I Believe! (Why Nemesis Bombed)

by Gillian Weisgram


Trekmovie.com is hosting a video from G4 that states that Nemesis bombed because we're done with the Next Generation crew.

Is that really what people think?

Nemeis bombed because it was an obvious crappy remake. If you need proof, look no further! Tell me what movie this is: the Captain of the Enterprise is mysteriously summoned to a specific region of space where he encounters a villain to whom he has close personal ties, and who has a specific need to see that Captain dead. The Captain ends up having a huge space battle with the villain in the middle of a giant dust cloud, until the villain, recognizing defeat, launches his superweapon. Only the sacrifice of the Captain's closest friend – and First Officer – can save the ship. But there is a slight hope that maybe he didn't die at all...

Now tell me which movie that was.

That's not all that's wrong with Nemesis, though. If it had just been the fact that the entire plot was poached from what may be the most-loved Trek movie ever, that might be forgiveable. But with the dune buggy, B4, Shinzon, and the Viceroy running around, it was hard to make audiences take it seriously. The dune buggy can be pinned squarely on the director, since the writer has no say whatsoever. B4 is a great piece of continuity (look up TNG: Inheritance, if you're having trouble there) that could have been fleshed out in more detail. Shinzon was a great idea that didn't need that much screen time. And the Viceroy was just totally unnecessary to the plot.

The parts that really ticked me off, and ruined the whole thing for me, were the omissions. What they put in the movie was excusable. What they left out was criminal. I waited fifteen years to see Will and Deanna tie the knot, and they didn't show the wedding. Wil Wheaton was in the movie, and even though his scene was 30 seconds long (which could not possibly annoy the Wesley bashers that much) and would have won over the Wesley-loving crowd, they cut him out. As a side note, Wil is still an actor, people.

The worst part is that those things were in the script. For whatever reason, they were either never filmed or cut from the final version of the movie. You can see Wil's scene on the DVD, in the section marked “deleted scenes”. Nice.
Then there was the stuff that was actually good, the stuff that got drowned out by the dune buggy and it's friends. Like the point where the death of Data, who is beloved by pretty much everyone I know, is sinking in and Will Riker makes his little speech.

Now I'm not going to pin this anywhere, because it's so complex. First of all, the timing sucked. It needed to be either after a funeral – now there's a good idea! Or after enough time had gone by that the audience had time to grieve. If it was in at all, which it didn't have to be. I'll chalk it up to writer/director error and just say that every fan worth his salt knows what song Data was whistling when Riker found him on the holodeck.

So when Data's good and dead, made human, if you will, by his self-sacrifice, no one notices that he's been made human at all, because Will Riker's standing there going, "When I first met Data, he was trying to whistle. Funniest thing you ever heard. What was the song? I can't remember the song!" and seventeen people (me included) yelled "Pop Goes the Weasel!" and added a "you dumb shit!" silently in our heads. And the mood was ruined. Forgive us. Data had just died.

It was a long time – hours – before I came up with the self-sacrifice thing.
And it took two months before I realized that there's some really good stuff about Nemesis. The continuity is amazing, especially with regard to how Data sees and defines himself. Worf's presence is unexplained, but he has several wonderful moments. Riker and Troi have major devolepment in the form of getting married. Beverly gets promoted – even though that, too, got edited out – and Wesley returns to Starfleet. Only he's on the Titan, so you'll never see him, so just chill out, you Wesley bashers. There's some kind of moment for everyone. Well, except Geordi. Poor Geordi. He gets great screen time with Data though. And I can't really find it in my heart to argue too much with a movie that finally, after fifteen years, found a use for Deanna Troi.

Maybe Nemesis is crap. I don't know anymore. In fact, there's not much I do know. But what I believe, and you can disagree with me if you want, is that Nemesis had good equal to its bad, and if Ice Princess can turn a profit, Nemesis deserved to too. As terrified as Nemesis makes me for the future of this show – for the future of my life – I believe in Star Trek. I've come too far as a Trekkie not to believe.

I believe this new movie CAN WORK. I believe in Leonard Nimoy, who likes the script and has always been right about the relative success or failure of every movie. I believe in Zachary Quinto with his identical-to-Nimoy nose. I believe in the selling power of Jim Kirk, even if he is Chris Pine now. I believe in the fan-ness of John Logan, who may never be invited to a Star Trek convention, but who I will always want to meet. I believe in the good intentions of Rick Berman and Brannon Braga (at least in the beginning) and the creative genius of Michael Piller. I believe that J.J. Abrams knows what he's doing. I believe in the favouritism of Kathryn Janeway and the emotionalisim of Jim Kirk. I believe in the long-windedness of First Season Picard and the faith of Seventh Season Sisko. I believe that Jonathan Archer was an idiot and but Trip and T'Pol (not their romance) totally made up for it.

And I believe that the future will give me more opportunities to believe.

Comments

The Ethics of Star Trek: Exclusive Interview with Judith Barad

The Ethics of Star Trek, by Judith Barad, Ph.D (with Ed Robertson) is by far the most readable and well-argued scholarly work on philosophy and Star Trek. Readers will come away from this text with a deeper understanding of classical and Western philosophy, as well as a deeper appreciation of how the "messages" of Trek remain relevant today. The book demonstrates, quite forcefully, how Trek has risen above the mainstream of television entertainment by seriously exploring the ethical, moral, and philosophical dilemmas of our world.

The author, Professor Judith Barad, graced us with an exclusive interview about her work and her perspective on the Trekverse. Enjoy!

---------

Trekdom: Your book, The Ethics of Star Trek, is a wonderful text, because, while delving into the complex teachings of many philosophers (Socrates, Plato, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, etc.) the chapters are very readable and accessible, especially for those of us lacking a strong background in intellectual history. Was it challenging to present these complex philosophies in a way that a general audience would understand, or did Star Trek make it easy, considering that so many episodes explore philosophical issues, ethical dilemmas, and existential choices?

Judith Barad: Since I started teaching these philosophies in 1982, I have tried to explain them in a way that a college freshman would understand. Star Trek made it easier to explain the philosophies because it illustrated the concepts and theories in a concrete yet entertaining way. The first time students are exposed to philosophy, many find it quite daunting. Like others who don’t have a background in intellectual history, beginning students won’t always “see” the importance of philosophical reasoning because it deals with issues from an abstract perspective. But Star Trek enables people to “see” for themselves the importance these issues have in the lives of characters they grow to care about. In contrast to the abstract concepts of philosophy, the Star Trek episodes are much easier to follow since they have a plot and characters that engage the viewer’s emotions. These episodes are designed to be interesting, designed to be entertaining. Moreover, Star Trek dramatizes ethical dilemmas in almost every episode, a fact I became aware of in 1966 when it first aired. It was and still is, to the best of my knowledge, the only prime-time popular series designed to motivate people to think about ethical decision-making. Roddenberry, who considered himself an amateur philosopher, said that underneath all the action and special effects, he was creating moral fables. As a result of his influence, Star Trek has continued to reflect the ethical issues current during each of its five series.

Although I found it easy to apply the philosophies to the episodes, Ed Robertson helped to make the book even more entertaining to a popular audience.

Trekdom: While reading your book, I was surprised by how different the ethics or “messages” of each series are in your analysis. Can you tell our readers more about the changing ethics of Trek, from the original Star Trek to Star Trek: Voyager?

Judith Barad: One very striking change from series to series has to do with the issues that were addressed. In the late sixties, Star Trek confronted racism, war, genetic engineering, and drug usage. Later, The Next Generation dealt with euthanasia, assisted suicide, and terrorism. In the nineties, Deep Space Nine and Voyager tackled sexual harassment, homosexuality, homelessness, animal rights, the injustice of HMOs, dumping toxic waste, and other environmental issues.

Another dramatic change involved the way women have been depicted in the various series, which is itself an ethical issue. In The Original Series, sexism was rampant, expressed in everything from some of the story lines (“Turnabout Intruder”) to the way actresses were clothed. In The Next Generation, women were clothed, generally, more in keeping with their professions. However, Doctor Crusher and Deanna Troi weren’t in the top tier of leadership positions. By the time of Deep Space Nine, Star Trek gave us a female first officer and the evolution was completed by Voyager’s Captain Janeway.

