Showing posts with label Rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rant. Show all posts

Sunday, October 14, 2007

Trekkie Girl: How I Found Trek

How I found Trek

Hello fellow fans! I've always been a big fan of sci-fi. If it has aliens and space adventures, you can count me in. I've been following Star Trek for a while now. The series has always meant a lot to me because I shared it with my dad. I started watching it when I was about 14 years old. I used to watch my dad's favorite shows with him. It was a nice way to spend time with him when I was a kid. Shows such as "V", "War of the Worlds", "Hill Street Blues" and "A-Team" were among my favorites, but when I was introduced to Star Trek: TNG, I was hooked for life. We would share a bottle of tonic water & lemon slices while we watched a new episode every week. It's such a fond memory to me. To this day we still quote Picard to each other. It may be a little nerdy, but we never cared.

Star Trek had so much to offer. The episodes had a little of everything in them. I remember watching in anticipation, hoping that Riker and Troi would just hurry up and get together. I admired Worf's courage and sense of honor and Data's awesome capabilities and constant desire to feel human. Picard will always be my favorite captain, by far. It was easy to grow fond of the TNG crew and even the villains. The Borg were quite scary and Q was so horrible but I couldn't help but like him.

I was pretty sad when the series ended. I knew any new ones just wouldn't be the same but I did enjoy DS9, Enterprise and everything I've seen so far of TOS. I still love to catch episodes on cable when I can and hearing thoughts about the show from other fans. I hope that ST stays around for a good long time. I, just like so many others, have been anxiously awaiting the new film! I'm torn between wanting to know every little detail that comes out about it and just going into the theater completely surprised and open minded. I've also been looking forward to Star Trek Online for the last couple years. The images I've seen look very promising. I used to dream of how cool it would be to fly around the galaxy exploring and having adventures. I can't wait to have a chance at it in STO!

So, that's how I got involved in this crazy Star Trek world.


Comments

Saturday, June 2, 2007

In Defense of Rick Berman


In Defense of Rick Berman
By Jared B.
----------

When Rick Berman assumed control of Star Trek: The Next Generation about halfway through its first season, he inherited a disaster of a show. The atmosphere behind-the-scenes was chaotic, hurtful, and infuriating for many insiders. Gene Roddenberry, having been heavily intoxicated and overly “medicated,” alienated many of the people who had made the original Star Trek superb. D.C. Fontana recalled:

"As 1987 progressed… No one but Gene could be recognized as a contributor to ideas for the show. No one else could write a final draft. Writer-producers on the show felt the same anger and outrage I did at being excluded from the production process – at being told not to visit the sets or speak to the actors – at watching perfectly good scripts be rewritten by Gene into something far less – at having their files prowled through and sometimes removed. Definitely gone were the days when a staff birthday was an occasion and the crew was rewarded with a party for hard work. In the space of nine months, no fewer than eight writing-staff members left the series. There was no high sense of morale or community; rather the production offices were like an armed camp. Armed against Gene Roddenberry because of his alienating actions." (Fontana quoted in Engel, xii-xiii)

In addition to D.C. Fontana, other great Trek insiders such as David Gerrold left the show, feeling betrayed and belittled by the self-proclaimed humanist.

Word on the streets of Hollywood was “Don’t go near that show!” New writers felt strangled by Roddenberry's "box" of rules that made little sense. Somehow, they had to tell interesting stories about humans aboard a spaceship without depicting conflict between Starfleet officers. They were also asked to write fascinating and dynamic characters who were supposedly "too evolved" to have flaws or interesting personality quirks. Roddenberry’s utopian diatribes about 24th century humanity could be entirely contradictory, such as the notion that humans are too evolved for intolerance, yet under no circumstances would they tolerate “primitive and superstitious beliefs” like religion. Writers were left in an awkward position, bound by rules that were either inherently contradictory or outwardly at odds with the rules of good writing. The show suffered.

After reigning as a insecure visionary, and after alienating many people who had made the original Trek a phenomenon, Gene Roddenberry stopped contributing, although he retained his executive producer title. The person who did the job was Rick Berman.

