respectively. I know that some fans, including a friend of mine, believed that Berman and Braga wanted to retroactively dismiss the original series, which is why _Enterprise_ more closely resembled the later series in both look and tone. Whether this was true or not, it was nice to see the original series get an acknowledgement.

By the way, in a preview for one of the last episodes, I saw Archer modeling a Kirk-era yellow shirt, but didn't see that scene in the last episode, where you'd think it would have appeared. Anyone know when the scene did appear, and in what context?

I feel I should finish this with some sort of coda that sums up the fact that the _Star Trek_ phenomena, which have had an ongoing influence on popular culture for decades, is coming to an end; but all I can think of is a quote from an iconic character from another genre that has left it's mark on society:

"That's all, folks(?)"

Rick

That should be phenomena... _are_ coming to an end; and left _its_ mark on society.

Rick

"By the way, in a preview for one of the last episodes, I saw Archer modeling a Kirk-era yellow shirt, but didn't see that scene in the last episode, where you'd think it would have appeared. Anyone know when the scene did appear, and in what context?"

It was worn by the dark "Commander" Archer in the second part of the two part episode "Into a Mirror, Darkly." It was a connecting ep of sorts in that the TOS-era starship Defiant, that was lost in "The Tholian Web," ended up in the same parallel universe as "Mirror, Mirror" and the DS9 episodes that featured dark counterparts of that universe, but nearly a century earlier, giving Archer and his renegade crew a major technological advantage over any human or alien ships in their sector along with a new wardrobe.

Pity we didn't get to see more of T'Pol in her "skort" outfit!;)

To clarify, it was the first of two "two-parters" that were broadcast before "These Are The Voyages..." ended it all...for now.

I still maintain that "Terra Prime" was the final episode of Enterprise, and the drek that filled the TV screen for the ensuing hour was nothing more than a horrid hallucination brought on by drinking too much pumpkin ale with keckler (of Television Without Pity fame).

I'm pro-Enterprise. I'll admit to buying the odd bit of merchandise(including certain novels that shall remain nameless at the moment) for the various Trek series quite happily, although I've never done the costume stuff. Give me a good reason, and I suppose I'll try it the once.

Back to ENT, though. I still want to see what happens after "Terra Prime"...and I hope some day sooner than later to start doing so.

And yes, I believe that the other Trek series also still have their charms. Or I wouldn't watch their re-runs at all. So.

While I don't entirely agree with Orson Scott Card about Star Trek, I think it is a little funny that so many who disagree with express their opinions rather intolerantly: "He is obviously wrong and should just shut up. After all, we are right, and he has no right to express another opinion. Besides, he stinks as a writer!" I have enjoyed some of his works and been unimpressed by others, but opinions vary. If having vocal critics who disagreed with one's positions were enough to silence people, Peter David would not have this forum, after all! (My own prejudice is that he should not be silenced - but some would disagree.)

PAD: If my first awareness of Harlan Ellison's name were from a Star Trek script, I think I would keep that information to myself. Rather than demonstrating the cultural significance of Star Trek, this fact only demonstrates your nonfamiliarity (at that time) with his work for at least a decade prior to the writing of that script.

I'm with the other Jonathan. With a slight shuffling of scenes in editing and a couple minutes of additional climactic footage, "Terra Prime" would have been a tremendous finale. Every cast member had a strong role to play in the story, it was well written and acted, and it leaves off on exactly the note that they wanted when the series began, hope for the future. I found myself actually getting choked up over Trip and T'Pol's child. STRONG kudos to John Billingsly for the sickbay scenes towards the end.

"These are the Voyages..." on the other hand, was pretty much an hour of Berman and Braga pissing on Enterprise's grave. No, it was more like pissing in its coffin during the viewing in front of all of the mourners. I now understand why the cast has been so outspokenly upset about it.

To say that it was weakly written would be understatement of the year. Instead of the epic sendoff every series has gotten since Next Gen, we get some piddly story about Shran nested within an episode about Riker, of all people, which kills off a main character for no good reason. Now, I don't have a problem with characters dying if the actor leaves (Tasha Yar) or it's actually dramatically appropriate (Pa'u Zotoh Zhaan of Farscape among others) but to kill somebody off in the last episode for no REAL discernable reason is beyond me.

And when all was said and done, we didn't even get to hear Archer's speech, watch the signing, or even see the crew together one last time. We get "Computer, end program" and a too-little-too-late montage of the Trek opening speech, amounting to a great big upraised middle finger to everyone who actually supported the show over the last four years.

Feh, the more I think about it, the more disgusted I get. And I think I've started to ramble, as is my wont, so I'll just stop now and try to find something happier to think about, like Disney orgies.

-Rex Hondo-

PAD wrote: "The first time I saw the name "Harlan Ellison" was on the credits of "City."

Jeff Frawley wrote: "PAD: If my first awareness of Harlan Ellison's name were from a Star Trek script, I think I would keep that information to myself. Rather than demonstrating the cultural significance of Star Trek, this fact only demonstrates your nonfamiliarity (at that time) with his work for at least a decade prior to the writing of that script."

I think it should be pointed out that assuming PAD first saw "City" when it originally aired in 1967, he would have been about 10-years-old at the time. It's entirely conceivable that at age 10, he hadn't yet been exposed to Ellison's written body of work (or not much of it).

Or take this example: When I was 11 or 12, I bought a book of cartoons called _Star Jaws_, which parodied _Star Wars_. The author was Will Eisner, but the name didn't mean anything to me at the time, because I hadn't yet begun to really collect comics; and, in fact, my first exposure to _The Spirit_ wasn't until C. 1982 or later.

I don't think it's unrealistic that kids of 10 or 12 would have a limited knowledge of writers and/or artists more familiar to adults.

Rick

I strongly agree that "Terra Prime" was a much better ending for ENT than "The Pegasus: The Re-tooled Edition!" Even Riker's resolution to "tell the Captain everything" was invalidated by the fact that the ship had to be in danger before he REALLY made his decision!

If "These are the Voyages..." had to be told as a flashback ep, why couldn't it have been a Starfleet Academy exercise or a class lecture visual aid? At least we could appreciate what was happening from a "historical" perspective without being distracted by "familiar faces" (and voices) screwing up continuity "for the sake of the fans!"

I'd be very interested to read PAD's take on this episode in his next entry.

Sure, there is no shame in PAD not knowing about Harlan Ellison prior to the Star Trek episode - nor is there any significance to the fact that he saw his name there. Everyone has to have a first exposure to a particular thing, but that signifies nothing. My first exposure to PAD's name was in the credits of the Incredible Hulk comparatively early in his run: That is not significant to whether the run was good or what significance it has to the whole of his career. Some critical argument would be necessary to establishing anything about that. PAD and many others appear to be scandalized that OSC does not like Star Trek, and their argument is seemingly: "I like Star Trek, and it has such and such emotional significance to me, so obviously OSC has no business disagreeing." Well, here is my opinion: I like Star Trek, although I am less enthusiastic than is PAD; I also recognize that some people do not feel quite so much affection for the Star Trek continuum: Somehow, I can live with this information, and do not need unanimity of opinion to be comfortable with my life.

While not a mind reader, from PAD's choice of quotes from OSC's article I inferred that PAD didn't so much take issue with his not liking Trek. It was his insulting tone, obvious unfamiliarity with the bulk of Trek material, and smug sense of superiority being a "real" science fiction author.
I don't think there's an adult on this board that honestly care whether or not anybody likes the same entertainments as them, but I (and others, I'll wager) don't feel the need to tolerate being talked down to.

-Rex Hondo-

I don't want to stretch this out further than necessary, but any adult who posts on and/or reads the internet should not be surprised at being talked down to. It happens all the time. It can be seen as "lively discussion" (If you agree with it or are spared its scorn). Less charitably, its just the ravings of someone you can be glad you don't really know.

My own criticism of PAD is entirely because he very frequently calls on those who disagree with him to be quiet.

My own criticism of PAD is entirely because he very frequently calls on those who disagree with him to be quiet.

Funny, the only "calls" I see are against those who directly insult him.

My own criticism of PAD is entirely because he very frequently calls on those who disagree with him to be quiet.

Which is exactly why the likes of Bill Mulligan and Jerome Maida are never found here anymore.

"Which is exactly why the likes of Bill Mulligan and Jerome Maida are never found here anymore."

Hopefully I'll do something in life that will make for a better obit headline than "Bill Mulligan, constant thorn in side, dies in tragic yet freakishly amusing fire-ant mishap."

But yeah, PAD has been pretty cool by me. Maybe Jeffrey was thinking of some OTHER well known comic book writer.

"My own criticism of PAD is entirely because he very frequently calls on those who disagree with him to be quiet."

See, where my own criticism of fans is that they say things that are patently false.

PAD

Mr. David, you should reread your own website. The stream this appears in regards your calls for Orson Scott Card to stop criticizing Star Trek, since you like it and have met women and indirectly fathered (presumably very excellent) daughters because of it. Admittedly, all I have gotten out of Star Trek is a large number of hours of enjoyment, so you've got me beat there. I would just encourage you to imagine what your reaction would be if someone claimed you did not have a right to express your opinions, because that person thought you were a moron or a rude jerk. I think you would say such a person was out of line to call for your silence. I am referring to Orson Scott Card here. My respect for you goes only so far as thinking a lot of your writing is quite good. When it comes to the social graces, I judge for myself, rather than deferring to your opinion. What would impress me in a response to Card's very intemperate comments would be something along the lines of a rebuttal: "OCD is wrong, because ---- ." You are an able writer, and obviously capable of framing an argument; In this case, you did not. I can only assume that you felt the "argument" you offered was sufficient, but I don't see any argument there, only intolerance of an opposing opinion.