As I argue in The Ethics of Star Trek, The Original Series emphasized virtue ethics in a way that values the free choices of individuals over the dictates of machines or other kinds of more powerful beings. The Next Generation, while not abandoning virtue ethics, highlighted the ethics of duty. At the same time, it continued The Original Series concern that the free choices of individuals should triumph over that of machine cultures, like the Borg, or more powerful beings, like Q. Deep Space Nine wasn’t as concerned with virtue ethics or with affirming the choice of the individual over machines or more powerful beings. While it continued The Next Generation’s interest in the ethics of duty, its primary ethical principles are drawn from existentialism. Although The Next Generation did feature some existentialist principles, Deep Space Nine applied them far more regularly. Voyager, in contrast with the two earliest series, is more comfortable with the collective good and the Platonic notion of a philosopher queen.

TD: Were those differences a reflection of the broader cultural context? Would you say that Cold War beliefs in moral certainty gave way to existential doubts in the 1990s and that Star Trek reflected those changing perceptions?

Barad: Certainly, the changing issues were a reflection of the broader cultural context. This was also true of the changing role of women in Star Trek, although the positions of Kira and Janeway may still be a little ahead of the time.

If I were to grant that the early series expressed moral certainty, I must stipulate that this moral certainty wasn’t that of the traditional values found in the culture. For example, The Original Series was opposed to racism and war, unlike the traditional, conservative culture of the time. Yet it’s true that Kirk wouldn’t have violated his personal ethics, the way Sisko did in The Pale Moonlight. Kirk doesn’t feel such existential doubts about his actions as Picard does (Conundrum), and Picard isn’t as extreme in his existential doubts as Sisko. Janeway, on the other had, doesn’t seem to go through any more existential doubt than her two earliest counterparts. Since Deep Space Nine and Voyager were very contemporary with each other, I don’t see a clear progression from moral certainty to existential doubt.

TD: Despite the different outlooks of each series, you write about a “moral tapestry” of Star Trek, which unites seemingly contradictory philosophies into a coherent ethical system. Can you please say a few words about that?

Barad: The Ethics of Star Trek contains a list of principles, drawn from the great ethicists, which are used in most episodes in each of the series. These principles include the following:
1. Choose to do that action that you could rationally will everyone else to do.
This principle helps us to determine which actions are our moral duties. In deciding what to do, we should always ask ourselves as honestly as possible: (1) What’s the principle behind our actions? and (2) Is this a principle everyone should follow? Would we rationally want everyone to do what we intend to do? What we think is right (or wrong) for one person to do in certain circumstances must be right (or wrong) for any other person to do in relevantly similar circumstances.
2. Act so that you treat sentient individuals as an end and never as a means only.
A sentient individual is one who is capable of perceiving and feeling. The principle means that we should never use the services or skills of sentient individuals simply as a means for our own purposes. We must always recognize them as individuals with intrinsic value over and above our needs.
3. The intention motivating an action is more important than the consequences of an action. It’s not just what we do that matters, but also why we do it. In “The Measure of a Man,” Louvois ordered Riker to prosecute the case against Data for Starfleet. She warns Riker that unless he gives it his best effort, she will automatically decide that Data is a “toaster” and should be turned over to commander Maddox. Caught between a rock and a hard place, Riker does his best in the courtroom. Doing the right thing doesn’t always guarantee a good outcome. At the end of the story, Riker is devastated by his part in the trial. Yet the long-term outcome was that there won’t be a race of android slaves and Data was saved. Recognizing Riker’s intentions, Data tells him, “That action injured you, and saved me. I will not forget.”
4. The goodness of an action is assessed in terms of both its means and its end.
A bad means can’t justify a good end. The term ‘end’ refers to someone’s goal or purpose. If there’s something morally objectionable about either the end or the means to accomplish it, the action isn’t a good one. If alternative means are necessary, we must choose among them rather than an ethically objectionable means. For instance, in Insurrection, the Federation discovered a virtual fountain of youth, but to utilize it, an entire population would have to be displaced. There’s no other means available to achieve this benefit. While the end of prolonging people’s lives is a good one, the means necessary to accomplish it, in this case, is unethical. Seemingly conscious of this principle, Picard strongly opposes the Federation’s attempt to use the “fountain of youth.”
5. Freedom cannot be separated from responsibility. We should exert control over our inner life and our outer life, accepting authority and accountability for making decisions affecting ourselves and others. We’re personally responsible to set rules and limits for ourselves. No matter how tempting it is to shirk our responsibility, we can’t blame anyone else for the choices we’ve made—not our parents, not our bosses, not our friends, not television, not our economic system, nor any other aspect of society. If we say “I was just following orders,” we’re just as responsible as the person who gave the orders, even though we’re trying to fool ourselves into thinking that we had no choice in the matter.
6. Moral decisions are made by reason—not emotion or tradition. Reasoning, rather than emotion or tradition, gives us the tool we need to review, evaluate, and revise our ethical decisions. Good ethical reasoning requires us to recognize and go beyond self-deception, uncritical conformity, and ethical intolerance. Only by reasoning can we question our assumptions and objectively consider alternative ways to address problems.
7. Altruism has priority over egoistic concerns. When faced with a situation where we must choose between doing the unselfish thing or acting selfishly (all things being equal), we must act unselfishly.
8. We must not injure or harm others.
9. We must deal justly with others. The formal principle of justice states that no one should be treated differently from someone else unless it has been shown that there’s a difference between them morally relevant to the treatment at issue. This is why the question of Data’s sentience in “The Measure of a Man” is important. If he’s sentient, then the formal principle of justice requires us to treat him as equal to everyone else. If he isn’t sentient, then that fact would count as a relevant difference, justifying unequal treatment. Sentience, is this instance, is a relevant difference for whether someone should be treated as a disposable item.

TD: Fascinating! Lastly, do you have any advice for graduate students and colleagues who, while trying to write dissertations on Trek or use Trek in the classroom, have faced resistance from advisors or committees?

Barad: Not only had my Star Trek and Philosophy course been approved as a standard course within philosophy at Indiana State University, but I also had it approved by committees for general education credit. At first, there was some resistance because the notion of the course seemed to have nothing to do with philosophy. However, committees are required to look at a proposal more deeply and not abide by their first superficial impression. My syllabus and rationale for the course made it clear that students would be required to read standard primary sources. Then I argued that the value of philosophical material (or any academic material) is in its application. Star Trek shows students how the principles enunciated by the greatest philosophical minds can both be illustrated and used in interesting situations. Although I didn’t appeal to the increasingly recognized field of philosophy and popular culture, I also recommend that this be part of someone’s argument arsenal. There are several popular book series by publishers like Open Court that appreciate the marriage of popular culture and academic subjects. Finally, the best way for an academic work to receive attention is to appeal to people beyond the halls of academia. If the work is capable of receiving this attention while simultaneously edifying people who wouldn’t otherwise read such material, the work is far more successful than a work that only has other Ph.D.s for its audience.

------

*Purchase The Ethics of Star Trek here. Visit Ed Robertson's site here. Trekdom highly recommends this book for all Trek fans and students of philosophy. We also encourage Indiana State University students to take her Star Trek and Philosophy course when offered.

Also read TrekWeb's review.

Comments at Trekdom

Comments at Trekbbs

TNG's "The Outcast": Star Trek on Homosexuality and Gay Rights

by Jared B.

"In more than four decades, Star Trek... has broken through many barriers, such as being the first to have an interracial kiss (between William Shatner and Nichelle Nichols) on broadcast television, as well as touting the values of peace and tolerance for all. Yet the series has refused to address forthrightly the topic of homosexuality where it would most matter—on television or film."
- AfterElton, "Star Trek's Forbidden Gay Frontier," April 20, 2006.

For many years, progressive fans of Star Trek have cried foul at the franchise's refusal to adequately address the subject of homosexuality. Trek has been accused of depicting a future where gays simply don't exist. Every 24th-century relationship is heterosexual, while every character is presumed or proven to be straight. Again and again, as many fans pleaded for a more representative future, the producers and writers failed to deliver.

How is it, fans asked, that Star Trek, with its reputation as progressive, open-minded, and tolerant, shuns away from the topic of homosexuality? How can the series that challenged racial prejudices of the 1960s now ignore the gay civil rights movement?