Berman was not very familiar with the original Star Trek. But, he didn’t need to be, at least not according to Roddenberry himself. Just as Harve Bennett had discovered when making The Wrath of Khan, Roddenberry’s pronouncements about his vision of Trek didn’t match what viewers saw on the original series. If Berman meant to stay true to Roddenberry’s current vision and “box,” watching Kirk and crew would have been simply confusing.

Instead, Berman was determined to make the rules works, bending them slightly if necessary, but always concluding episodes with an optimistic depiction of the future. He was also committed to making the characters more complex, going so far as to hire Michael Piller, who was known for his excellent character writing yet lacking in experience as a science-fiction writer. Unlike Roddenberry, Berman, time and time again, gave new writers a shot to contribute to Trek in lasting ways, instead of jealously protecting Star Trek as his personal vision of the future. Ron D. Moore, Ira Behr, Brannon Braga, and many other young writers owed much to Berman’s willingness to give credit where credit was due. Although he held the reins and made executive decisions regarding the direction of the franchise, he was always open to collaboration, and, in many instances, he took risks. Gone were the days when an associate producer stood on the executive producer’s desk impatiently waiting for him to finish rewriting another author’s script (in between binges and late-night affairs). Instead, Berman’s Trek was a well-oiled machine that initially encouraged collaboration, brainstorming, and differences of opinion, so long as those differences didn’t become personal.

During the next few years, Berman, with the help of these talented writers and others, turned Star Trek: The Next Generation into a hugely popular cultural phenomenon. By all indications, TNG was coming into port, surpassing the original Star Trek in the public imagination and paving the way for new films and new series. Trek reached its peak in terms of profitability and popularity. When the franchise celebrated its 25th anniversary, the future of Star Trek seemed endless. Anyone predicting the demise of Trek would have been shunned and mocked.

Without Berman, Trek may have ended with the retirement of the original Enterprise crew. Instead, we were given a new generation to continue the legacy on the big screen. And, we were given Deep Space Nine, which, by most accounts, was the best Trek series of the entire franchise. Not only was Berman willing to take a huge risk by changing the format, but he also openly defied Gene Roddenberry’s formula and rules in the process. Deep Space Nine depicted religion and faith in more respectful ways. Internal and external conflict drove stories in complex and provocative directions. Characters were far from perfect and boring exemplars of human progress, and the 24th century, in the midst of war, cultural conflict, and dangers of militarism was far from the vague and unworkable utopia of Roddenberry’s Trek. Instead, under the direction of Rick Berman, the Trekverse became more realistic and believable. Certainly, Behr, Moore, Piller, and others deserve much credit for Deep Space Nine, but so too does Rick Berman for allowing the writers to move in this direction while giving them the freedom to write superb television without caring about the ratings.

Yet, Berman, as executive producer, had to care about the ratings. Despite its triumphs and break-throughs, DS9 bled viewers year after year. Perhaps the show demanded too much. After all, it would have been impossible to casually tune into the Dominion War and immediately understand the complex relationships between the Founders, Vorta, Cardassians, Klingons, and wormhole aliens. Can we really blame Rick Berman for turning back from this great experiment and creating a new show, Voyager, that more clearly corresponded to the format of TNG? At the heights of its popularity, Trek followed this format. It was a tried and true success. Should we also blame him for abandoning the Alpha Quadrant, which had become much too complex for stand-alone episodes that could be viewed out-of-order? It would have pleased the hardcore fans to watch two series simultaneously engulfed in a complex war that required viewers to watch every episode with soap-operaesque obsession. What about the mainstream, casual viewer? What about new viewers, who might stumble onto Trek having never seen Deep Space Nine? If Star Trek was to continue in TNG’s formidable footsteps, the next series had to be familiar to TNG viewers, and DS9 was not.

As the ratings for Voyager fell during its first three seasons, many fans blamed Berman. Some of his decisions deserved criticism, especially the quick resolution of the Starfleet/Marquis conflict and the use of uninteresting villains like the Kazon. Other criticisms were sometimes petty. Despite its flaws, Voyager had many gems in those first few seasons. Unquestionably, the show suffered from the departures of Moore, Piller, and others. But other factors, especially the growing influence of UPN, contributed to the demise. TNG broke new grounds as a syndicated show not subject to the interventions of network micro-managers. But, with Voyager, Paramount finally launched the great experiment of a studio network headed by a new Trek show (see Star Trek: Phase II). As a network, not only was it constantly redefining its target demographic, but also the quality of most programs was dismal. There are many television markets to this day that do not carry UPN.