No, Jeffrey, he disagreed with Card. Stated a wish that Card had showed fans a little more respect. But nowhere in his post did he tell Card to 'shut up'. (to quote a popular conservative talk-host)

There's a huge difference between expressing disagreement with something someone says, and being intolerant of their right to express themselves.

Or in other words...Card has a right to express himself, but he doesn't have a right to express himself free from opposing views. Nor does PAD. Nor anyone else.

"So Mr Card...how about a little goddamn respect, okay?" PAD, May 7

"'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? Allright, why wasn't I told about this YEARS ago?'" PAD May 7

I didn't say these things, PAD did. If I were to put such statements in his mouth, it would be very insulting and uncalled for. The first quote is a demand for "respect" (lockstep agreement?) from OSC without providing any persuasive argument for such a thing. The second quote is a gleeful and presumably sarcastic acknowledgement that PAD had been acting in a "rude and arrogant" manner for years. I really can't say that I know this to be the case, but I am willing to take his word for it this time.

"So Mr Card...how about a little goddamn respect, okay?" PAD, May 7

"'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? Allright, why wasn't I told about this YEARS ago?'" PAD May 8

I didn't say these things, PAD did. If I were to put such statements in his mouth, it would be very insulting and uncalled for. The first quote is a demand for "respect" (lockstep agreement?) from OSC without providing any persuasive argument for such a thing. The second quote is a gleeful and presumably sarcastic acknowledgement that PAD had been acting in a "rude and arrogant" manner for years. I really can't say that I know this to be the case, but I am willing to take his word for it this time.

Sorry, I put the wrong date for the second quote when I posted a few seconds ago. Mea culpa.

"I would just encourage you to imagine what your reaction would be if someone claimed you did not have a right to express your opinions, because that person thought you were a moron or a rude jerk."

Well,first of all, people HAVE said that any number of times. Particularly in instances where I've criticized the government, I've been told to shut up, that I'm unpatriotic, that in expressing disagreement with the government I was undermining our fighting men, etc., etc., ad nauseam.

Now as for you: I never told Card to shut up. Stating that I thought someone should show more respect than they were is not remotely the same as trying to silence them. I never said he didn't have the right to say whatever he wants. In fact, when someone said they were going to cease supporting Card's work because of his opinions, I told them I felt that they were wrong to do so.

So basically, everything you said was flat out wrong. And yet, here I am, not telling you to shut up or stopping you from writing insulting things about me on my own blog. What a bastard am I.

And your attempt to hold up my joke about fighting fire with fire as anything other than a joke is just plain pathetic.

PAD

PAD: It was foolish of me to think I would convince you of anything. It is my impression, based on the words of an experienced and intelligent writer (you) that you did more than say Card should show more respect. If I were reacting to someone with limited communication skills, I would think it very likely the person meant well but couldn't express himself well. With you, that does not seem likely. Writing is your profession, and the largest part of your work that I know shows very good facility with language and reason. As for your "joke," what is amusing is that you did not recognize the accuracy of your statement about yourself, but rather felt everyone would think you very clever for saying what you did. What is pathetic is the assurance that, because you meant it to be taken as nothing but a joke, no one can draw extremely obvious conclusions from your statement. If I had found your remark funny, I probably would have had an easier time accepting it as a joke.

What I have said about you is insulting in the respect that I pointed out your words and actions and did not accept your own slant on them. My remarks about calling you "a moron or a rude jerk" were clearly statements that such an attack would be inappropriate. I believe, but realize that you do not, that your comments about OSC are analogous to that level of abuse, and I meant to express that in terms of how you would respond if someone were so dismissive of you. I have made no assumption that you are "rude and arrogant," save being willing to take you at your word if you proclaim yourself to be so.

By the way, I have not enjoyed anything by Orson Scott Card since Ender's Game. I do not even disagree with your belief that he should not have written what he did, but only with the easy assumptions that because Star Trek meant something to you it was obviously due great deference and that opposing positions were disrespectful.

I regret the loss of your cat, and would never wish such a thing on anyone.

It was foolish of me to think I would convince you of anything.

It's also foolish of PAD to think that you're going to grasp what he's trying to say, apparently.

What you are trying to say is that you are correct and should always be understood as being in the right. Is there some misunderstanding there?

Since when is respect lockstep agreement?
It's very easy to respect someone you disagree with. As it is easy to be disrespectful to someone who agrees with you. The two are unrelated.

"Is there some misunderstanding there?"

Actually, I understand you perfectly: From your snide comments about how I should "keep it to myself" that I was unaware of the work of Ellison for ten years previous to "City," without bothering to consider the fact that Ellison doesn't write a lot of material aimed at ten year olds, to your varied unsupportable contentions about how I conduct myself on this board, to your blatant misstatements or misconstruing of just about everything I've said...because of all that, you've made your intentions abundantly clear.

If you actually read my initial posting, you'll notice that my dispute with Card was less over the quality of "Star Trek" as it was with his dismissal of the positive impact it had on fandom. The "respect" I felt he should show was for what is, to my mind, Trek's positive impact on the growth of fandom...a fandom that doubtless includes readers of Orson Scott Card's work. In short...I was defending the fans from what I felt was a dismissive and arrogant attitude on Card's part.

But rest assured: If Card happens to single out one Jeffrey Frawley for condemnation, I will remain silent lest some consider me intolerant.

PAD

Is there any reason to expect respect from someone who disagrees with you? Is it at all likely you will get it from someone to whom you have said "...how about a little goddamn respect, okay?" If I were OSC, I would not find anything in PAD's "argument" to make me repent my sinful ways. I might also add that it might be a little egotistical to believe that his meeting two women and fathering four girls qualifies as evidence of Star Trek being "the single greatest contributor to the perpetuation of SF fandom in general." Some claim that these accomplishments are partial evidence, rather than conclusive proof, of Star Trek's social significance. In any case, whether it is well-liked is not exactly the same thing as proof of its quality. I think PAD, in this case, was sloppy in his thinking, as he was preaching to the choir here, and didn't really need to make a good argument in order to get numerous heads bobbing.

Jeffery, you're really not getting it. The "respect" is for the contributions of Star Trek, not for Peter himself (or maybe I'm not getting it). Heck, I normally disagree with Peter on just about everything, but lambasting Trek (especially seeming to do so with today's sensibilities on yesterday's show) really is a slanted view.

Peter didn't say Card should shut up, he was saying he disagreed and why. Nothing wrong or hypocritical about it. If I told you to show some respect, it wouldn't mean "go back and change what you wrote or erase what you wrote" it would be a comment on your attitude.

This just isn't a horse worth beating (especially when you only have to hang around here for a little while to find a horse that IS suitable for beating). :)

Calling for "a little goddamn respect," whether for Star Trek or himself, is abusive. That PAD doesn't think so is of no relevance whatsoever.

As a professional writer who has a good command of the English language, PAD can reasonably be expected to have enough reading comprehension to understand simply stated comments. "I think I would keep that information to myself" is what I said. PAD, are you saying that I am not allowed to have that preference? I would have found it irrelevant to any coherent argument that I did not know Harlan Ellison's work prior to his work on Star Trek. As an example, it is perfectly true that I did not have any familiarity with Shakespeare before the early- to mid-1960s (I was born in 1959). This neither diminishes nor advances any possible argument about Shakespeare's qualities; It supplies insignificant and irrelevant detail. I did not say you should keep it to yourself, but questioned the significance of such minutiae by declaring that I found it irrelevant to the argument you purported to be making. If you were to say that I did, that would be your very first unquestionable lie I have found in this stream. You have been very vocal about saying you would not approve of telling people what they have a right to say. Surely they are also allowed to hold opinions of their own and deem arguments valid or not on their own authority. Your argument that Star Trek's fans are due some respect could certainly be made: You are entirely capable of framing such an argument in a convincing manner. I believe that anecdotes about your marriages and fatherhood are potentially entertaining, and certainly within your right to say whatever you want. I also believe that they are completely irrelevant to whether Star Trek, its writers, actors, producers, fans and merchandisers are due whatever degree of respect you deem correct. If I called on you to think, speak, act and feel differently from your preferences, wouldn't you think I should just "keep it to myself"? I certainly would, but want to be careful not to put words into your mouth.

What this all comes down to is this: PAD calls on OSC to show respect for Star Trek/Trek fans/Trek writers/Trek actors because - PAD likes Star Trek and has many fond memories intimately connected with the show and its fandom. I ask this: What has PAD said that should be persuasive to OSC? Why, after calling for "a little goddamn respect" (by the way, many Mormons, which OSC is, and I definitely am not, would consider such cursing very DISRESPECTFUL - perhaps blasphemous) does PAD believe he, as a surrogate and spokesman for Trek and its associates, can command such a thing?

If I had ever found any evidence that PAD has some small degree of respect for other people's opinions, I would give him much more of the benefit of the doubt on awkward and unconvincing arguments. If I thought him too foolish or uneducated to express himself coherently, that would also merit forebearance. Unfortunately, I am convinced that he is no more than a clever fellow who thinks too highly of himself and is thoroughly incapable of recognizing that HE is at least as disrespectful and irreverent as OSC. OSC is a writer who does not think highly of a property PAD likes. PAD is a writer who does not think highly of OSC for daring to disagree with his own prejudice. Where is the moral high ground here?

OK Jeffrey,

Let me try since you don't wanna get what PAD and others are saying (over & over & over again.)

First: Go find a complete transcript of OSC's remarks.
Second: Go back to the top of this thread and reread PAD's post.

Back yet? Good. First problem with your statements is bringing up "quality" and that PAD was the one who disagrees with OSC. The OSC & PAD comments from above are...

OSC "Here's what I think: Most people weren't reading all that brilliant science fiction. Most people weren't reading at all. So when they saw "Star Trek," primitive as it was, it was their first glimpse of science fiction. It was grade school for those who had let the whole science fiction revolution pass them by."