While it is true that years after other shows, such as Roseanne and Will and Grace, included homosexual characters, Star Trek refused to do so. There have been many excuses given. Producers Rick Berman and Brannon Braga said they didn't want to highlight a character's alternative sexuality as something that defined the person as unique or different in an age of equality and social tolerance.

Yet, many fans see homophobic prejudice and studio spinelessness as the culprits. Whereas Gene Roddenberry used deragatory words to describe gays during the 1970s, he indicated a willingness to breach the subject in 1987. This willingness inspired David Gerrold's "Blood and Fire" script, an AIDS allegory containing homosexual characters. Unfortunately, studio executives (including Rick Berman) resisted. According to Andy Mangels:

"Berman was ultimately responsible for killing almost every pitch for gay
characters, and in interviews, was mealy-mouthed and waffling about the need for
GLBT representation. At the very least, he was gutless and didn't care about
GLBT representation. From the information and evidence I've seen, heard, and
read, I believe that Berman is the reason we never saw gays on Star
Trek. I shed no tears that he's gone, except that he did his best to ruin
the franchise on his way out.” (AfterElton, 3)

Advocates of gay inclusion view the few episodes of Trek which contain homosexual themes as inadequate and insulting. TNG's "The Host," for example, rejected the normalcy of same-sex love, because Beverly Crusher could not continue loving a man when he suddenly became a woman. DS9's "Rejoined" showed two women kissing, but their love stemmed from a "normal" heterosexual relationship. Another DS9 episode, "Profit and Lace" failed to deliver because "the context of male homosexuality and transgenderism are set up as comedic and insulting instruments." (AfterElton, 2) Lastly, Enterprise's "Stigma" is sometimes viewed as a copout AIDS metaphor because T'pol was presented as a victim, rather than as a consenting adult who deserved equal treatment.

These critics make many great points, and it is regrettable that Star Trek hasn't done more to live up to its claims of tolerance, equality, and "infinite diversity in infinite combinations." Yet, perhaps these critics overlook one episode which did forthrightly address the topic of homosexuality: Next Gen's "The Outcast."

In this season 5 episode (written by Jeri Taylor), Cmdr. William Riker falls in love with Soren, a member of the androgynous J'naii, a species which rejects gender distinctions and stigmatizes any individual who displays male or female preferences. "The idea of gender," Soren explains to Riker, "[is] offensive to my people. You see, long ago we had two sexes, as you do. But we evolved into a higher form... I don't mean to sound insulting, but on my planet we've been taught that gender is... primitive."

Later, when Soren discovers an attraction to Riker while coming to terms with her gender identity as a female, she confesses, "I'd like... to tell you something. Something that's not easy to say. I... find you attractive." Riker looks at her adoringly, while anticipating a possible future together. The following dialogue takes place [with this author's inserts]:

Soren: "I'm taking a terrible risk, telling you that. It means revealing something to you... Something that, if it were known on my planet, would be very dangerous for me. Occasionally, among my people, a few are born who are -- different. Who are throwbacks to the era when we all had gender. Some are born with strong inclinations toward maleness... and some have urges to be female. I am one of the latter. [read: I am not straight, like everyone else]"

Riker: "I have to admit... I got the feeling you were different."

Soren: "I was hoping you would. But in front of Krite and the others, I must be careful not to reveal myself... On our world these feelings are forbidden. Those who are discovered are shamed and ridiculed. Only by undergoing psychotectic therapy and having all elements of gender [read: homosexuality] eliminated can they become accepted into society again... Those of us who have these urges live secret, guarded lives. We seek each other out... always hiding, always terrified of being discovered... I've known I was different all my life. But I didn't understand how or why until I was older.

"I remember when I was very young... before I understood what I was... there was a rumor in my school that one of the students preferred a gender... in that case, male. The children started making fun of him... every day, they got more cruel... They could tell he was afraid... and that seemed to encourage them.

"He appeared in class one morning, bleeding... his clothes ripped. He said he'd fallen down. Of course the school authorities heard about it... They took him away and gave him psychotectic treatments. When he came back, he stood in front of the whole school and told us how happy he was now that he had been cured... After that, I knew how dangerous it was to be different. And as I got older, and realized what I was, I was terrified. I've lived with that fear ever since."

Riker: "Do you have relationships with others?"

Soren: "Yes -- with those who have discovered they are male [read: also Gay]. I've had to live a life of pretense and lies. With you... I can be honest."

When Riker starts to speak, Soren pleads, "Don't say anything. Just... think about it."

This episode does not end on a happy note. J'naii officials discover the forbidden affair, and Soren's "deviant sexuality" is put on trial. There, she makes an impassioned speech on the behalf of all J'naii who are like her:

"I am female [read: Gay]. I was born that way. I have had those feelings... those longings... all my life. It is not unnatural. I am not sick because I feel this way. I do not need to be helped, and I do not need to be cured. What I do need -- what all of those like me need -- is your understanding and your compassion.

"We do not injure you in any way. And yet we are scorned and attacked. And all because we are different!

"What we do is no different from what you do. We talk and laugh... we complain about work and we wonder about growing old... we talk about our families, and we worry about the future... We cry with each other when things seem hopeless. All the loving things that you do with each other... that's what we do.

"And for that, we are called misfits, and deviants... and criminals. What right do you have to punish us? What right do you have to change us? What makes you think you can dictate how people love each other?"

Clearly, Star Trek hit the mark with this episode, and critics should see it as an exception to Trek's broader discomfort with alternative lifestyles. It was subtle, in that it didn't openly show a same-sex kiss (because Soren was clearly played by a female actor). Yet, the message was powerful and provocative: J'naii society shouldn't dictate the rules of love. Likewise, neither should we.

Just as Riker expressed his disgust at the intolerance and bigotry of a supposedly enlightened people, so should we. And, in at least one episode, so did Star Trek.

*Thanks to TrekCore for the script to this episode. Original AfterElton critique can be read here.

Comments

"All the Galaxy's a Stage": Shakespeare in the Star Trek Universe

"ALL THE GALAXY'S A STAGE": SHAKESPEARE IN THE STAR TREK UNIVERSE

by Sean Hall

In the classic Star Trek episode "Catspaw," the intrepid crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise beams down to the surface of the planet Pyris VII. Once on the ground, they investigate and are confronted by three witches who chant: "Winds shall rise / and fog descend / So leave here all / or meet your end." At this point, the logical character Commander Spock (Leonard Nimoy) replies, "Very bad poetry, Captain." Thus, we have not only a reference to Shakespeare's Macbeth, but also a rather wry comment on the immortal bard's rhyming ability.

Shakespeare and the science fiction series Star Trek have always been linked together in an almost symbiotic bond. Characters in the series quote the bard, episodes are titled after his works, and stories are adapted to fit the outer space locales. Captain Jean-Luc Picard (played by the noted Shakespearean actor Patrick Stewart in the series Star Trek: The Next Generation) has a worn copy of The Complete Works of William Shakespeare handy. Alien species such as the race known as the Klingons, created for the show, quote Hamlet, both in English and in their own fictional language. If Shakespeare is the foundation for modern theater, it is only fitting that he becomes the basis for drama in the future.

With all the gratuitous use of Shakespeare language and imagery in the series (including its four spin-offs, a successful franchise of feature films and a short lived animated series), is there an underlying reason to the use of the Bard's works? Does the combination of classic literature and pop-culture sci-fi result in something greater than the sum of its parts? According to Stephen M. Buhler, the use of Shakespeare in the Star Trek universe, specifically the film Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, serves to define which characters are the villains (Buhler 18). In general, he says the contemporary popular film use of characters who have the ability to quote Shakespeare is used as a device to establish moral ambiguity and to symbolize personal viciousness (Buhler 18). Here he relies on the many quotes of the villain of the film, General Chang (Christopher Plummer) and the chameleon shape-shifter Marta (supermodel Iman) (Buhler 22).

However, not every Shakespeare-spewing character is evil, and Mary Buhl Dutta argues that, instead, the use of Shakespeare in the original Star Trek series served as endorsement for the male-centric, Americanized ideal of a typical Shakespeare hero (Dutta 38). Within the progress of the series, the lead character of Captain James Kirk (William Shatner) "becomes" Macbeth, Hamlet, Ferdinand, and Petruchio. Always the hero, he has the ability to defeat the villain, even when his Shakespearean counterpart could not. For example, Dutta points out that in the episode "Catspaw," Kirk is essentially Macbeth (Dutta 40), yet here he has the ability to resist the evil pressure of the Lady Macbeth figure of Sylvia, unlike the original Macbeth.