Other factors were in play. Rick Berman was justifiably concerned that “too many trips to the well” had occurred. He was also justifiably concerned that, due to the political correctness of the early 90s, Trek had now become much too conservative. Why not make it sexy again? Certainly TOS “tinfoil bikinis” were out-of-the-question, but why not throw in some sex appeal and visual titillation? Many fans criticized the decision to add Seven of Nine as a “ratings gimmick” that “catered to the lowest denominator.” If fans believe this, then they should remind themselves the original Star Trek must have catered to the lowest denominator. Also, the writing for Seven was superb for the most part, adding in a well-needed source of conflict and drama.

Despite these and other attempts to liven up Voyager, ratings continued to slip after an initial season 4 boost. Rick Berman had to try something bold and different. What could have been riskier than a prequel that took place before the time of Kirk and Spock? Although, in this author’s opinion, the execution of Enterprise was deeply, deeply flawed, the premise held much potential. Berman can be faulted for the execution, but, perhaps his biggest mistake was circling the wagons around Brannon Braga and himself, while attempting spearhead a prequel to a show that he never really watched or enjoyed. If the process had been more openly collaborative with people like Fontana, Black, Justman, and younger TOS aficionados like Coto from the beginning, then it’s possible that Enterprise could have been superb.

But, even if the first three seasons had been as good as the last, then it may have still bled viewers just as Deep Space Nine bled viewers. Other factors were beyond the control of Rick Berman.

He was our scapegoat, and, while witnessing the demise of Trek the last several years, we have used Mr. Berman as a convenient target, just as workers blame CEOs for everyday grievances. Many times, the criticisms have been justified. Yet, at other times, we were attacking the CEO for market fluctuations and unpredictable consumer habits.

Regardless of who or what is to blame for the franchise’s demise, we still owe Rick Berman praise for bringing Trek to the height of its popularity. We should thank him for taking risks, some of which worked and some of which flopped. We should commend him for shaking up the formulas and blindfolding his bust of Gene Roddenberry. And, yes, we should also criticize when deserved.

Is it time for new blood? Most definitely. Just as Trek needed a Harve Bennett and then a Rick Berman, it now needs a J.J. Abrams to take the franchise in new and bold directions. It is time to pass the torch, and Berman has so far done that graciously. But he is also writing his memoirs. Most likely, he will defend himself from the onslaught of fan criticism of the past decade. He deserves to do so, and fans should read his book with an open mind.

24th century Trek was Berman’s legacy, and it deserves respect for what it was in good times, rather than condemning it wholesale for what it was in bad times.
------------------

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Trekkies of the World Unite: A Call to Arms against Scholars


[Disclaimer: Trekdom welcomes the contributions of scholars and academics. The views expressed in this article do not reflect those of Trekdom, and we invite scholarly rebuttals.]


A Call to Arms

by Anonymous

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


For decades, Star Trek has been a favorite target of a certain group of scholars* who wander the postmodern stairwells of academic ivory towers. In book after book and dissertation after dissertation, we the fans are given the unvarnished truth about Trek. While we muddle about on message boards and fanzines religiously reciting Roddenberry clichés like “infinite diversity in infinite combinations,” these Ph.Ds, though often disagreeing with each other, join forces in condemning Star Trek.

Star Trek, they claim, promotes imperialism, racism, sexism, neo-conservatism, militarism, fascism, nationalism, or some combination of these negative “isms.” As a product of American culture, it reflects what is essentially wrong about Americans and U.S. foreign policy. Apparently, our “hopeful vision of the future” is really an imperialistic vision of U.S. supremacy and global domination. Captain Kirk’s intervention in alien cultures exemplifies the imposition of Western values on Third World peoples. Every alien race, consequently, must “assimilate” to Federation culture, that is, the white, American, “bourgeois capitalist” norm. While the U.S. sends warships to “spread democracy,” the Enterprise enforces Federation values at gunpoint. Seeking out new life and new civilizations is yet another form of cultural domination and imperial conquest. Exploration is exploitation. Whether in glorifying a “frontier spirit” that historically led to the slaughter of indigenous populations, or in espousing racial views of biological difference, Star Trek is guilty as charged. When fans say otherwise, they are simply wrong, these intellectuals claim.