PAD "I wouldn't disagree. But that's not the point. Rather than gleefully heaping dirt on Trek's ostensible grave, as Card does, he might stop to consider that a considerable number of those "grade school" fans went on to high school and college."

Trek was fun but it was never the "high art" standard of SF. It was the summer popcorn movie of SF TV. A lot of Trek fans will admit this. And that's not a bad thing to be.
An SF TV show aimed at the people who only want their SF to be the deep, meaning of life, high art version will make a good one off or mini but will die fast on the nets. Sad thing about anything made for TV is that it has to attract a large group of viewers and the product will be watered down to appeal to the largest numbers. OSC and others can hold their noses and bash Trek (and other SF TV) as "not real SF" or as a poor man's version of SF while holding their own work and their faves up because you don't have to sell anywhere near the number of copies of a book to make it a best seller as you have to have veiwers to keep a show on the air.
Was a whole lot of Trek "average" as far as SF standards. Yeah. But it was almost always a hell of a lot of fun and damned entertaining "average" SF. Sometimes it even managed to pull off a few well above average SF stories as well. It also created a lot of charecters that a lot of people grew to like. That's a combo that's going to bring people back and grow a fan base.
The thing I (and others) disagree with OSC about is that he feels the need to insult Trek and the fans of Trek in order to make the point of how great other SF is. It's the "this is garbage, anyone who likes it can't be that bright and is so much less then I" attitude that grates.
I'm a fan of Trek but didn't like the last two shows. Whenever I spoke about the last two show I kept my comments (unless joking with friends) to the topic off why it wasn't to my liking or how I thought it could have been/could be better. I can listen to, respect and even debate with someone who is pointing out those things about something I like that they don't as well. But I have little respect for some one who uses the "it's stoopid and you're stoopid for liking it because I'm smart and I think it's stoopid so I'm better then you" tactic that most of us grew out of in the 4th or 5th grade. Don't tell me I'm stupid just because I have different tastes then you and expect me to not point out that you're a jackass.

PAD: "Trek" got me into conventions, and I met both my wives at conventions (at different times). Four kids were the cumulative result, all of whom have attended conventions. "Star Trek," if NOTHING else, may well be the single greatest contributor to the perpetuation of SF fandom in general."

That comment has nothing to do with PAD's family (personal note on how it impacted his life aside.) It's a point blank fact. Don't think so? Star Trek, Star Wars and maybe Doctor Who to a lesser degree are the three biggest, longest running SF phenoms in SF history. Name anything else that has been as big for as long as Trek and brought more people into the SF fold WORLDWIDE then Trek.
I don't do the whole dress up thing but more power to the people who enjoy it that much. They have found something that they can enjoy together and that they can HAVE FUN WITH. It's not illegal or immoral so who cares? And guess what else they do Jeffery. They share things.
"Oh, you like this version/ep of Trek? Have you tried (fill in the blank)?"
"Fill in the blank" may well be just another average TV SF show but it may just as well be a really strong SF novel with a like theme written by a great SF master. And the person getting the tip on the book may never have picked it up if it weren't for the tip from a fellow Trekker. But what does that mean to OSC and others? Well, I would bet a few $$$ that a chunk of their readership started out with Trek or Wars or Who at a young age and "went on to high school and college" as they got older. And then they spread the word to, pardon the usage, the next generation.
Trek and Wars mainstreamed SF in huge ways that nothing else ever did. Was it watered down versions? Yes. I said so above. But the easy to digest versions of SF brought people in and led many of them to the deeper, high art form of SF that OSC loves by baby steps and degrees.
OSC wants to point out the weak points of Trek? Fine. OSC wants to say that he doesn't care for trek? Fine. But he needs to think a little bit before he insults such a huge group of people just because he wants to be snide and point out that he's so much better then us/me.

Last point.
I read PAD's statement as a pointed request to give some respect, and more then a little due, to Trek and its fans for all that it has done for SF fandom. Where did PAD say that OSC should just shut up and not say anything that PAD disagrees with? When did PAD say that to anyone? Please point it out to me. You see, I've agreed with PAD quite a few times in the past but I've also busted his chops more then a few times over the years in CBG, on BB's, at a con and here and I have never seen him react in the manner you say he does when someone addresses his point of veiw with reason, logic and respect to the idea that different people can have different POVs and debate them like adults. If I'm wrong then please direct me to the proof of your statement.

Later

1) "If my first awareness of Harlan Ellison's name were from a Star Trek script, I think I would keep that information to myself. Rather than demonstrating the cultural significance of Star Trek, this fact only demonstrates your nonfamiliarity (at that time) with his work for at least a decade prior to the writing of that script."

2) "As a professional writer who has a good command of the English language, PAD can reasonably be expected to have enough reading comprehension to understand simply stated comments. "I think I would keep that information to myself" is what I said. PAD, are you saying that I am not allowed to have that preference? I would have found it irrelevant to any coherent argument that I did not know Harlan Ellison's work prior to his work on Star Trek. As an example, it is perfectly true that I did not have any familiarity with Shakespeare before the early- to mid-1960s (I was born in 1959). This neither diminishes nor advances any possible argument about Shakespeare's qualities; It supplies insignificant and irrelevant detail. I did not say you should keep it to yourself, but questioned the significance of such minutiae by declaring that I found it irrelevant to the argument you purported to be making."

If that's the point you wanted to make it was poorly made the first time. You also still miss a huge point that shows that it's not an "insignificant and irrelevant detail" in the debate.
PAD pointed out the intro to Ellison in his life through Trek. Would he have found it without Trek. Yeah, I think he would. So would many people. But not everyone. I found Ellison through Trek (I'm 34) and a whole lot else. My intro to SF reading was because an aunt and uncle saw that I, like they, liked Trek. They tossed a few books at me that they thought I would like since I liked Trek. Lensman and Asimov's Lucky series. That, at my young (ten-ish) age got me into ERB's Mars series. Those got me into Bradbury. Those got me into Clarke and so on. As I grew my tastes grew and I never stopped reading. Would I be a heavy reader without Trek? Yeah, I think so. But my SF bloom would have been later and maybe not as strong.
And that's a big point in this debate. Trek brought people into the fold. Some may have found their way in anyhow but no way would all of them come in to the levels that Trek brought them. Trek mainstreamed SF. It brought in book sales (and not just Trek books)and it made inroads for fandom. How many good shows (B5, Farscape, etc) came to us because a station/network and its money men were, as most TV SF creators have said they have been told, looking for the next Trek.
OSC's full comments dismiss this while insulting Trek's fans and seemingly saying that Trek in some way hurt SF and SF fandom or its/their image in some way. Nothing could be farther from the truth. PAD, myself and others on this blog and everywhere else have pointed out what Trek led us to in our SF development. Again, many of us would have gotten there without it (although more slowly) but a fair sized chunk of fandom may never have gotten there. As I stated above.....
If you can point out a force in fandom that has brought as many and as much to SF or fandom as Trek, Wars or Who worldwide I would like to see it. Until then OSC can be as free as he wants to be the Trek critic but he damn sure needs to realize that Trek and its fans are owed their credit and their due. To insult them just to be better-then-you-are snotty and without giving any credit at all for what it has done shows a lack of respect on his part and the attitude of a grade schooler. Is it really so much to point that out or ask that he join those of us who moved on to high school and college debate/discussion wise?

"PAD: If my first awareness of Harlan Ellison's name were from a Star Trek script, I think I would keep that information to myself. Rather than demonstrating the cultural significance of Star Trek, this fact only demonstrates your nonfamiliarity (at that time) with his work for at least a decade prior to the writing of that script."

"As a professional writer who has a good command of the English language, PAD can reasonably be expected to have enough reading comprehension to understand simply stated comments. "I think I would keep that information to myself" is what I said. PAD, are you saying that I am not allowed to have that preference? I would have found it irrelevant to any coherent argument that I did not know Harlan Ellison's work prior to his work on Star Trek. As an example, it is perfectly true that I did not have any familiarity with Shakespeare before the early- to mid-1960s (I was born in 1959). This neither diminishes nor advances any possible argument about Shakespeare's qualities; It supplies insignificant and irrelevant detail. I did not say you should keep it to yourself, but questioned the significance of such minutiae by declaring that I found it irrelevant to the argument you purported to be making. If you were to say that I did, that would be your very first unquestionable lie I have found in this stream."

I think you are being disingenuous.

This is a response to Jerry, so perhaps PAD will not suffer unneeded palpitations over my comments.

I don't really care what OSC said. My response was to what PAD said, and I did read every word of that.

"Quality": The word I used was "qualities" - which is a synonym for "characteristics." Since YOU brought up "quality," here goes. PAD said "...a considerable quantity of those "grade school" fans went on to high school and college." There is no doubt that this is true. So what? He acknowledged that Star Trek was primitive fare watched by people with little background in or knowlege of science fiction. I might not have allowed so much of OSC's argument, but so be it. PAD did. The comparison to grade school, from this point on, is relevant. In first grade, I read "Dick and Jane" primers. They served their purpose rather well, but I would be insane to call them excellent literature. I went on to high school, college and graduate school, and at each level, the quality and complexity of reading material increased, as it should. Do you believe I have made anything approaching a defense of "Dick and Jane" as fine literature? I do not.

OSC can hold up Star Trek as poor science fiction if he wants to, because he finds it to be substandard material aimed at large viewership - as you yourself have already admitted - (Again, I might not have been so ready to give up the high artistic level, but you have done so.) rather than what he considers serious, high quality literature.

You state that Star Trek was average, but "a hell of a lot of fun" and that it "pulled off a few well above average SF stories as well." Gee, it was run of the mill but sometimes a bit better? That is not a rebuttal to OSC's claims, now is it? I enjoyed and even found quality in many episodes of most of the incarnations of Star Trek, so perhaps it impressed me more than it did you: I just think that proclaiming something a little better than the average is pretty unpersuasive.

