Does Star Trek Even Make Sense?

Sierra Times ^ | May 1, 2003 | J. Neil Schulman

[J. Neil Schulman]

Does Star Trek Even Make Sense?

by J. Neil Schulman

Let’s get this out of the way. I’m a Trekkie.

I’ve been watching Star Trek since it hit the air in 1966. I know every episode of the original series by heart. I watched the Star Trek animated series. I’ve seen all ten of the theatrical Star Trek films, and the spin-off TV series Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: Voyager, and now the latest Star Trek series, Enterprise.

Carrying a press card from the tabloid newspaper, The Star I covered the first major Star Trek convention held in New York City, where I met all the original series’ bridge crew except William Shatner.

At a later convention I fondly recall reclining on a bed at a room party, next to, and chatting with, Nichelle Nichols, who played Lieutenant Uhura.

I even spent a half hour on the phone, sometime in the mid-70’s before Star Trek: The Motion Picture revived his career, chatting with Star Trek’s creator, Gene Roddenberry. Believe it or not, he was so unbothered by fans at that time that his home phone number was publicly listed.

I’ve gone to the Star Trek Experience in Las Vegas several times, and bought my daughter a Tribble.

The point to this is that I feel well-qualified to discuss the ins and outs of the Star Trek universe.

The new series, Enterprise, takes place earlier in the story time-line that the rest of the TV series, before the formation of the Federation, on the maiden voyage of the first Starfleet vessel with a warp-drive fast enough to get anywhere interesting. It’s also before Starfleet’s “Prime Directive” has been passed into law, making it a crime for Starfleet to interfere with the “natural” cultural development of another species – or does that just apply to species that haven’t yet developed warp drive? And does the Prime Directive apply to anyone not in Starfleet? The different Star Trek series keep contradicting each other on these points.

I can see what Gene Roddenberry was thinking when he thought up the Prime Directive. It had something to do with avoiding that bugaboo of the anti-American left, “cultural imperialism.” I don’t recall that Roddenberry ever tried to stop Star Trek from imperializing cultures around the world with American values, so maybe he did think this idea only applied to extra-terrestrials.

But for the life of me, I can’t figure out what the heck the darned Prime Directive means in the first place.

Star Trek episodes throughout the years have made a point of extending human rights to intelligent rocks (the Horta on the original series episode “The Devil in the Dark”); self-aware robots (“Data,” a regular on Star Trek: The Next Generation), and self-aware computer programs (“The Doctor,” on Star Trek: Voyager).

Now, on a new episode of Enterprise, “Cogenitor,” Captain Jonathan Archer (Scott Bakula) upbraids his chief engineer, Charles "Trip" Tucker III (Connor Trineer), for teaching a third-gender sex-slave from a newly encountered species how to read and awakening in it enough of a desire for freedom to ask the Captain for political asylum.

This newly encountered species isn’t rocks. They are almost human. They look human, eat human food (although they find it unfragrant), and one of their females even wants to have sex with a human male on a first date. That’s human enough for me.

Trip demonstrates that the alien third-sex “cogenitor” (Becky Walhstrom) -- treated like a useful fertilization machine by its own culture, not even given the status of having its own name -- has superior cognitive abilities. It learns how to read complex material in a single day, understands human movies at first viewing, and outplays Trip, an experienced player at a game of skill, on its first try.

Captain Archer, concerned with maintaining diplomatic relations with a technologically advanced, and therefore useful future trading partner, more than the messy business of opposing slavery, hands the refugee back to his/her/its shipmates, where the raised-consciousness Cogenitor promptly commits suicide.

The episode ends with the Captain laying a guilt trip on Trip.

Never mind that Captain Archer is the real guilty party for denying the slave asylum, using 21^st century multicultural relativism as his justification.

Probably one of Archer’s ancestors also had practice papering over the brutal crimes of other “equally valid” cultures by working as a producer for CNN.

Wonderful message Star Trek sends out. Rocks, robots, and computer programs can have the protection of human rights, but not third-sex alien slaves. I’m sure this policy will make perfect sense to whatever extraterrestrials we humans actually encounter in the future.

The point is that the morality and politics of Star Trek verges on incoherence. In other words, it’s typical of the sort of writing you’d expect from current-day American liberal TV writers. It appears to be written for the sole purpose of allowing one character each episode to spew moral outrage at another character, and which character gets tagged outrageous and which one outraged is pretty well unpredictable. There are no discernible, consistent, overriding principles to help us, just the outrage du jour.