Marc Houlahan furthers this theory by arguing that the use of Shakespeare in Star Trek is not only an endorsement but rather a continuation of America's attempts to Americanize Shakespeare (Houlahan 29). As the financing of BBC's official versions of Shakespeare, by four major American corporations (Time-Life, Exxon, Metropolitan Life Insurance and the Morgan Guarantee Trust Company) and the creation of the Folger's Shakespeare Library (located between the Supreme Court and the Library of Congress in Washington D.C.) serve to show America's attempt to claim Shakespeare as their own, so does Star Trek's use of the Bard's materials (Houlahan 29). Thus he uses again the film Star Trek VI to illustrate the assumption the Captain Kirk and the system of government that he works for, The United Federation of Planets, is a representation of America. Thus, Kirk's use of Shakespeare, as well as General Chang's serve as an attempt to mainstream Shakespeare for a primarily American audience (Houlahan 30).

Going in a totally different direction, Emily Hegarty argues that the use of Shakespeare in The Next Generation serves as a symbol of high-culture (Hegarty 55). She writes, "It [the series] uses Shakespearean allusion to underwrite repressive and elitist ideological gestures within its populist format." (Hegarty 55) She uses the example of a Next Generation episode "The Perfect Mate," in which Captain Picard uses Shakespeare sonnets to express desire, confirming the ideology that Shakespeare is the quintessential symbol of love poetry in our culture (Hegarty 56).

With all the use of Shakespeare in Star Trek, you would think that the symbolism would be lost and eventually become stale, and in fact, it has. Fewer references to Shakespeare are found in the last three series spin-offs, Deep Space Nine,Voyager and Enterprise. However, within the framework of the original series, The Next Generation series and the films, Shakespeare has become an integral part of the universe that the show inhabits. It uses Shakespeare as a springboard to discuss new ideas and to maintain a connection with the future and the past.

*This student essay was orignally published here.

Comments

"I Never Read It": Star Trek and The Representation of African-American Women

by David Greven, Ph.D
Assistant Professor of English, Connecticut College

Lily (Alfre Woodard) in Star Trek: First Contact is an African-American woman freedom fighter in the ravaged Earth of the twenty second century, on the verge of the titular first contact meeting with the Vulcans that dramatically changes, in the Trekverse, the course of human history. Jean-Luc Picard’s Enterprise is only present at Lily’s Earth because they have followed a Borg sphere on its journey backwards in time, in an effort to retrocolonize the Earth, so resistant to Borg assimilation in the 24th century. First Contact is Picard’s Ahab film, in which, in his maddened, vengeful determination to destroy the Borg, who have infiltrated Enterprise, he resembles Melville’s tormented and terrible anti-hero in his hunt for the mythic White Whale. (The Moby Dick references are nothing new for Trek—they also saturate Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.)

At one point—after Picard has denounced the fierily masculinist (and often hysterical) Klingon Worf (Michael Dorn) as a “coward”—and ordered the Enterprise crew to fight the Borg hand-to-hand if they have to—anything to avoid blowing up the ship—Lily storms into Picard’s ready room. She lights into him, attacking him for essentially ordering the crew to commit suicide by fighting hopeless battles with the Borg, when if Picard simply blew up the ship, they could all at least survive. “I forgot,” Lily says, “Captain Ahab always has to get his whale.” “What?” Picard angrily responds. “You do have books in the 24th century?” Lily challenges him. After Picard demands she leave, Lily shrieks, “Blow up the damn ship, Jean-Luc!” Thunderously, Picard bellows, “No! Noooooo!” With that, he bashes his glass display of model ships throughout the centuries, which loudly shatters. He says,

They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds and we
fall back. Not this time. The line must be drawn here—this far, and no further.
And I will make them pay for what they’ve done!

Interestingly, Picard speaks in the language of postcolonial discourse, accusing the Borg of cultural invasion and colonization by assimilation—charges that have on occasion been leveled at Trek’s premise itself. But his vividly infuriated speech falls on resigned ears. “See you around, Ahab,” says Lily. At this reminder that he verges on Ahablike tyranny, Picard iterates one of the most famous passages from Moby Dick:

He piled upon the whale's white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate
felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a
mortar, he burst his hot heart’s shell upon it.

Picard now realizes what he has been becoming—a tyrant. He owes this revelation to Lily, the triumphant close-reader of classic literature who can—to the elation of humanists everywhere—marshal the moral power of great literature to stop wars, prevent strife, illuminate human psychology, force Picard to recognize his own potential evil. But Picard’s extraordinary revelation produces another one. About the canonical classic she liberally referenced, Lily reveals, “Actually, I never read it.” She has quoted from Moby Dick but never read it.

Trek is a mythos that staunchly prides itself—to a fault—on its intertextual and avowed connections with the Western literary/aesthetic tradition. Given Trek’s old-fashioned liberal humanist belief in the importance of great literature, it is highly ideologically suspect to have a black woman character simultaneously deploy the Western canon’s cultural power and disavow her own familiarity with it. For Lily to announce that she has never read the text is for Trek to deny the intellectual, thinking life of African-Americans and women in one fell swoop.

I don’t write this to make a pro-canonical-reading point (though that’s implicit) but to call attention to the way in which this moment strips Lily—the black woman—of an intellectual power she has claimed for herself as it bestows not only this intellectual power but also the entire Western tradition upon Picard—wrenching it loose from Lily—in the process. Picard emerges as the rational, learned white male who is the proper, reasonable custodian of Dead White Male literature—who can effectively quote from it and glean its insights. Lily becomes the conduit for Picard’s access of Western cultural power, even as she is disenfranchised from it. What could have been one of the great moments in Trek—Picard’s angry speech is pretty darned awesome—remains a pitiable instance of myopic, naively racist Trek thinking at best. The black woman facilitates white male power, a process uncritically replicated throughout Trek history. Star Trek: First Contact harkens back to the Classic Trek episode “The Changeling,” in which a crazed robot erases Uhura’s brain, leaving her a tabula rasa. Nurse Chapel has to teach her how to be a functioning adult again, from scratch, even teaching her Swahili. By taking away the power of knowledge from the black woman and entrusting it to the white woman, here, the episode is not commenting on the shared history of the oppression of women across color lines—and the shared struggle over civil rights issues—so much as it is rendering a strong, capable professional black woman an infantilized figure in need of benevolent white guidance. A similar maneuver occurs in Star Trek: First Contact—after having been challenged by Lily, Picard emerges as the knowledgeable one who has to instruct Lily in the ways of the humanist tradition. I'm much more forgiving of Classic Trek than I am of Star Trek: First Contact in terms of these representations, but Trek has yet to give us a truly strong, resilient African-American woman character whose strength and resiliency are supported by the larger series and do not emerge from the power and appeal of an actor’s portrayal.

*David Greven has authored many articles on film and television. For more, see Action Chicks and Reading Sex and the City, as well as his book, Men Beyond Desire: Manhood, Sex, and Violation

Comments

Comments at the TrekBBS

How UPN ruined Star Trek

by Jared B.

"We were working on a network that, in a sense, was completely contradictory to the nature of the show."
-Rick Berman, quoted in 20 December 2006 SciFi Pulse

"I think it [UPN] damaged the show. If you don’t mind booting Brent Spiner later on I could stay up here all day and talk about this one subject. I think it hurt Voyager and much more with Enterprise, to be on a constantly shifting fledgling network that in some parts it was on channel 92 if you could find it and you needed the foil rabbit ears... Tons of problems being on that network. Also we didn’t have a lot of money to promote. So I don’ think it was a great thing for the franchise. I cant blame it all on that. There were other problems of course, but it was truly frustrating."

-Brannon Braga at VegasCon 2007


Star Trek producers Rick Berman and Brannon Braga have received a lot of grief from Trekkies during the past decade. As fans witnessed the slow and painful decline of Trek's popularity, they pointed angrily at the "Killer Bs," who allegedly and almost single-handedly destroyed the Star Trek franchise. If Paramount had cleansed the Trek offices and brought in new blood, if Berman had seen what was painfully obvious to many fans, and if the writers understood and adored The Original Series... then Star Trek would still live in episodic television.