PAD: "'Trek' got me into conventions, and I met both my wives at conventions..."
JERRY: "That comment has nothing to do with PAD's family....(personal note on how it impacted his life aside.)"
ME: "Personal note on how it impacted his life aside," that comment does not exist. There is no content beyond a statement of what happened in his own life followed by the statement that "Star Trek, if NOTHING else, may well be the single greatest contributor to the perpetuation of SF fandom in general." What does this say, other than to make the bold assertion that his (not unleavened) success with women establishes the significance of Star Trek to SF fandom? I would characterize this as rather egocentric.

As to Star Trek being important because it brought so many fans into the SF tent, I am not convinced it is SF, really. Science and reasonable speculation as to future developments have played only limited roles in the formulation of Star Trek. It is fantasy, some weeks, allegory others, pseudo-western on others, but no more SCIENCE FICTION that astrology is legitimate astronomy. I would call it "Space Opera" if it had to bear one name only. Fantasy is a perfectly respectable genre, but somewhat distinct from "science fiction." Possibly OSC believes that "SF" should have some grounding in "S," and be "F" of notable quality. If so, this is more than arrogance on his part. It is legitimate to believe that product should rise above mediocrity before it is recognized as art. In any case, popularity has no bearing on quality, which seems to be the subject OSC took on. The two can be associated with the same work, but they do not have to. Horatio Alger sold much better than Herman Melville. Please don't believe he was a better or more enduring writer. I think you would scandalize the beloved PAD if you were so "just plain pathetic."

Yes, "different people can have different POVs and debate them like adults" as you suggest. The best tactic for the person taking PADs position, however, is NOT to call out for "a little goddamn respect, okay?" THAT, Jerry, was abusive. Respect, like patriotism, must not be demanded, but only earned. Apparently, OSC does not respect PAD's sacred cow. Apparently, PAD does not respect common courtesy. You wanted my proof that PAD's conduct was discourteous and immature. Like PAD's refutation of OSC, I thought the truth of my position was so obvious that I could skip some of the steps in the proof. That was an error. Unlike him, I have gone back and made some effort to back up my argument.

Sorta Trek related sad news. A few cuts from the MSN mainpage.

'The Riddler' Frank Gorshin Dies at 72

BURBANK, Calif. -- Frank Gorshin, the impressionist with 100 faces best known for his Emmy-nominated role as the Riddler on the "Batman" TV series, has died. He was 72.

Gorshin earned another Emmy nomination for a guest shot on "Star Trek," for a 1969 episode called "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield."

http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=191415>1=6542

Bill Mulligan: Well, now I know that you think I was being disingenuous. I am very enlightened now. Please tell me, though, whether PAD has really given any coherent defense of those qualities OSC savages in his article, or if, as I think, he has done no more than pretend that his own preferences are persuasive without any real explanation.

On the Harlan Ellison reference, please, what significance is there in the information? Yes, it is somewhat interesting; No, it does not further any argument that Star Trek was a good thing. There are quite a few arguments that CAN be made. I just haven't seen any of them from PAD in this string. Some of PAD's apologists have done a fairly good job of crediting their early-life exposure to Star Trek for their later, "finer" tastes in good SF, but he does not seem to have made that case himself. In any case, one could say that he would have starved to death if he hadn't eaten some mediocre swill, prior to discovering fine cuisine, but that would not establish that the swill was good. Far too many of the attack on Card/Support for David posts have have ADMITTED that Star Trek was mediocre and shoddy; I would not have gone nearly that far, because the argument is already lost when one gives up this important point.

Yes, I have been quite sarcastic numerous times. I will not argue the disingenuous charge, and will move on from there. I am completely sincere when I comment on what seems like intellectual laziness on PAD's part. OSC's comments are probably offensive; They may be ill-considered; They are in no way refuted by anything PAD has said in this string. If he is as intellectually and verbally agile as I have long believed, I do not know why he has not exerted himself to MAKE HIS CASE. I also am very curious as to how he (truly, I believe) cannot comprehend the offensiveness of his demand for "some goddamn respect." I am not particularly religious, and I cannot deny that I have cursed on occasion in my private life, but I think it is intellectually and ethically sleazy for a "man of letters" to stoop so low. The only conclusion I can draw is that he is an unpleasant and arrogant man who has sufficient contempt for his readers (the very crime of which he accuses OSC) to pander to their existing preconceptions rather than "bring his best game" and make the reasoned argument that would refute Card.

If I had ever found any evidence that PAD has some small degree of respect for other people's opinions, I would give him much more of the benefit of the doubt on awkward and unconvincing arguments."

Well, the fact that I haven't banned your ass after your repeated unsupported insults should qualify.

PAD

I didn't bring up the quality issue. OSC did.

OSC: "The later spinoffs were much better performed, but the content continued to be stuck in Roddenberry's rut. So why did the Trekkies throw themselves into this poorly imagined, weakly written, badly acted television series with such commitment and dedication? Why did it last so long?"

Did he use the word "quality?" No. But that is what he was talking about.

Average, by the by, isn't always a bad thing. I was talking from my point of veiw. I know people who think Trek is great. And yes, when somebody is stating that something is as bad as he stated Trek was the stating that it's average or above is a rebuttal. I'm not the shows greatest defender because I'm not the one of the shows greatest fans. I just believe that it's not anywhere near as bad as he claims it is and i believe it deserves a little more credit for what it has brought to fandom over the years.
But writting wise I think It was average to above average to very good depending on the ep I'm watching. Most, to me, fall in the average area. But, the thing with TV and movies (or sometimes music) is that a/some good performer/s can bring average up more then a few notches. It may be a subjective thing but it counts for a lot when you remove something from the realm of being only the written word.

To use my fave (none Trek) example:

Jack Benny, in the book Sunday Nights at Seven, wrote about how a critic just so loved a show of his that, after it aired, he wrote a glowing review of it and, in the review, stated that he wished that he could somehow get a copy of the radio script to have for his library collection. Jack, after reading the review, had a copy made up, placed in a very fine book format and sent it to him. The result? The critic wrote a second review that savaged the same program and stated that there was nothing funny about and wondered what it was that he found funny about it in the first place.
See, I love Jack Benny. I have enough of his radio shows to fill up every waking hour of a full week if I so wanted. But I would never read the scripts for hours on end. Why? Because, while there are more then a few moments of greatness, a lot of it just reads as average. It was Jack's (and the cast's) talent that made the show.

How does that fit into this debate? Storywise some of Trek was, to my opinion, average. Not a sin. But the cast made it better then the written word was. You could sit down down for an hour or so and enjoy Trek. And that enjoyment does not, as OSC seems to think, make Trek bad or Trek fans simple.

And on the subject of simple....
The Dick and Jane arguement of yours is is really weak. A straw dog for you to knock over. OSC used the grade school line. I, and others, were paraphrasing him in our arguements. Trek was an adult show with very adult issues. There were hidden layers in even some of the average shows. But it was never so deep or without lightness and daring do that a youngster (or youngster at heart) couldn't enjoy it as well.

You don't care what OSC said? You only care about what PAD said? That's a twisted bit of logic. You're cutting out half of an arguement and setting up another straw dog for yourself to knock over. It must be easy to make strong points when, by your rules, you just get to brush aside any point you feel might undermine or weaken yours. Too bad they're only strong points if the people you're debating let you do that.

Again with the family comment? Just refuse to get it. One last time because you're a slow learner it seems. Taking one line and shaking it about makes it easy to claim your arguement as the better one. But the entire post makes it clear that lots of people in fandom have like stories to tell.
Then there's another factor to that all together. PAD has posted, written and spoken on Trek so many times that I'm sure he's even lost count. He's covered this ground before and gone into a whole lot more about Trek and what its done for fandom then he posted this time. I think he can be excused for thinking that the people who read or post here will have some knowledge of that since so many people here are regulars. Tell me Jeffery, do you explain your points from from point 1 to point 24,453 everytime you debate or state something amongst friends or do you assume that most of your friends know where you stand and you can make a statement with only a tiny bit of recapping? PAD's given us points 1-24,452 before. Most of us know them. He doesn't have to spend 20,000 word going back over them. If you don't know them.... Sorry.

"It is legitimate to believe that product should rise above mediocrity before it is recognized as art."

Hmmm.... I could get into the entire "what is art is subjective" thing here..... No. stuff that. So you believe that something must be of the level of "art" to be enjoyed? You must be a boring person to be around or so snobbish that it grates the nerves. You only watch, read or listen to things that raise themselves to the lofty level of "art" and nothing else then? Somehow I doubt it. Besides, it's, again, a thin arguement on your part. Just because it's not "art" does not make it as bad as OSC made it out to be. Nor does it mean that those who enjoy it are any less mature or smart for doing so then he for disliking it.

"In any case, popularity has no bearing on quality, which seems to be the subject OSC took on. The two can be associated with the same work, but they do not have to. Horatio Alger sold much better than Herman Melville. Please don't believe he was a better or more enduring writer."

OK. A point that has nothing to do with what is being said. No one said that something that is popular must therefore be good or be art. Another straw dog arguement on you side and not even worth pointing out how stupid it was to make. And I hate Herman Melville. Stupid damned book about the whale.

"As to Star Trek being important because it brought so many fans into the SF tent, I am not convinced it is SF, really. Science and reasonable speculation as to future developments have played only limited roles in the formulation of Star Trek."

Ah, more mid debate rule shifting attempts. It's not really SF after all. Any credit it has earned for what it has done and what it has brought to SF and fandom is therefore off the table. I see. Sorry. No. It's SF. It's strongly based in SF, S and F. Maybe it plays about in Science Fantasy a bit but it is most strongly planted in the Science Fiction camp. Attempt overruled.