It’s enough to make Spock weep.

Copyright © 2003 by J. Neil Schulman. All rights reserved.

#

In addition to having written for The Twilight Zone, J. Neil Schulman is author of the Prometheus-award-winning science-fiction novels, The Rainbow Cadenza, and Alongside Night. His newest novel is the comic theological fantasy, Escape from Heaven.

[exDemMom]

Patrick Stewart is the worst actor and, IMHO, singlehandedly killed the series for me.

The series probably would have sucked just as much without him. Although, I won't watch anything with him in it. He's horrid, such a wimp.

[Bernard Marx]

I actually think Startreck has been a significant negative influence on young minds in this country. An advanced planet where a 'Federation' is in control of everything and this 'new world order' is held up as man's destiny.

This "new world order" concept is really an ancient idea in SF. I began reading SF back in the 40s when swashbucklers like E.E. "Doc" Smith were typing out space operas at a penny a word and Isaac Asimov was pretty much a beginner. Even then "The Federation" and "The Prime Directive" were conventions of the genre like FTL travel and magnetic boots (later changed to Velcro) for moving around in weightlessness.

Many of the early SF writers were very far to the Left. I knew one (who went on to a "straight" career as a college history professor) who was an outright Communist. Lots of them came from Academia where the real rules of life have never applied and where socialist idealism was a given.

During John W. Campbell Jr.'s hard-nosed but exciting editorship at "Astounding Science Fiction" (later to become "Analog") there was a more free enterprise-oriented atmosphere, although many of the Lefties pushed their agendas there too. I think lots of writers assumed Man's "better" nature would evolve along with science. As a species we'd grow out of our war-making adolescence and "mature" as we headed for the stars. But there were many realistic writers who didn't buy into the utopian view and they made SF in the 40s and 50s memorable. Things were pretty much over after Ben Bova with his left-wing ideas took the mag over in the 60s after JWC's death.

I enjoyed the original Star Trek series, but it was just a re-hash of old plot lines from Golden Age print SF. I never saw an episode that plowed truly new ground. I always considered Roddenberry to be a left-wing Johnny-come-lately, profiting from better people's hard work and imaginations. Ditto for Lucas and the Star Wars movies. Alien polyglot bar scenes were cliches way back in the 40s. I give Lucas lots of credit, however, for his revolutionary special effects.

Remembering the 'old days,' however, much print SF was built around notions we consider 'politically correct' these days.

[exDemMom]

No, they don't. It would be nice if they would. (I volunteer, for a suitable compensation!) Then I might not be told to shut up quite so often, which happens whenever I point out the glaring scientific impossibilities.

[longtermmemmory]

It should be worth noting that the old series had Kirk make a pro-USA history very clear; there was no WWIII nuclear holocost, the US Constitution made up the foundation of the Earth Gov, Europe contributed nothing to the future. The entire franchise has consistently done better the less involved Roddenberry was involved.

There is nothing wrong with adapting good scifi to star trek. There is everything wrong with adapting bad leftist propaganda. (voyager trashed the franchise with PC drivel.)
Enterprise is more a situation of the Star Trek franchise finding its way home from the PC wasteland. Not always an easy journey out of the land of hollyweird.

[discostu]

One thing I think is funny is that in TOS the Prime Directive was only ever mentioned if Kirk was about to rape it, and then he always gave the same excuse speach about stagnant societies (I always wondered, if a society reached equalibrium and solved all of it's problems wouldn't it then stagnate since it no longer needed to change). Of course we always knew the truth, in fact these societies wouldn't allow Kirk the pick of their women and they had to be punished.

I think they're cramming more commercials in Enterprise, I'd be suprised if it was the usual 48 minutes.

[Cloud William]

My single most favorite episode from TOS was "the Doomsday Machine." The guest star was William Windom, as Commodore Decker, Captian of the Constellation. It was a great screenplay, with fine acting, and a compelling story.

Ah, that's one of my favorites as well. Great quotes: "Not with MY ship, you don't!!" and "Matt! There is no third planet!" (response): "Don't you think I know that?! There WAS a third planet, but not anymore!!"
Windom did a perfect "Captain Queeg", fidgeting with the computer tapes just like Bogart's character played incessantly with those ball bearings. That scene illustrates, too, what one of the problems with the newer Trek shows has been: too much dependance upon special effects and computer graphics. Sure, it's great eye candy - but the writing has, on the whole, suffered (when not even super FX can keep the audience interested, note how they opt for the easy way out, that is, more eye candy). Not that I object to Jeri Ryan wearing silver spray paint, mind you..

