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.

[patriciaruth]

I agree. Except for the womanizing, Kirk was a lot like Bush.

[Bobby777]

Dr. Janice Lester ... and what was with that horrible pink-and-black outfit she was wearing? ... it's AWFUL!!! (to semi-quote the guy from "Airplane!") ...

and they let her go at the end? ... with her current boyfriend? ... after they wiped out the staff on the planet they were working on? ... aye carumba ...

[patriciaruth]

I found the molasses evolution of Daniel Jackson sort of interesting.

At the beginning of the series, he was all PC and science; and then he learned how to use a gun.

[patriciaruth]

They had lots of fun designing female costumes for the original series. Kind of like a "more light" "less filling" water fight in a Budweiser male dream ad.

[Bobby777]

yeah, with the blonde girl in the tin-foil and then the blonde with the water that speeds you up and a few others ... but that last outfit, in "Turnabout Inruder" ... it was just a bad-looking one-piece ... horrible ...

maybe that's what she was mad about ... LOL ... 8)

[patriciaruth]

maybe that's what she was mad about

I can't be Captain AND I have to wear this ghastly outfit??? I agree.

What was the blonde Ensign's name in year one?

[Bobby777]

are you speaking of Yeoman Janice Rand? ... she was at the transporter controls in "Star Trek: The Movie" when the Vulcan and another gal were turned into a couple of blobs ...

of course it was what happens when you transport during a power test ... ouch ...

[Bobby777]

gotta hit the sack ... I'll check back tomorrow and try to answer any more questions ... g'night ...

[patriciaruth]

Yeoman Janice. Yes, that sounds like the Pavlovian sound the guys would sigh when we met for Trek on Thursday nights.

[Paul C. Jesup]

True on all points. I think the least sexist episode of the original series is the orginal Star Trek pilot, the one with Captain Pike in charge.

[Paul C. Jesup]

At the beginning of the series, he was all PC and science; and then he learned how to use a gun.

Well first in the movie, he learned how to use a nuke.

[patriciaruth]

LOL!

[patriciaruth]

True. In the pilot episode, Jeffrey Hunter's Number One was a female, who later came back to play Nurse. But America wasn't ready for female liberation, so they went overboard in the opposite direction.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Forgetting the Prime Directive, I always wondered what would have happened if Kirk was suck on Voyager for a week, the political correctness and having to obey a female captain might drive him complete insane. But then when he got back to his own time, who would notice the difference.

[Green Knight]

A couple of interesting Star Trek links.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Trek-Marxism.html

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Philosophy.html

http://my.voyager.net/~jayjo/sfview.htm

[Paul C. Jesup]

Forgetting the Prime Directive, I always wondered what would have happened if Kirk was stuck on Voyager for a week, the political correctness and having to obey a female captain might drive him completely insane. But then when he got back to his own time, who would notice the difference

[patriciaruth]

I always wondered what would have happened if Kirk was suck on Voyager for a week,

Oh, he'd have Kate in bed in the first fifteen minutes and then the Ga'ould would attack and kidnap her to be Queen of Anubis in the second fifteen minutes and Kirk would have the crew solving all the damage problems that had thrown them out of their chairs in the third fifteen minutes and then Kirk would go mano a mano with Anubis for the climax in the last part.

And for the tag Spock and McCoy would rescue him and make jokes.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Considering, Q, with his God-like powers, could not get Kate in bed, I doubt Kirk would have much luck.

Kate always struck me as somewhat of a cold fish.

[RWG]

Does it even make sense to ask stupid questions?

[patriciaruth]

Does it even make sense to ask stupid questions?

You have a terrific point. But you have missed the trenchant discussion on this question by Jesup: I always wondered what would have happened if Kirk was stuck on Voyager for a week

One never knows when brainstorming a mediocre question if it will lead to the sparkle of a true gem.

Go with the flow.