"Yes, "different people can have different POVs and debate them like adults" as you suggest. The best tactic for the person taking PADs position, however, is NOT to call out for "a little goddamn respect, okay?" THAT, Jerry, was abusive. Respect, like patriotism, must not be demanded, but only earned."

And you know what? Trek has earned it. You can try to brush it aside be claiming that it's not SF but it is and it has brought more people into the fold then anything else out there. It's opened doors for things that may have had doors shut on them. Maybe a few of the doors should have stayed shut but that's for another time.
Trek has been a huge part of SF for years and will continue to be so. Trek fans will be around for as long time and they will continue to be a strong backbone of fandom in general. The phenom that is Trek has earned its goddamned respect and then some.

"In any case, popularity has no bearing on quality, which seems to be the subject OSC took on."

And that's not the subject he took on. Or if it was he did a poor job of getting that point across. But since you don't care what OSC said and don't want to track down the complete transcript you really shouldn't second guess at it. It comes across as bad debating tactics. Just more bad/straw dog arguements that don't stand up very well.

Jerry - "First problem with your statements is bringing up 'quality'" (7:01 pm)

Jerry - "I didn't bring up the quality issue." (10:25 pm)

Well, it would be rude to call you a liar, wouldn't it? Perhaps you have a linguistic problem that I haven't recognized: I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

No, stating that ST was average is NOT bad. It is also not any form of endorsement. Average is not good enough for praise. If PAD (used only as an example) could only write as well as the average person, no one would read him, nor would that be a surprise. Remarkably enough, he is rather better than that. Would you really pay to read "average"?

Grade school: well, I used that example because PAD used it as an extended simile. I don't think he needs to be protected from his own choices of expression, because he does know his way around words. That one moves from grade school on to higher levels of education was his choice, and one that I thought was very accurate.

I don't care what OSC said: No, I don't. I would disagree with many things he said, but that is a different matter. Peter David is a grown man who writes for a living, often very well. He can be judged on his words and actions, like any person of adequate mental faculties. You probably noticed that is exactly what I have been doing. I am not "brushing aside" OSC's remarks: I am ignoring them because it is PAD to whom I am referring.OSC's article does not bear on whether PAD conducted himself like a civilized person.

"The family comment": I have been exceptionally careful to say nothing critical of PAD's family, as that would be stupid, cruel and uninformed. The family comment was in response to YOU making the "unsupportable statement" that PAD's comment had nothing to do with his family, when it had referred to nothing but his family. To emphasize: He has a family; He discussed his family; You claimed that his comment had nothing to do with his family; I pointed out the inaccuracy of your statement.

Art and mediocrity: I never suggested that Star Trek had to rise to the level of "Art" to be enjoyed, but rather that OSC's criteria for judgment could legitimately label the so-called "average" as less than "Art."

"No one said that something that is popular
must be good or be art" No. You just bloviated about the commercial necessities of getting a lot of viewers, which writers like Card do not need to do (you think). In fact, sales, viewership, readership...all those things are important to anyone trying to sell a product. As a writer, PAD knows it is more profitable to have many readers than few. You, PAD and some others for some reason admitted Card's major points and then decided they didn't really matter. I cannot guess why you admitted these damaging points when it wasn't necessary, but you did it anyway.

"Mid debate rule shifting": Well, if you insist that something is great SF, vital to the genre, it is relevant whether it is the product advertised. If I said that a buffalo was a very handsome dog, you would be justified in reminding me that it was really not a dog.

"Herman Melville": Trivializing Moby Dick is very much within your rights, but it should make some people think your critical judgment is poor. I am making a serious effort to remain emotionally cool here, but the throwaway remark about a "Stupid damn book about the whale" is pretty galling. If PAD scanned your comments as carefully as he has mine, he really should inform you that you are "just plain pathetic" - just to be fair.

"Trek has earned it" I suspect it may have, but saying it is so is not the same as justifying that opinion.

PAD: You seem to very much enjoy harping on your tolerance at not having "banned (my)ass after (my) repeated unsupported insults." I hope you will not find "unsupported" my very specific criticisms: Irritating, yes. Not convincing to you, probably. Unsupported, no. Here is a last remark: I do not believe someone so inarticulate and crude as to ask for "a little goddamn respect" has much prospect of getting it.

Banning me will not be necessary: I will find no further value in speaking to you or your zombies. The only question I have which will have to remain unanswered is how a writer who has frequently demonstrated great skill at plotting human interaction could be incapable of any introspection or self-awareness.

After reading that last bit I was going to try and figure out on what planet is the blog that "Jeffery" is reading and how it actually relates to ours... And then it hit me!

Peter... Wotta Card indeed. You know, you could have filled us in before we got into this. At least it would have saved me all that typing. I didn't know you were bringing the insane, rambling fanboy from hell Vic Chalker back to life.

So this is just your trial run at working the rust off ol' Vic's venoms and nutty ramblings, eh. But, tell me, why the change of name in the charecter? Jeff doesn't work as well as Vic to me. Or will you be going back to Vic when you've gotten all the writing kinks out? And quite a few kinks too. This version is as strange as the early version of Vic but no where near as funny.

Oh well. Keep working at it PAD. You'll get it worked out in no time.

"Banning me will not be necessary: I will find no further value in speaking to you or your zombies."

Ahhh, and now we're into the usual saw: Anyone who agrees with me is a zombie or a brown noser or somehow mindless. In accusing me of insulting Card or being intolerant of those who disagree with me, you turn around and insult anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you. It can't be that they genuinely think I'm right and that you're wrong. It has to be that they're incapable of thinking for themselves. As is typical with these sorts of exchanges, the overarching arrogance of the ostensibly even-handed fan makes itself known.

"The only question I have which will have to remain unanswered is how a writer who has frequently demonstrated great skill at plotting human interaction could be incapable of any introspection or self-awareness."

And here's the answer: My "great skill at plotting human interaction" indicates that I do, in fact, have great capacity for introspection and self-awareness. Whereas the considerable assortment of people who are telling you that you don't get it, that you're obtuse, that you're lying...why, you dismiss all of them as being mindless zombies because it is, in fact, YOU who are unaware and incapable of introspection.

But, like those who have come before you and will doubtless follow you, you can now walk the land whining that that mean, intolerant Peter David and his coterie of goons treated you badly.

PAD

Gods, I'm going to regret jumping into this, but what the hell...

Jeff, you seem to be giving off mixed signals. In one paragraph you call PAD inarticulate and crude, and in the very next you praise his writing.

In fact, you've repeadedly made reference to how good a writer he is. Have you even considered the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you misunderstood his intent? I doubt it.

You call him disrespectful, then turn around and call anyone who doesn't agree with you one of PAD's "zombies." That, combined with a strong thread of artistic elitism (I won't even go into how a great many "classics" are really boring rubbish) show that you're just spoiling for a fight and flailing any which way you can to make yourself feel smarter than everyone else.

But why am I wasting my time? If you've told the truth and see no more value in reading this board, then I'm speaking to open air. If I get a response, though, we all know you're just trying to stir up shit. *shrug* No skin off my nose either way...

-Rex Hondo-

Gee, I've never been a member of a coterie of goons before!

One of my fictional alter-egos, a Gangrel who had been Embraced by mistake, was a member of a coterie that the local Prince regarded as a bunch of stooges, but it's not quite the same, is it?

Ahhh, and now we're into the usual saw: Anyone who agrees with me is a zombie or a brown noser or somehow mindless.

Is this guy a Byrne fan, or would such an assumption be a shot 'below the belt'? ;)

Braaaaiiiiiins....

Whoops, sorry. Probably not helping any.

-Rex Hondo-

Wow, that whole thing was sort of surreal...

It's nice to see that the ever quickening pace of modern life has caught up with flamers. A few years ago it would have taken weeks before someone like Jeffrey would accuse all who disagree with him of being mindless zombies unworthy of playing with his ball.

Gee, I've never been a member of a coterie of goons before!

If we get to choose our own weapons I call dibs on a sock full of marbles.

I call broken pool cue!

Yes, I said I was going, but these responses did merit response. Admittedly, by responding after saying I would not I am falling into a trap I built myself, with my eyes wide open.

Those I consider zombies are these:

Jerry, who seems to think PAD needs to be protected from his own words. I have been accused of ignoring obvious truths, and yet Jerry has not addressed the inanities of his own statements. On a much less significant matter, his general inability to look at my name and re-type it in the correct order of letters could be taken as a sign of a reading disability. If this is so, I regret sparring with him. Still, I would have liked knowing what he meant when he claimed PAD had not referred to his family - when the words were right there before him proving that he had. He likes to refer to "arguement" (sic). If it is such a favorite word, it might be helpful to do a spellcheck and remember this "argument."

Rex Hondo: My references to PAD being a good writer were sincere. If I thought he could not express himself competently, I would not criticize him so harshly for demanding "a little goddamn respect." If I truly suspected he couldn't deal with plotting the complexities of human relationships in his fiction, it would not appall me that he was so crude as to think "respect" was something he could demand from OSC by his own fiat. As for many classics being boring rubbish, THAT is an "unsupported insult." (Look above for PAD's position on unsupported insults: Perhaps you should be banned.)

Bill Mulligan - Your previous posts did not seem to me to be particularly foolish, and after my comments about "zombies" I felt it might have been wrong to lump you with that group. Now, however, you have made a barely veiled threat with your bilge about "a sock full of marbles," so if you are not a zombie, you are at least a jackass playing at being a big man. I would not be comfortable issuing a threat to a complete stranger over a disagreement with my hero, but we differ on the matter, apparently. You can say "Lighten up, it's meant as a joke!" if you want, but it is also a threat, and a very bad idea.