So it is claimed.

Yet, while Berman and Braga became convenient scapegoats, vilified to an extreme degree in fanzines, chat rooms, and internet message boards, another culprit stood by immune in the shadows of closed-door meetings and safeguarded memos. Unlike "Bermaga," this villain didn't have to answer to fans as it meddled with Star Trek as no network had done before.

Of course we are talking about UPN, the Paramount television network that launched in 1995 with its flagship Voyager lost in space. In the search for viewers and profits, UPN stumbled for a decade, drifting aimlessly from one target demographic to another.

Rarely did shows last more than one season, due to their dismal quality. Rarely did the network compete with other primetime channels, who, in the midst of the reality TV takeover, took viewers from one forgettable sensation to another. Rarely did UPN offer good alternatives beyond poorly written sitcoms and canned applause.

And, as digital cable and satellite television continued expanding, viewers were hard-pressed to choose "Amish in the City" over quality shows on SciFi, the History Channel, the various Discovery spin-offs, or even USA, the network that spawned from late night bikini horror flicks hosted by Gilbert Godfrey. After a decade of switching target audiences based on the most popular show, UPN finally ran out of dilithium, and it soon became trapped in the badlands of corporate damage control.

Throughout its 11 year fiasco, it left its mark on Star Trek. Exactly how and when remains a mystery. Obviously, being on a network that wasn't available in all markets hurt the shows, especially considering that UPN wasn't available to satellite subscribers unless it was already locally accessible. Those households "lucky" enough to have UPN were subjected to constant sports preemptions, unreliable broadcast quality, and random network bugs, such as broadcasting 22 minutes of Enterprise without sound in 2002.

It is also fairly clear that UPN is to blame for many questionable production decisions, such as adding a boob-enhancing catsuit to Voyager, a show that began as a feminist statement of sorts. In several interviews, Rick Berman recalled the horror of network suits at seeing Seven of Nine borgified. "Get her out of that junk!" they screamed while hoping for a quick fix that catered to the lowest denominator. It is also clear that UPN pressured Berman and others to make Voyager and Enterprise "more like TNG," because they would have happily cashed in on a carbon-copy success that was completely unoriginal. Berman has publicly admitted that Enterprise would have been extremely different, focused on the nitty-gritty aspects of exploring our neighboring worlds (no Klingons, no Romulans, no Borg). Instead, he had to make it more "recognizable." At the same time, Berman lobbied to give Trek a year-long hiatus. He feared that "too many trips to the well" in search of profits was diminishing the shelf-life of Trek. Yet, UPN insisted otherwise, arguing that Trek could be reinvented for a younger, hipper audience.

Consequently, we were given nauseating tits and ass decon scenes that seemed to replace any opportunity for meaningful dialogue or interesting character development. UPN suits cringed at the thought of intellectually challenging their Sweet Valley High, Moesha, and WWE Smackdown viewers. A network that thrived on fluff didn't have a high tolerance level for pedantic and provocative drama.

Rick Berman had to relent to the demands of his boss's network. He may have wondered at one point, "Who exactly is paying me here?" After all, this situation was unique for Star Trek under Berman's watch. The Next Generation thrived in syndication, meaning that no individual network had much control over the content, characters, message, or direction of the show. This free reign was one of Gene Roddenberry's original demands for 24th century Trek. He had been burned much too often by meddling network suits and short-sighted executives, or so he claimed.

Yet, with Voyager and Enterprise, the situation was suddenly reversed. Paramount finally launched the great experiment of a new network helmed by a new Star Trek series (see Star Trek: Phase II). It failed miserably. No one at the top asked, "Is it logical to lauch a channel catered to teens and urban audiences with a flagship show catered toward an educated fanbase renowned for its disposable income?"

Now, nearly 2 years after the cancellation of Enterprise and 1 year after the death of UPN, Rick Berman is writing his memoirs. Mr. Berman, come clean for us! Tell us exactly what this network did and how they interfered with Trek. Tell us who is really to blame for the failures, faulty directions, and ratings ploys. Tell us, please, how UPN ruined Star Trek.

Perhaps when fans finally understand the details, your contributions to Trek will be celebrated for what they were in good times, not what we witnessed in bad times.

In the meantime, this writer invites every fan to analyze what went wrong over the years. Ask yourself, "Should we really blame Rick Berman?"

Comments

Comments at the TrekBBS

Comments at StarDestroyer.net

The Star Trek Saga: From One Generation to the Next

Enjoy this half hour documentary. It was produced by Paramount to promote TNG in 1987.

(The sound is slightly out of sync in part 1)

The Star Trek Saga: From One Generation to the Next







Comments

Chain of Command: Continuing a New Trend

by Mojochi

By its sixth season, Star Trek: The Next Generation had reached the height of its popularity. It was likely this success which bolstered their confidence enough to show more than one mid-season two part episode, for the only time during the series' run.

The one which generated the most attention was called "Chain of Command". It was a ground breaking episode for Star Trek, in a couple different ways. Primarily, it marked the first time that a plot revolved around the captain being reassigned and replaced with a guest actor, that being Ronny Cox (Deliverance), who would play the forcefully direct Captain Edward Jellico. This plot created a very fertile landscape, wherein conflict could arise throughout the ranks of the Enterprise crew, as it was quite evident, very early on, that Jellico was nothing like the captain they'd grown accustomed to, during their six years aboard ship.

This made for very interesting exchanges, as the crew attempts to deal with their mission and face unwanted restructuring, while hoping for the safe return of Captain Picard. Such a risk would likely never have been taken with the preceding television cast of the original Star Trek, for it may have been viewed by the creators, at that time, as undermining to the captain's overall character appeal, which leaves at least this reviewer to believe that The Next Generation was truly willing to continue the longstanding custom of being bold, trying new and precarious things, a trait that Star Trek has been much praised for.

The second reason this episode stands out within the "TNG" collection is that it marks the only time in this series, and one of very few times within the franchise's history, where the captain is imprisoned and subjected to eerily realistic torture techniques from Picard's Cardassian captor, for the purpose of obtaining classified information. One can only assume that this specific storyline held great significance for its central performer, Patrick Stewart, who, for many years prior to the filming of this episode, had been one of the strongest supporters of the human rights organization Amnesty International, warranting him the honor of an award named for him.

It's only too fitting that an episode which delves into the study of classic torture methodology, on the Human psyche, should be played out by someone who has stood in opposition to such treatment, alongside the world's most organized group of active objectors. There are many true to life depictions of the tactics used, in this episode, though not necessarily the torture methods themselves. There is even a point, when the character of Picard reflects on the overall proof that exists to dispel with the belief that this form of punishment serves any productive goal, and rather tends to be a self defeating means by which to obtain any desired result.

In fact, this is the very way the episode plays out, with a continued willful resistance by Picard, which reaches its climax with the lines, now infamous among Trek fans: "There are four lights!!!!" This is in reference to the method of torture, where the forfeit of free will is acquired, by forcing the prisoner to participate in an active fallacy, for the exchange of mercy, specifically the admission that there are in fact five lights.




In the end, Picard is forced to recognize, in private counseling, that even he, with his tenacious will, has his breaking point, for just before his reprieve came, he had succumb to the force against him, and was not only willing to capitulate to any and all of his jailer's claims, which luckily never came to fruition, but was also amazed to realize that his own sense of reality has its breaking point, in that he truly did believe he could see five lights.




These are the kinds of lasting impressions that will haunt a person who has been subjected to this kind of treatment. So naturally, I was impressed to see Star Trek depict it as well as they did. Though the incident is never mentioned again, thereafter, it is refreshing to know that the show's writers had become willing to portray the kind of character altering events that take place in reality. Short of his abduction by the Borg, Picard and his shipmates rarely have those kind life changing moments, and the previous Star Trek cast never even got the chance to have any at all, until their cinematic appearances. Such had been the way the show had originally been presented, and embracing a change of that nature took guts, in my opinion.