The Doomsday Machine dealt with the topic of nuclear weapons, but gave both sides. Yes, horrifically powerful weapons can destroy the society which produced them - but then again, the damn things sure come in handy when there's a big, bad threat headed your way.

A close second would be the episode about Captain Kirk's duel with the reptilian Gorn. I'm a geologist and am very familar with the "Vasquez Rocks" area where the battle scenes were shot. I realy enjoyed the slithering reptilian dialog ... "I will be mericful, Kirk." And then the cliffhanger, will Kirk outwit his physically superior opponent with technology!

That was not originally written as a Trek episode, but was a short sci-fi story which was adapted to the series (this was one of the strengths of TOS - real sci-fi writers, not people steeped in Trek canon). Hey, that was a Trek episode with an artillery barrage - that alone places it near the top of my list, too.

My favorite, though, is probably Balance of Terror, which echos such films as Run Silent, Run Deep.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Would not be the first time someone ripped off the Seven Samurai.

[longtermmemmory]

magnificent Seven!

dum dum dum dum da da dum dum da dum

[longtermmemmory]

the original short story was "Arena"

[discostu]

Battle Beyond the Stars ( http://us.imdb.com/Title?0080421 ) with Vaughn reprising his role as the old burnt out gunslinger. Terrible movie actually.

[Paul C. Jesup]

1. For every PC like episode I can think of at least two conservative episodes. I cannot say that for the other ST shows.

2. How many episodes have you watched of Enterprise, the acting has gotten better as the series progressed. And the acting is a LOT better than previous ST shows.

3. You're mistaking magic quality with political correctness and arrogance.

4. Since you're a scientist, have you heard about the possible speed boost that real life space ships can get from the L1 point in space (between the Earth and the Moon)? Or have you heard about the wonderful material called carbon-nanotubes?

Real life is stranger than fiction.

[patriciaruth]

I think lots of writers assumed Man's "better" nature would evolve along with science

Gerard O'Neil (RIP) refuted that theory in his 2081. But Kim Robinson was still putridly socialist in his Red Mars series.

[Paul C. Jesup]

(sarcasm) Thank you, now I can't get the damn song out of my head.

[longtermmemmory]

women writers of star trek books are REALLY putridly PC. If you have read any of the recent books you need a vomit bag.

[Cloud William]

one can understand why a heavily organized world would fear Kirks and want to weed them out.

"Have we a Ram amongst the sheep?"
- Kor, military governor of Organia

[longtermmemmory]

rugged individualism, the nightmare of the tyrant.

[patriciaruth]

Can't say I've ever read TV sci-fi books.

Read a lot of sci-fi in my youth. As fantasy took over and it got harder to find good sci-fi, and I had a demanding profession to attend to, I found myself just re-reading my old books, and occasionally a new one I found browsing fitfully through fantasy shelves at bookstores trying to find something without swords or dragons, where magic takes the place of science.

Can you recommend any good new sci-fi books?

[Bernard Marx]

I think we agree. I was painting with a rather broad brush to make several points, the main one being that SF as a genre has always tended to be pretty liberal.

Certainly the old Star Trek was fun to watch and was about the first "real" continuing character series SF on the tube -- Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits were anthologies. The heaviest turn to the Left came with New Generation. It was so stilted, actionless and politically correct I quit watching it out of sheer boredom.

[longtermmemmory]

sorry no, last book was anne coulter's slander. (I did pick up I Q at the dollar store but it was weak) Work has dominated my reading list lately.

I liked the novelizations of the old series, but that was in the pre-VCR era. (I was lead to understand the Mr. and Mrs. lived in Athens while he wrote. He passed away before he could finish the 12th and final book. The widow finished it and wrote the final Mudd books which were intended to be done seperatly)

[tophat9000]

Ah yes the politics of Star Trek (I seen all the Star Trek from the first run in 66) the thing is the politics changes per show. There was an early show in the first run (66 to 68) that could be described a pro Vietnam were the Federation and Klingon were arming a primitive race with Kirk talking abound producing a balance of power… later in the first run they had the hippy show (worst Star Trek ever were that hippy sing “Heading out to Eden”)

The show has always follow the liberal politic of the day