PAD, for thinking so highly of himself to think I would "walk the land whining that that mean, intolerant Peter David and his coterie of goons treated (me) badly." [Readers: PAD is the one who characterized you as goons. With the probable exception of Bill Mulligan, above, I would not want to so tar you.] I would not, because I would be met by blank stares and the remark, "Yeah, so what?" Your opinion really doesn't carry enough weight for it to support such conversation. That misapprehension of your authority, combined with a personal crudity disconnected from your manifest competence as a prose stylist, seems the most likely reason your rebuttal of OSC was no more than an assertion of your opinion and a demand that what you respect must be respected. In plain English, I know you can express yourself very competently in prose, because you have done so for an extended period. When your argument is sloppy, unpersuasive and crude, my assessment is that it demonstrates arrogance and personal crudity, rather than illiteracy, given your demonstrated abilities. That, of course, is why I was careful to admit you were a talented writer. As an example, I don't know anything about Jerry except his sloppy, poorly spelled, badly reasoned comments in this string: More than one interpretation of his conduct can be made: If he can't do any better, it's not my affair to criticize him further.

As for the other posters and readers what you may not have expected from me: lumping you in with the zombies was inappropriate and sloppy. I was wrong and intemperate in that respect. There - PAD, it is not difficult to look at one's own statements and find some of them ill-considered. When I slam you, it is for your manifest reluctance, perhaps inability, to do that with your own words. Calling on OSC for "a little goddamn respect, okay" seemed worthy of remedy. It has not been remedied or even addressed by you.

This is only peripherally related to the topic at hand, but Amazon is currently selling the first season of TOS for "only" $77. I was always more of a Next Gen/DS9 fan, but would it be worth it at the discounted price?

Bill Mulligan - Your previous posts did not seem to me to be particularly foolish, and after my comments about "zombies" I felt it might have been wrong to lump you with that group. Now, however, you have made a barely veiled threat with your bilge about "a sock full of marbles,"

Wow.

You really have absolutely no idea of how discourse around here usually presents itself, do you?

Bill's statement bears about as much resemblance to "a barely veiled threat" as a random episode of "The Dukes of Hazzard" does to "The Sopranos." He was playing with PAD's reference to a "coterie of goons", and frankly if you can't see that you're not even remotely as perceptive as you're claiming to be.

Of course, since I just used the words "threat", "dukes", and "hazard" [sic] in the same paragraph, no doubt you're going to think I'm threatening you as well. If so ... well, booga-booga!

TWL
who might go back and address the original point of the thread at some point

[Oh, and to Gorginfoogle -- yes, it'd be worth it at that price. Most definitely.]

It's been a while since I've been targeted by a troll who types so much and says so little, and singled out as a zombie no less. Well, since I assume the definition of zombie we're working with here is "One who looks or behaves like an automaton" as opposed to the literal walking undead or the beverage, let's address that briefly, shall we?
I think it definitely falls under the heading of "unsupported insult." (Since that seems to be the phrase of the week) Expecially given your choice to perceive my personal opinion about certain "classic" works of literature (without even knowing the titles in question, I might add) as some sort of insult. This is EXACTLY the behavior of which you accuse Mr David. Hypocritical to say the least.
If I say that Dickens is depressingly dull, that's an opinion. If I say that I had to force myself to finish the Lord of the Rings trilogy, that's a simple fact. If I call somebody a brailess prat because they think Dracula is wonderful literature, that's an insult, and never once have I done that.
Also, forming a personal opinion about a work of literature contrary to the popular accepted perception of said work, after reading it, is hardly the action of a "zombie." It's the action of a person with their own preferences and tastes.
Now, admittedly, "taking up a weapon" in jest may not have been the most mature or politic thing to do, a couple of guys blowing off steam, but for you to perceive it as some sort of threat, especially after declaring that you were leaving and never coming back, shows a certain insecurity, if not a full-blown persecution complex.
Finally, I don't know about you, but Mr David and myself, and I'd wager the bulk of the other posters here, live in places where we have the right of free speech. It's obvious from your continued trolling that you don't don't give a rat's ass whether you offend anybody or not, so attempting to hold Mr David to some sort of "higher" standard is the act of a hypocrite of astounding proportions.

-Rex Hondo-

Frank Gorshin is GONE? After I just mentioned him in another thread????

I know there's no cause and effect here, but gosh that's creepy. I hope someone tries to profit off his death and puts out a DVD with a bunch of his appearances on it because as far as I know, one doesn't exist now. Wonderful man.

Bummer.

It's obvious from your continued trolling that you don't don't give a rat's ass whether you offend anybody or not, so attempting to hold Mr David to some sort of "higher" standard is the act of a hypocrite of astounding proportions."

Y'think?

You know...this may be beneficial. Everyone reading this: Every time you encounter one of these guys complaining about how ill-used they've been at the hands of some evil pro, keep in mind the sheer inanity of this guy (Jeff, not Rex) and be aware that, as often as not, the incidents are like this: Hypocritical, high-minded badgering from the alleged abused fan who refuses to comprehend that he's being like a fool.

PAD

"Bill Mulligan - Your previous posts did not seem to me to be particularly foolish, and after my comments about "zombies" I felt it might have been wrong to lump you with that group. Now, however, you have made a barely veiled threat with your bilge about "a sock full of marbles," so if you are not a zombie, you are at least a jackass playing at being a big man. I would not be comfortable issuing a threat to a complete stranger over a disagreement with my hero, but we differ on the matter, apparently. You can say "Lighten up, it's meant as a joke!" if you want, but it is also a threat, and a very bad idea."

You. Are. An Idiot.

This is not a joke, hoax, or imaginary story.

Would someone PLEASE contact Mr Frawley and tell him that some jackass is writing idiocy and using his name?

I'd continue but making fun of Special Ed students is mean spirited so I'll just stop.

But again--you are a total dope. Now please excuse me while I tremble in a corner over the possibility of my being jailed over my scary threat.

"If so ... well, booga-booga!"

Tim, that made me laugh out loud. Thanks.

The funny thing is, as you figured out, the "sock full of marbles" bit had nothing to do with the delicate Mr Frawley. Hey Jeffrey--It ain't ABOUT you!

Actually *Jeffrey*, it means that I am a listed dyslexic and have always had more problems on an LED screen (like the laptop I was using last night.)

Also, I did address every point that you made. The problem with you not getting it is that you either really are just that stupid or you just refuse to get it. I'll be nice and go with "refuse to get it" for now. You pull one line or one part of a line out of threads and posts and choose to rule out or throw out the rest because you don't care about that comment or thread. Of course you won't get it that way. The rest of us are reading & using the entire thread and the starting point of OSC's statements. We are all looking at the entire picture and how that drives the statements and debate here. You won't or can't grasp that. You keep pointing to one small corner of the picture only and then come off as an idiot because you want to carp on what you think about that tiny corner to the rest of us looking at the entire big picture.

"Still, I would have liked knowing what he meant when he claimed PAD had not referred to his family"

I didn't say he did had not referred to his family. I said:

"That comment has nothing to do with PAD's family (personal note on how it impacted his life aside.) It's a point blank fact. Don't think so? Star Trek, Star Wars and maybe Doctor Who to a lesser degree are the three biggest, longest running SF phenoms in SF history. Name anything else that has been as big for as long as Trek and brought more people into the SF fold WORLDWIDE then Trek."

I still stand by that. He used his family as his own small example of what Trek did in his life. But the entire comment and his entire post makes it clear that many people have these types of "I owe Trek this" types of stories. It wasn't about his family. It was about Trek. It was about what Trek has brought to and given to so many people (himself included). I, and every single other person on this thread seem to have gotten that little fact that you won't seem to let into your skull without the use of an hatchet.

"Jerry, who seems to think PAD needs to be protected from his own words."

No, I don't think that. I've been reading PAD long enough to know that he can defend his own words quite well. I just started this because the staements you made just seemed so far out there. I just wasn't sure at first if you had missed something or you were an idiot. I've got my answer now.

"On a much less significant matter, his general inability to look at my name and re-type it in the correct order of letters could be taken as a sign of a reading disability. If this is so, I regret sparring with him."

Again, I'm a diagnosed dyslexic. I'm used to it. But, please, don't regret sparring with me. I've had much worse bouts of it while debating people who are far more reasoned and intelligent then you seem to be. If it didn't bother me then it's hardly going to bug me when dealing with you.

You also keep going on about respect. Is your real name Todd? Never mind. You keep going on about respect and how it's earned but you went the snide, snotty route as fast as you could with everybody here. you feel that PAD and we owe OSC respect but you seem to feel that you owe PAD or us none. A tad hypocritical. Since you feel that respect must be earned and not just given I am going to make my last post to you with the level of respect that you have earned.

If you can't get the simple points that have been made to you by me or others here or grasp what is being said and meant by people here when a two year old could.....

You really must be PAD dusting off the old Vic Chalker gag or you are simply an idiot, a moron and a jackass. Hee haw, hee haw.

PAD: calling me an "alleged abused fan" is rather inexact coming from a person well-versed in using language. I have not said I am your fan, and would be surprised to find anything suggesting I am in any previous posting. Nor am I a "fan" in the sense of being a committed attendee at fan conventions. I do not travel in such circles - seriously, that is not a slur on fandom, but a simple fact that I do not attend cons. You consistently give yourself far too much credit for both influence and tolerance. I have acknowledged that you are a talented writer, and perhaps even that some of your work was enjoyable to read; I have not proclaimed myself your fan, a fan of OSC (which I am not) or a "Fan" in the sense of being a devotee of any genre with which you have some association. It is a bit sloppy to presume I am. In my opinion (to which I am as entitled as you) your demand for "a little goddamn respect" was inappropriate and insulting, whether it was for you, Star Trek fandom, or the holiness of your exalted opinion.

Rex Hondo, Bill Mulligan, and others: Yes, I get it that you think references to thuggish behavior are funny. Using my freedom of speech, which you love until I disagree with you, I do not find it funny, and say so. "Booga-booga," indeed.