Comments

David Gerrold on Roddenberry, the "authorized" biography, and Star Trek

David Gerrold began his professional career as a writer in 1967 with "The Trouble with Tribbles," one of the most beloved and popular episodes of the Star Trek franchise. Since those early days with Trek, he has published more than forty books, including The Man Who Folded Himself, When HARLIE Was One, and the many books in The War Against The Chtorr and the Dingilliad series. After being nominated repeatedly throughout his career, he won the Hugo and Nebula in 1995 for The Martian Child, an autobiographical story about his son's adoption.

Having written episodes for over a dozen different television series, including Star Trek, Star Trek: The Animated Series, The Twilight Zone, and Babylon 5, while simultaneously establishing himself as a master in the genre of science fiction literature, Gerrold has become an authority on science fiction writing, as well as Star Trek.

In fact, many of his critical insights on Trek, first published in his 1973 The World of Star Trek, were directly incorporated into the writer's "Bible" of Star Trek: The Next Generation, which is not surprising considering Gerrold wrote the first draft while working closely with Roddenberry and others. Over a decade before TNG premiered, Gerrold brainstormed a Klingon and counselor on the bridge, families on the Enterprise, and the role of the first officer in leading away teams to planetary surfaces, among other notable ideas that defined TNG as different from TOS.

Arguably, David Gerrold deserved the title of "co-creator." Yet, after a fall-out with Gene Roddenberry during the first season, his Trek legacy has been whitewashed, particularly by official Paramount entities, like startrek.com (which does not credit Gerrold as part of TNG's creative staff) and especially by David Alexander's "authorized" biography of Gene Roddenberry, a book that paints a very unflattering and unfair portrait of Gerrold.

With his consent, we at Trekdom are posting a letter that Gerrold wrote to David Alexander in 1994. Not only does this letter clear the air about his experiences during that chaotic and hurtful first season of TNG, but it also demonstrates that Roddenberry's "official" biography is neither objective nor accurate.

We present this letter so that Gerrold's contributions to Star Trek will elicit further celebration, while also demonstrating how his predictions have proven correct.

-----------------------------

Dear Mr. Alexander,

For nearly seven years I refused all requests for interviews about my association with ST:TNG and the problems that the staff had with Gene Roddenberry. I refused to talk to Joel Engel for nearly six months, and only changed my mind AFTER several close friends urged me to do so to put closure on this whole business.

I began by giving Joel Engel copies of all the memos from the first seven months of ST:TNG. I waited to see what his reaction would be. After he read the memos, he came back to me with questions. The first question he asked was,"What did Gene write?" In the first seven months of the show, Gene wrote one 16-page draft of the bible, and less than a dozen memos, several of which were embarrassing for their sexual content.

As I have said elsewhere, I was Gene and Majel's friend for over twenty years. I taught Gene how to use his first computer. I remained loyal to him when others had abandoned him, I remained loyal when there was nothing to gain, when too many others considered him a has-been -- I remained loyal to Gene because I cared about him.

My problems on the show were not with Gene as much as they were with his lawyer who consistently violated WGAW rules in Gene's name. The lawyer also convinced Gene that he couldn't trust any of his old friends including me, DCF, Bob Justman, and others; thereby isolating him from information that might have helped the show. Remember, I WAS THERE. I saw what happened. Your star witness, as you yourself have acknowledged, was losing his facilities. And as many have noticed, Gene's grasp on truth was slipshod at best...

Most of us on staff knew there was something wrong with Gene. Most of us loved him enough that we were desperately trying to find ways to make sure that he could do his best; but when the lawyer declared war on the staff, he turned the place into an armed camp. I quit rather than participate.

I never sued Gene. The Guild brought an arbitration on my behalf against Paramount for wages owed. Gene took it personally, because the lawyer told him it was a personal attack. It was not. I admit to some anger at the lawyer, and at Gene for allowing the situation to happen; but I also had direct evidence-- Gene lied to my face, and then asked Herb Wright to cover for him -- that Gene had lost touch with his affection for his old friends. Even after I left, I was hesitant to speak to the Guild. It was only when two people on the Star Trek staff started telling people (erroneously) that I had been fired that my agent asked me what I had done on the show. I showed him the stack of work I had written, including the *first* Writer's/Director's Guide, and he sent the material over to the Guild.

My agent made the claim for co-creator credit, not me. And he did so without my knowledge. The Guild looked over the matter and said that Gene's rights to the created by credit were protected because the show was a spinoff of Star Trek. I never argued with that because I never wanted to take anything away from Gene. I only wanted to be fairly paid for writing the bible and doing additional producer-level work.

What Gene obviously did not tell you was that on the day he brought me on staff he told me that he believed I understood the nature of Star Trek better than anyone else in the world, perhaps even better than he did. He said I would be his Creative Consultant and later, a producer. He said I would attend every meeting and make sure his wishes were met throughout the staff. During those first few weeks, I helped bring aboard Andy Probert who designed the ship, wrote a memo suggesting Wil Wheaton for the character of Wesley, created the character of Geordi LaForge (including his name), and other aspects of the show.

BTW, Gene read every Starlog column before it was turned in, and signed off on every one. When I asked him what title I should use, he said, "Head Writer."

When the lawyer came aboard, he began restricting my authority and my title, and even denied me a parking place on the lot. At that point, Gene's relationship with all the staff members began to deteriorate because the lawyer became Gene Roddenbarry's Iago.

After I left the show, for seven years, I had to listen to Star Trek "loyalists" tell stories about me that weren't true and that were obviously designed to hurt me personally as well as hurt my career. One individual told conventions not to bring me in as a guest. Another was telling people that I was mentally ill. A third loyalist destroyed a book deal for me at Pocket Books. And so on. The characterization was created that I was going around badmouthing Trek and Gene, when in fact, I was trying very hard to get on with my life as a novelist. It was difficult to refute the charges when Gene had access to 10,000 people at a time and I was saying "no comment" so the lies about me began to take on a terrible life of their own.

FYI, facts that you failed to mention in your book: I've written over thirty books, at least that many TV scripts, and story-edited three TV series. I created Land of the Lost for Sid & Marty Krofft, and have done episodes for Logan's Run, Twilight Zone, Babylon 5, Star Trek, Star Trek Animated, and other series. I've written Writer/Director's Guides for six series, three of which have been produced. I've written nearly a hundred short stories and nearly a thousand columns and articles. Your book seemed to indicate that I had no other career than Star Trek, when in fact my novels routinely make the Locus and B. Dalton Best-seller list. Again, your research was either flawed, or you deliberately withheld information.

During the summer of 1992, in preparation for the adoption of my son, I did a course in personal effectiveness, and one of the exercises was about forgiveness. Forgiveness was defined as "giving up the right to resent you in the future for events that happened in the past." After considerable soul searching, I wrote a note to Gene, which you referred to in your book. It seemed to me that by that act, I could finally put Star Trek behind me once and for all and focus on the real joys in my life, my writing and my son. Plus, I knew that Gene's health was failing, and it seemed like a good idea to give him some measure of peace before he died. It was a way of acknowledging the good times and thanking him again for them. It was a difficult note to write because I knew that it would be misinterpreted by those who insisted on seeing me as a villain.

(BTW, perhaps Richard Arnold didn't tell you about the times he came into Gene's office and found him weeping at his desk that "all his friends had left him" and he didn't know why. So even Gene was aware that something awful was happening around him.)

Your discussion of The Trouble With Tribbles is inaccurate. Robert and Ginny Heinlein were friends of mine from 1971 until the time of his death. After Ginny gave up the house, she entrusted me with Robert's cat, Pixel, because she couldn't keep him anymore. If Ginny regarded me as anything less than a friend, do you think she would have trusted me with one of the most famous cats in SF literature?

Your reportage of the matter of the Guild arbitration is also erroneous. It was to Gene's advantage to downplay the settlement because it made my claim look frivolous, but in point of fact, there were over twenty witnesses prepared to testify against Gene and his lawyer's behavior. After the testimony of the first five was fully heard, Paramount's lawyers began stalling the hearings. What we were told (unofficially) was that Paramount saw the validity of the claim and wanted to settle it, but that Gene's lawyer had turned it into a grudge match.

At that point, the Executive Director of the WGAW had a private meeting with Gene Roddenberry in which he explained several very good reasons why Gene should encourage a settlement. Not the least of these reasons was that Gene's own reputation would be sullied if the testimony continued. A settlement was made shortly thereafter.

What I find most amazing, however is your bald-faced assertion: "It was Gerrold's choice with Engel to open that old matter, thinking that there was a confidentiality agreement in place...."