Rex Hondo (specifically): You do not approve of my considering your dismissal of classic literature insulting? Gosh, just what was the start of this thread? PAD was outraged that OSC did not have the requisite respect for STAR TREK! He introduced language inappropriate to a polite debate. He dismissed opinions contrary to his own as pathetic and insulting. He remained quiet while his supporters sank somewhat lower than he had. The sock full of marbles and the broken pool cue were obvious references to thuggish weapons, and the references WERE made directly in response to my immediately preceding post. Saying otherwise is a lie. No, the posts did not frighten me, and I have not said so. I have said that making threats (as jokes or otherwise) is a bad idea.

Robbnn: "If I told you to show some respect" it would not be "a comment on your attitude." It would be a demand that you do something you were not inclined to do. "You are wrong" or "I think you are a jerk" would be a comment on one's attitude. Telling someone to do something is - TELLING SOMEONE WHAT TO DO. This is a fact.

" The sock full of marbles and the broken pool cue were obvious references to thuggish weapons, and the references WERE made directly in response to my immediately preceding post. Saying otherwise is a lie. No, the posts did not frighten me, and I have not said so. I have said that making threats (as jokes or otherwise) is a bad idea."

Silly, silly little Jeffrey. You have obviously been educated; your ability to put your illogic into words is what elevates you from pure idiot to buffoon.

But please please rest assured that nobody here would do you harm or even contemplate it. You're not even the best TROLL we've ever had, which is a sad fact on just so many levels.

This blog has posters of every possible political persuasion. Some probably regard PAD as an oracle, others could probably set their watches by him being predictably on the wrong side of any argument. Yet so far there seem to be none who find you anything more than a joke. Well, great prophets are never appreciated in their own time, eh?

Just out of curiosity, what forum were you kicked out of that made you decide to infest this one?

I should know by now that I'm almost certainly wasting my time...but just on the off chance that Jeffrey has just momentarily skipped his meds and will, after a few days of rest, realize what a monstrous fool he has been making of himself, let me one last time try to reason with him.

Jeffrey? Y'see the whole "sock full of marbles" bit was just my little continuation of a post from way back in December of 2004-- the whole "Minions of PAD" thread, known in certain circles as "The one that put the ha ha back in brouhaha". A few selected tidbits:

"But if you're going by my writings, well, most of them were in response to subjects you or one of your minions brought up."
"What, you think it wouldn't be cool to be a member of The Minions Of PAD? "

"I've dreamed of being a minion since I was a little girl growing up shoeless and walking 10 miles uphill to and from school in the snow...."

"But I never dreamed that someday I would be a minion of PAD. Now that I've reached the top of minionhood, I hope I can use my power for good and not let it corrupt me."

"Your minions, you know, you and nine guys from your-- oh, never mind."

"For what it's worth, folks, as I've repeated numerous times, I'm not a minion or a lackey. I'm a stooge."

"And all of them are a big step up from lickspittle. Let me tell you, it was a happy day when I managed to scratch my way up to assistant toady."

"Does this "minion" bit come with a health plan?"

Funny stuff! Well, if you're into that whole "humor" thing, anyway. I can almost hear your nose wrinkling in disgust--"Oh, so base thuggery is FUNNY, is it?" Well, you see, the whole joke is that Karen, Michael, myself, Glenn, et al really aren't minions at all!

Anyhoo...the "coterie of goons" comment brought back fond memories and it was that--not you, dear Jeffrey--that caused me to comment on the sock full of marbles. It really really wasn't about you. Believe it or not.

Now, given your own use of the word, I suppose I would be fully justified in saying that your characterization of my comment--which, I might add, wasn't even directed to you, much less be about you--as a "threat" is a pure 100% lie. Lying McLyster from Lycaster. But I'll charitably chalk it up to your letting your emotions get the better of you and leaping to assumptions, for I am about to go see REVENGE OF THE SITH and therefore my heart is full of love and I am at peace with all mankind.

Bill Mulligan:

Okay, calmly, now. Why is it that anyone here assumes that all posters are completely up to date on self-characterized humor from December of 2004? People respond to what is said, rather than what other people remember from remote postings that they believe show their wit. If your account of this previous "humor" is reliable, goodness gracious, can you not imagine why such drivel would not be recognized as humor? It is a useful attribute of humor that it be funny.

"Directed at me": Yes: As a response to my complaints about lockstep agreement with PAD, the subject of socks full of marbles and broken pool cues was raised. Clearly it had been raised before, but that is of no significance at all. When you speak to someone, the words that you use are directed to that person. That is how conversation has worked since language arose. If you have a better model, I have not heard about it.

Jerry, no. You just don't make any sense. You said, "That statement had nothing to do with his family," and "He used his own family as one small example." Which is it? I believe that PAD's personal experience has no bearing on the matter, and you are certainly free to feel otherwise, but to deny that the statement had something to do with the family and subsequently admit that it used his family as an example is incoherent. As for your being a "listed dyslexic," I regret allowing that as a reason to rue arguing with you. There is really no reason to believe that your challenges are significant to this: Your reasoning is a different matter from your dyslexia, and that is the root of my difficulties with you. You say things that are simply nonsensical.

A final note: you and a number of other posters persist in assuming I want or need to convince you of something. No. I found this thread and discovered a matter I wanted to comment upon. Whether you agree with me is not a high priority. Admittedly, I believed that PAD would be able to recognize my concerns and address them, because I imagined a competent writer would understand nuances of human interaction. This desire was not achieved. Neither he, nor anyone else, has addressed my assertion that it was abusive and wrong to demand respect for Star Trek based on only two things: 1. His personal emotional stake in the program and 2. The significant popularity of the show. As I am not likely to get a response to this, yes, this whole effort has been a waste of time - a significant error. I am not sufficiently familiar with the full history of PAD's postings to say anything definitive on this, but I have not yet EVER encountered any posting, article or other instance of PAD taking back anything he has said. That seems very...unusual to me.

Okay, calmly, now. Why is it that anyone here assumes that all posters are completely up to date on self-characterized humor from December of 2004?

I assumed nothing of the kind. I told you the facts. You're welcome.

People respond to what is said, rather than what other people remember from remote postings that they believe show their wit. If your account of this previous "humor" is reliable, goodness gracious, can you not imagine why such drivel would not be recognized as humor? It is a useful attribute of humor that it be funny.

It's reliable, though whether you believe it to be so is of little to no importance. You could paste one of the sentences I quoted into google and see them for yourself. Of course, that might be a bit anal, which would certainly be a big stretch for you. Yup.

Sorry you didn't find it amusing. Guess you had to be there and/or not be such a dick. But that's humor for you! If it's any consolation, I'm pretty sure that you have generated a lot more laughs in this thread than I could ever hope to do.

"Directed at me": Yes: As a response to my complaints about lockstep agreement with PAD, the subject of socks full of marbles and broken pool cues was raised. Clearly it had been raised before, but that is of no significance at all. When you speak to someone, the words that you use are directed to that person. That is how conversation has worked since language arose. If you have a better model, I have not heard about it.

"Directed at me": Yes: As a response to my complaints about lockstep agreement with PAD, the subject of socks full of marbles and broken pool cues was raised. Clearly it had been raised before, but that is of no significance at all. When you speak to someone, the words that you use are directed to that person. That is how conversation has worked since language arose. If you have a better model, I have not heard about it.

But I didn't speak to you. I spoke to Jonathon (the other one). It's not ABOUT you!!! But I guess that's just not a concept you can wrap your head around. Man, you must have had SOME childhood.

Admittedly, I believed that PAD would be able to recognize my concerns and address them, because I imagined a competent writer would understand nuances of human interaction. This desire was not achieved.

Ok, seriously, is this all a joke or are you really not realize that this makes you look as goofy as a pet coon? The sad thing is, you really HAVE to be of above average intelligence to be this thick.

I'm done troll-feeding for the night.

Jeffrey, I know I hassled you somewhat when I caught you in an inconsistency, but sometimes people are all about realizing possibilities, so they may be more casual going about their business. If you barge into a room and start pressuring everyone to abandon casual behavior when there's no fire, you aren't allowing them their nature.

I wasn't lying about understanding the distress of experiencing your feelings being invalidated. You wonder if your point is coming across, you feel so unheard you feel justified in raising your voice and exaggerating to drive your point home. It's very painful, and all you have is your word that it's painful if you even dare mention it at all, which compounds the pain even further.

But if you're going to be a troll, you have to do it well, like I said in the other thread. Deny it if you want, but there's no kidding anyone we both know it can be great fun. However, if you just throw out a big hunk of text and people don't understand you -- you may as well have kept your point to yourself.

If the point you make needs a crap-load of qualification to explain its importance, you're probably better off letting whatever inconsistencies you find alone.

Mike, I disagree with you about a number of things, but you are the first poster here who has responded to anything I said with real thought. Perhaps my responses to you, as contrasted with several others, are a bit closer to civility because there is a huge difference between disagreement and contempt. For the most part, you seem to be on the right side of that divide. All of this mess does demonstrate that I am too easy to draw into a no-win situation, and that is pretty embarrassing. Whether I have achieved it or not, I hope my posts concerning you have not gone too far beyond the divide, either.

Beyond the divide? Other than where I refer to your relentless, Lennie-like personal agenda? No, not at all.

Jeff, I'm gonna try one last time to explain three and only three things to you.

1) The PAD family thing:
You and I work together. It's that fun time of the year when all those big spinning storms that look so cool on weather.com decide to head up North and check out the price of land by trashing as much of it as they can. You get into work when I'm leaving.
I ask, "So how bad are the roads out there?"
You answer, "Not too good and getting worse by the minute. My wife and I got caught in the start of this on the way back from the store and I thought the winds were going to blow the car off the road. As bad as it was then it's even worse now. With all the water pouring down on the roads down town and the wind I had a few near wrecks when the car decided to do its own thing."

Look at that Q&A. I asked about the storm. Did you tell me about the storm or about you and your wife? A tiny bit of that was about you and the Mrs. because you were telling me about the storm's power by telling me what it did to you. In the context of the Q&A you and your wife are not really the subject. The storm and its power is. The same goes for the comments that you just don't want to seem to get. The comments were about what Trek has done. They were about the force Trek has been in lives. The subject in full context was Trek and not PAD & clan. Get it yet?

2) You think that PAD and later we are not giving OSC the respect he is due.You feel that the "show some goddamned respect" line is out of line. Try this.....
You're a cop (god help us all). You walk around a corner and see Man A turning Man B into a bloody pulp and Woman A cheering on Man A. Man A has a huge size, weight and strength advantage over Man B. You move in, break up the fight and arrest Man A. Thing is though.... You weren't there five minutes ago when Man B grabbed Woman A, dragged her into the ally and tried to rape her. You weren't there four minutes ago when Man A walked around that same corner and saw what was going on and stepped in to stop him. Moreover, you state that you don't care to find out what went on before. You saw a crime and, damn it, you're going to arrest Man A.
Well, that's what you did here. You walked around a corner with no clue as to what OSC said. You've stated at length that you don't know, don't wanna know and just flat don't care what OSC said. But you want to jump all over Man A for what you saw. You jumped into a fight without knowing what the thing was about. A smart man might try and find out. An idiot would leap in shouting that he doesn't care what it's about but he knows what side he's on and why. OSC did nothing other then spit venom at Trek and it's fans. He did so in a manner that could only be seen as showing no respect at all. The remarks PAD and others here have made are fairly mild compared to the level of disrespect and venom spit by OSC. Does any one here feel that it was wrong of PAD? No. Partly because we are all Trek fans to some degree or another but mostly because we actually know what was said by both parties and have a slightly better grasp of the bigger picture then you do.

3) You're a jackass and a liar.
The main problem I have with you at this point is that you're an ignorant jackass who either takes things out of context, by either mixing statements that weren't together to begin with or by cutting bits out, in a deliberate attempt to twist things or you're a fool who just has no reading comprehension skills to speak of. As follows....

Your Post:
"Jerry - "First problem with your statements is bringing up 'quality'" (7:01 pm)

Jerry - "I didn't bring up the quality issue." (10:25 pm)

Well, it would be rude to call you a liar, wouldn't it? Perhaps you have a linguistic problem that I haven't recognized: I'll give you the benefit of the doubt."

Thing is that you cut out a bit there.
My Post was:
"I didn't bring up the quality issue. OSC did.

OSC: "The later spinoffs were much better performed, but the content continued to be stuck in Roddenberry's rut. So why did the Trekkies throw themselves into this poorly imagined, weakly written, badly acted television series with such commitment and dedication? Why did it last so long?""

See, OSC started the quality thing. That was what I said and not the editing job you wanted to claim I said. A two year old could see that. But you either couldn't or wouldn't. You pasted my comment but cut off the "OSC did" part and tried to paint me as a liar. But the really fun thing is, while OSC brought up quality to start this, I was responding to your remark about quality and how it missed the mark.

Your post (prior to mine):
May 18 4:32 PM: "In any case, whether it is well-liked is not exactly the same thing as proof of its quality. I think PAD, in this case, was sloppy in his thinking, as he was preaching to the choir here, and didn't really need to make a good argument in order to get numerous heads bobbing"

See, you pointed out the quality thing before I did. I was pointing out that the issue was not about opinions of the shows quality. Now, what does that say about you when you cut out a portion of what I said to twist it and paint me a liar *and* choose to ignore the fact that it was a statement in response to *your* prior point about, and using the word, quality?

How about this then....

""On a much less significant matter, his general inability to look at my name and re-type it in the correct order of letters could be taken as a sign of a reading disability. If this is so, I regret sparring with him."

Again, I'm a diagnosed dyslexic. I'm used to it. But, please, don't regret sparring with me. I've had much worse bouts of it while debating people who are far more reasoned and intelligent then you seem to be. If it didn't bother me then it's hardly going to bug me when dealing with you."

See, you said something about how I messed up your name. I'll cop to that. Some names I still, after all this time, trip up on. My wife's name is Jennifer. On bad days when I've been up way too long or doing to much overtime I've been know to flip a few of the letters around in her name (and others). And I damn sure care about her more then you. Comes with being dyslexic. Some word and names just trip you up and the brain doesn't want to work right on them all the time. Thought that the above point was made in my post. You said I messed up your name. I said I did and why. I've seen apes in zoos that could grasp that from that. But not you. Nooo. You go and post:

"As for your being a "listed dyslexic," I regret allowing that as a reason to rue arguing with you. There is really no reason to believe that your challenges are significant to this: Your reasoning is a different matter from your dyslexia, and that is the root of my difficulties with you. You say things that are simply nonsensical."

The the comment I made about being dyslexic was made in response to you pointing out the name thing. I pasted your comment in my post and addressed the name issue. The comments were back to back with nothing else between them to confuse the issue. Unlike the apes in the zoos you couldn't quite grasp that and seem to have decided that I was pointing out being dyslexic as a defense of my "nonsensical" points.
Thing is, I don't need to offer a defense for my comments. They make sense. The points may be getting stretched a bit thin since any one who makes a point to you has to go through hell to find a level that is so "Dick and Jane" that even you can grasp it. See the above storm and cop explanations. God knows, it seems that you just don't seem to grasp things told to you if they're discussed as they would be with an adult.
But then you turn around and show some signs of triple digit I.Q. in your writing. You're not dumb as a brick. You just like to act like you are or act like you are so much above the rest of us that we just can't get a point across to you in a manner that raises to the level that you would make a point. But most your points are made by, in the end, twisting statements and playing silly games.
There are other examples of this in your posts to be sure but I'm done with you. You'll claim that you don't get it again and I would rather spend my future time on this site chatting with people about something we enjoy (Sith rocked) or having Bill hand my ass to me in a debate about politics. If you stay on this site you could do worse then learn a thing or two from Bill's posts. He and I don't agree on everything but I have respect for him, would offer him a drink if I ever met him (won't say what might get slipped into the drink) and would never be as insulting to him as I have been with you. I would explain the reasons that there are differences but you would just refuse to get that to.
It goes back to what I said above....

You're a jackass and a liar and I'm done with you.

Jeffy, Jeffy, Jeffy...

I wasn't up on the in-joke from '04, either. I took it as funny because of a) the over-the-top association with "goons", and b) the obvious fact that even if it were a threat, it's still be funny. A sock full of marbles does exactly zero damage when filtered through the Internet.

And Bill, if you get the sock full of marbles, I want the bent lead pipe! (No, a bent PVC pipe just wouldn't work as well...)

Oh, and people wonder why I have a sock full of marbles, when there are people like Jerry trying to slip dollops of God only knows what into my drinks.

In point of fact, the sock tends to break, scattering marbles everywhere. A fine kettle of fish it is, trying to run away and slipping on the marbles. Hoisted by my own petard.

Jonathan (the other one): Threats "filtered through the internet" are unwise and sometimes actionable. No, I have not said that anything here rises to that level, but you are flirting with a dangerous misunderstanding if you think that posting impotent threats over the internet cannot lead to trouble. Just send an ill-considered remark to the White House or FAA and see whether that is such a good idea!

Jerry: When PAD discusses his family, he is discussing his family. There is just no way to get past that fact. As we don't believe in telling people to "shut the hell up" here, there's not much else to say on that matter. When you discuss a matter, you have brought up that matter for discussion. When you say you didn't bring up the subject, you are inaccurate.

Bill Mulligan: You appear to be having a good time with the randomly firing neurons in your head, so keep it up.

But at least I don't pretend my randomly fired neurons are anything but--as opposed to the delusion you seem to be under that you are conducting yourself in a way that would not embarass one with a tad more self awareness.

When Jeffrey takes every opportunity to dissect a post to attack it in a reply, he's using a very basic high school debating tactic. Y'all may want to consider that Jeffrey is a well-read 14-year-old kid, who is no less flabbergasting than a lot of 14-year-old kids.

What this means is that the heat of the arguments here may be flooding his brain with adrenaline -- we could be witnessing him develop a dependency to adrenaline as far as a web forum can show, if that isn't the case already. When you consider the possible dysfunctions people go through in their teens and 20s, clinical depression may be a pretty good aggravator to a lot of them.

Whether I'm right about Jeffrey or not, for those of us in high school, and in the interest of restraining our bloodlust against snotty high school kids online who may yet contribute to society positively, I thought it was worth mentioning to allow us to review the degree to which we wish to participate in such encounters online.

That should say "for those of us NOT in high school."

Mike: "A very basic high school debating tactic": and "Carefully dissecting a post to attack it in a reply": Guilty!! Reason, close analysis and logic seemed appropriate, rather than - WHATEVER it is you are suggesting as an alternative. Clearly, to fit in here, those were the wrong choices.

"Whether I'm right about Jeffrey or not, for those of us in high school, and in the interest of restraining our bloodlust against snotty high school kids online who may yet contribute to society positively, I thought it was worth mentioning to allow us to review the degree to which we wish to participate in such encounters online."

Yeah, I was pretty much heading in that direction myself. He's rapidly becoming not worth the effort. It's too easy. It's like standing there with a club and whacking a baby seal that's armed with a kazoo.

PAD

PAD

Jeffery, "Carefully dissecting a post to attack it in a reply" would actually be different from your "indescriminantly dissecting a post to attack it in a reply."

Superman knows he's more effective hanging up his cape and kicking back as Clark Kent when he isn't needed. Bizarro only knows to keep telling you he's Superman while he breaks everything.