The terms of the agreement with Paramount were that I would not discuss the terms of the *settlement. There was nothing in the agreement to prohibit me from talking about the *causes* of the grievance. That I withheld public discussion of Gene's failings for so long was partly out of respect for Star Trek and my affection for the show and its fans, and partly because there was so much more happening in my life of much more importance.

In actual fact, it is you who violated the terms of that confidentiality agreement in place by appearing to discuss the monetary terms of the settlement in your book. The numbers you quoted were not even equal to my income tax refund for that fiscal year. That's as much as I can say without breaching the confidentiality agreement.

I do find it outrageous that you claim you were given the information you were given by a studio attorney, because that puts the studio in the position of knowingly violating their own confidentiality agreement. The WGAW will be very interested in that fact. Thanks. Whoever the attorney was, he lied to you about the facts. Unfortunately, I cannot give the correct information without violating the part of the confidentiality agreement that is in effect. The dilemma here is that others are free to lie about me. I am prohibited from refuting those lies with the documentation.

Even more disingenuous, is your justification that because I spoke to Joel Engel, you were free to hash out the matter in your book. Because your book was published near-simultaneous with Engel's, you had no idea what I might or might not have said to Joel Engel. Therefore you had to have been planning your scurrilous assault on my reputation from the git-go. Indeed, I have it on the authority of someone who is in a position to know that you were given specific instructions to portray me as Gene's enemy. It was only after I was informed of this information that I agreed to speak candidly with Joel Engel.

Now I do want to talk about Gene. Many people have said a lot of things about him. I knew him better than most. I'm certain that I knew him better than you ever did. I saw him at his best and his worst. I saw him stand up to a studio exec about an issue of unconscious racism. But I also heard him say sexist and stupid things about women in general and Majel in specific. I heard him make inspiring speeches about challenging writers to tell the best stories they could, but I also heard him rage against good people who he felt had betrayed him. The day we moved into our offices he said, "I'm going to lose a lot of friends before this is over." (I should have taken that as a warning.) I knew him when his mind was so sharp he could cut a seven page scene down into four lines of dialogue. And I knew him when he was so fuzzy that he couldn't remember how a scene had begun when he got to the end of it.

At his best, Gene could inspire people to be better than they believed they were capable of. That was his greatest virtue. He was a man who could sell ice to penguins.

His greatest failing was that he didn't fully believe in his own vision himself. Once he'd inspired people, he couldn't trust them; perhaps because on some level he was so insecure about his own beliefs, or perhaps because he thought people had fallen for his vision too easily, he never believed that they were as deeply enrolled or as deeply committed as they were.

People believed in Gene and in Star Trek. Nobody believed in him and the show as much as Dorothy and myself. We have our careers as demonstration of that. But Gene never allowed himself to believe that anyone was in it for anything but the money and the glory, and he was unwilling to share the credit. As a result, he was a terrible manager. He hurt people, he betrayed them, he left a trail of broken promises. And he always made sure he had someone to blame when things went wrong. NBC. Harlan Ellison. The studio. Harve Bennett. Robert Wise. And finally me. If it hadn't been me, it would have been someone else.

Gene was like the blind man with the lantern. He lit the path for many others, but he flailed in darkness himself.

I do not believe that you understand what Star Trek really meant to many of us who worked on the show. It was a wonderful dream for Dorothy and myself and almost every writer who came in. In our eyes, it was the best TV show in the world.

We worked as hard as we could. We wanted to make Gene happy. We wanted to make him look good. And then we were told that our work was sh!t and we had to do it over again. So we did. Again and again and again. Then the weird stuff got weirder. Credit-grabbing. Lying. Unjustified temper tantrums and bawlings-out. Vilification. Lies to us about how the studio hated us. Lies to the studio about how we were disloyal. We were getting so much conflicting information, we had no idea what was going on.

Eventually, I was approached privately by a major studio exec who asked me what was going on. I didn't want to be disloyal to Gene. I tried to beg off. He promised me confidentiality. He told me that the studio was thinking of pulling Gene off the show. I said that would kill him. Even in the midst of it, I was still trying to be loyal to Gene, thinking that he was still loyal to his staff. At another point, even Majel asked me if everything was all right. I was afraid to tell her the truth because I didn't want to hurt her feelings. (I have always had a great deal of affection for Majel, for reasons I won't discuss here.)

When I finally realized just how sick Gene was -- and just how unworkable Star Trek had become -- I became physically ill. From March until shortly after I quit, I was seeing one doctor after another trying to find out why I hurt allover, why I had no energy, why I couldn't eat. I was diagnosed as hypoglycemic, suffering from Epstein-Barre, and was going to be tested for other neurological conditions as well. I left the show in June, and started working on Trackers at Columbia and by the end of August most of my symptoms had disappeared. The therapist's conclusions were that I had been under terrible emotional stress, and that quitting Trek had been the cure.

You have deeply misrepresented who I am in your book; you have no idea who I am, what my work is, or what I did for TREK. I was deeply hurt by Gene and his lawyer. Promises were made and broken. After seven years of silence, I spoke to Joel Engel because I wanted the truth told at least once. Part of what I told Engel was favorable to Gene. Part was not. That was Gene. Warts and all.

Frankly, I am tired of after-the-fact explainers adding additional bullsh!t to the pile. Gene spoke out regularly about how I had betrayed him. He did this at one convention after another. Friends sent me tapes and clippings. I filed them and tried to get on with life. His speeches were reprinted in fanzines. He gave interviews to newspapers all over the world -- I have clippings from England and Australia where he railed on about me. Then the fans started repeating it. Now you. I have been saddled with a burden of lies by Star Trek's true believers, and your book is just another shovelful of the same old crap, and Joel Engel is the first reporter in seven years who bothered to call me up and ask, "Is this true? Do you have anything to say?" After seven years of calumny, abuse, and unofficial blacklisting, I do not feel I need to apologize for finally speaking up. Enough is enough. A responsible reporter would have checked his facts before printing them. You did not. You have not hurt me. You have hurt the credibility of your book, and your credibility as a biographer.

As I said before ... I have a life beyond Star Trek, and I have focused my attention where it belongs, on my writing and on my son.

My son and I have traveled all over the world together, we're a joyous family. I've been Guest of Honor at five conventions in the past twelve months, with two more to go this year. I had a novel published last November, another one just this May, and a new one scheduled for next June. I've had nine books published since I quit Trek. I have a story coming up in next month's F&SF. I just had a script aired on Babylon 5. I have my column in PC-Techniques. And I've done over a hundred thousand words of short stories for Resnick's anthologies in the past 18 months. I'm doing some of the best writing of my career since I've freed myself of the burden of the past.

Why do I tell you this?

Because I've been around long enough to know that what counts in science fiction is science fiction, not hype, not mythology, not lies.

Ten years from now, twenty years, whatever, I'll still be here writing science fiction, I'll still have the credential of my own work to speak for me. Whatever lies have been told or repeated, regardless of who has authorized them, I am confident that the body of my own work will stand as a suitable rebuttal to the steamroller of lies, and I can live with that final resolution. The readers will see for themselves.

Those who have made Star Trek a mythology, who have elevated Gene to Godhood, and who feel that the appropriate worship of the Great Bird involves the destruction of others have clearly missed the real point of Star Trek -- that we can only solve our problems when we learn to deal fairly with each other. This is the real tragedy of Gene's life -- that he himself never fully respected or trusted his own lifelong friends. This is what ultimately brought him the most sorrow. And this is the point that you missed in your book. What a pity. That would have been one helluva biography.

David Gerrold

------------------

Comments at Trekdom

Comments at TrekBBS

Exclusive Interview: Trek Insider Susan Sackett Remembers Gene Roddenberry

Susan Sackett worked as Gene Roddenberry’s executive assistant for 17 years. She also served as his assistant for Star Trek: The Motion Picture and as Production Associate for the first five seasons of Star Trek: The Next Generation, as well as co-writing (with Fred Bronson) several TNG episodes. Additionally, she has written a number of books about the entertainment industry and Star Trek, including her autobiography Inside Trek, a tell-all book that reveals her “secret life” as Roddenberry’s lover and close friend.

She kindly agreed to an interview with Trekdom.

------------------

Trekdom: Your autobiography, Inside Trek: My Secret Life with Star Trek Creator Gene Roddenberry, is quite touching, and it gives readers a fascinating look into your career as a writer and Trek insider, as well as your professional and intimate relationship with Gene Roddenberry. Can you tell us what motivated you to write this book? Was there a central message about Roddenberry or Trek that you wanted to convey?

Susan Sackett: After Gene died, I was naturally devastated. He had been the center of my world. I never considered my working with him a “job.” It was who I was and what I did in life. I felt a need to work out my thoughts. For years, I had kept a notebook of my feelings and experiences. But there was still more in my head that I needed to put down on paper, so I began by simply writing something for myself, so I would never forget our conversations, my feelings and my personal experiences. Many pages later, I had the germ of a book. It was then that I decided to create a complete book, still for myself. I put it away for many years while I completed other writing assignments.

In 1999, I had a friend with whom I wanted to share my private thoughts, and so I showed him the manuscript. Being a web designer, he thought we could perhaps serialize the chapters on a web site we ended up calling “Inside Trek.” I also posted a quotation from Gene Roddenberry each week for 52 weeks -- many from interviews I had done with him for a 25th anniversary book that was never published, many from memory, or other interviews over the years, and some from public sources. Also on the site were photos from my private collection, as well as a few one-of-a-kind personal souvenirs I hoped to sell in order to maintain the upkeep costs of the site.

We sold low-cost “memberships” for people who wanted to read the chapters online. One member was William Bernhardt, a mystery writer who had just launched his own publishing company in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He contacted me and asked if he could publish a printed version of the book. I knew of his work and was very flattered! I worked with him for many months polishing the manuscript, and in 2002 the trade paperback was released by Hawk Publishing. I have copies for sale on my web site, and it can also be ordered online through Amazon, B&N, and other stores.

Long story short, writing it was therapy for me!

------------------

Part two of the question – was there a central message about Gene that I wanted to convey? Well, yes, every piece of writing should have a message. Mine was that Gene Roddenberry was one of the most gifted people of our time, but he also had demons that haunted him. He was, after all, human. I see him as an Ernest Hemingway type of creative writer – brilliant in his work, but also plagued by doubts, depression and addictions. Sometimes these things drive genius. I also wanted people to see more than just the legend or the public persona. As a writer myself and one of the people closest to him, I felt I was qualified and had an obligation to do that.

Trekdom: He was such a complex and complicated man. Since his death, several books, yours notably, have exposed his “darker side,” especially his drug and alcohol abuse and his less than progressive views toward women. Having known Roddenberry so well, were there times when you saw him as a walking contradiction, meaning that his voiced philosophy clashed with his lifestyle and personal beliefs? Or, would that characterization be unfair?

Sackett: In some ways, that would be a fair characterization. You have to remember that he was a product of his time. He had a healthy libido. He was a man who was passionate about everything he did – his writing and producing, eating, drinking, and yes, enjoying women. He saw nothing wrong with acting on his passions while writing about equality or temperance. These were ideals and goals, and he was a human, not a robot or god who was some sort of perfect icon.

And I wouldn’t use the term “darker side.” I think he had some of those Hemingwayan demons that drove him to “self-medicate.” He might have benefited from prescribed drugs such as anti-depressants, but at what cost? Would it have dulled his mind? Was he an addictive type personality? I leave that to the psychologists to decide (although I do offer some of his doctors’ commentary in my book, for the record, to show that he was chemically challenged). He had that kind of genius that people of his generation dealt with by turning to drug use such as alcohol and cocaine (oddly, for a long time in this country, cocaine was legal and alcohol wasn’t!). It had to have been maddening to be so creative and to have the product of your blood, sweat and tears hung out there for the world to love and the critics to tear apart… to have to defend yourself against the inevitable onslaught of nay-sayers. I’m not defending what he did, just trying to realize what might have driven him to do things the way he did.

TD: Some fans believe that Roddenberry’s vision was also contradictory. Star Trek represents a future in which cultural diversity and tolerance are celebrated. Yet, at the same time, Roddenberry’s personal intolerance for “superstitious” and “backwards” religious beliefs finds expression in Star Trek. To the best of your knowledge, did he ever see any tension between his respect for diversity and his anti-religious iconoclasm?

Sackett: Diversity and religious belief are entirely different areas when it comes to tolerance. One cannot adhere to two contradictory ideas at the same time. His non-belief in religious illogic was true to his own philosophy. That does not mean he did not grant others the right to their beliefs. He merely commented upon them from his own standpoint. In fact, when his son was given a “Welcome to the World” party (shortly before I began working for him), Gene proudly invited a rabbi, and Christian minister and a Catholic priest, all personal friends of his, to participate in the festivities. I think because of his high hopes for humanity, he was impatient with the superstitious beliefs that religions do sell. He wanted to see humanity progress, and, as many people today such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens will point out, being bogged down in these petty beliefs (my god can beat up your god and we have the only true way) holds humanity back from greatness. It is too bad he didn’t live to see the beginning of this new enlightenment, this new humanistic movement that is beginning to awaken in this country.

So yes, he valued cultural diversity, racial diversity, even galactic diversity if you will – but had his opinions on what he felt would hold us back as an enlightened species. And I very much agree with him here.

TD: Interesting... It was unfortunate that his professional relationships with several Trek insiders deteriorated, especially during the first season of The Next Generation. Would it be fair to say that, after losing control of Trek in the early 80s (while disliking many aspects of Harve Bennett’s films), Roddenberry became so overly protective of TNG that he unintentionally alienated others?

Sackett: It is quite possible. He became very protective of the “new” spin-off, because his name was out there as the creator of the series. No matter who got the writing credit week after week, it was his name, “Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek,” that was on the line. As Donald Trump says, “It’s nothing personal, it’s just business.”

It was his reputation and his legacy that were at stake, whereas the writers could always find other jobs. Not that I’m condoning what he did. In the prior years that I had known him, he had always spoken extremely highly of the many writers whose friendships he lost during that first year of TNG. But when forced to chose between what he saw as substandard (i.e., sub-Gene-standard) writing and friendship, he opted for protecting his baby, TNG. So he rewrote their work, and this displeased the writers, who naturally banded together against what they saw as an injustice. Don’t forget, everyone had challenged Gene to do this new version of Trek, and everyone said it couldn’t be done: “Roddenberry can’t catch lightning in a bottle twice” was one of the phrases that was tossed about quite frequently. The gauntlet had been thrown down. So he had a lot of pressure on him, and this fed into his insecurities.

The Harve Bennett part of the question is one that is too complex to delve into here. Many things in the Bennett-era films worked quite well. But in a creative business like writing and producing, you are always going to have a lot of people with egos, and sometimes there are going to be clashes. Gene admired some things in the films and was unhappy about others. So yes, this might have led to his being insecure and overly protective of his creation, his legacy and his Star Trek ideals.

TD: “Everybody’s human,” Kirk said in Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country. Despite Gene's character flaws, he was a great man, and he inspired so many of us. Readers of your book will also realize how special he was to you as a companion and a lover. Can you leave us with a few thoughts about how he and Star Trek have inspired you and enriched your life?

Sackett: It is so much easier to talk about others than oneself! I’ll try, though. Gene totally changed my life! I had admired his work before meeting him, as a fan of the genre and Star Trek in particular. What amazed me after working with him for so many years is that he came to respect me and my ideas, and this did wonders for my own self-confidence. To be able to dialogue with a person of his intellect, and to be taken seriously – this opened up a world of discovery to me that I had never known. It has led me to explore a life of reason and understanding, to question everything, and to take the path I have chosen to be on today. Gene introduced me to Humanism, and this has become my lifelong passion. In the years since Gene’s death, I have done much volunteer work for the promotion of this cause, including being president of our local 250-member chapter, the Humanist Society of Greater Phoenix, and being on the board of directors of the American Humanist Association. I often give talks about “Humanism in Star Trek,” so Star Trek is never far from my thoughts. Gene set me on that path, so he is never far from my thoughts either.

TD: Thank you so much for your time!

Sackett: My pleasure!

*An autographed copy of Inside Trek can be purchased at Sackett’s website (http://www.insidetrek.com/) Trekdom highly recommends this book.

** This interview may not be reproduced without Trekdom's consent.

Comments