Yet, these scholars never tell us why we are wrong. Are we just passive, unthinking viewers, absorbing the underlying “subtexts” of television unquestioningly? Are we just too uneducated to see what is really in front of us as it subconsciously reinforces our prejudices and cultural assumptions? Scholars, please tell us lowly fans, in small words that we can comprehend. Please tell us why we have such mistaken perceptions of a television show that we obsess about, that we memorize, and that we debate year after year. What is your secret, in that you can selectively use 12 out of 700+ episodes to discover the truth about Star Trek?

It must be that we’ve been brainwashed by Roddenberry or Paramount propaganda, right? We like to feel self-righteous and holier-than-thou, so we’ve adopted clichés about Trek’s multiculturalism and its optimistic vision of human progress. Deluding ourselves about the “progressiveness” of Star Trek, we pass the popcorn in a self-congratulatory and “enlightened” way.

Perhaps. Or, could it also be possible that we are not the ones brainwashed. Instead, it is you, who come armed with your Derrida, Foucault, or Benjamin, unquestioningly perceiving Star Trek through pre-approved glasses that graduate advisers gave you. While desperately wanting to critique U.S. foreign policy, or say something meaningful about the “postcolonial” and “postmodern” age of ambivalence, you race toward Star Trek with blind devotion to an “authorized” interpretation. With a uniformed march worthy of fanboys, you position yourself on the pomo pedestal, ready to strike down the masses with a lightning bolt of academic elitism. Combining your secret love of a popular television show with you open embrace of the trendiest intellectual “school” of the moment, you take a wise course aimed at publishing your dissertation and scoring a comfy position in a cultural studies department. It doesn’t seem to matter that your interpretations and arguments are illogical, ahistorical, and unsupported by the evidence.

You see what you want to see where you want to see it. You pick and choose episodes that fit well with your predetermined thesis, while ignoring obvious examples that disrupt your arguments. Along the way, you make glaring omissions. For example, while claiming that Star Trek became critical of the Vietnam War by the third season, you don’t mention “The Way to Eden,” a preachy season 3 critique of the peace movement (see H. Bruce Franklin). While arguing that Star Trek “races towards a white future,” you ignore Deep Space Nine and its black commander, as well as most of the episodes that dealt explicitly with racial issues (see Daniel Bernardi). While asserting the militarism of Star Trek, you ignore episodes like “Homefront.” There have even been times when you have argued that the Trekverse stinks of fascist ideology while ignoring every episode of Trek that critiqued Nazism, totalitarianism, and collectivism (see Kelley L. Ross).

The fans may selectively choose “progressive” episodes like “Let that Be Your Last Battlefield” to reinforce clichés about Trek’s multiculturalism and respect for diversity. Yet, you are equally guilty of the selective use of evidence to support a predetermined interpretation. It’s time to admit that. You misquote Star Trek by using two or three episodes while ignoring the full text. If you’re going to write a book or article about Star Trek, then you need to know the material, not simply which passages fit well with your thesis. Is that really too much to ask?

It’s also time to admit that the millions of people who watch Star Trek, the hundreds of thousands who make pilgrimages to conventions, and the dozens of insiders who wrote books about this television show (which you ignore) may in fact KNOW what they’re talking about! We are not passive consumers or pawns of corporate interests. We are not blind devotees of Trek gospel speaking in tongues. We are not victims of a “culture industry” that manipulates us from above. Indeed, the underlying assumptions you have about us, the way culture and consumption works, and the role of Star Trek as a cultural artifact reek like a bad plot from a terrible science-fiction film. It’s unbelievable, cynical, and simplistic.

From this day forward, we will fight your interpretations, and we will fight for Trek. You may not rest undisturbed in the pages of obscure academic journals. We will fight from below, in classrooms, seminars and public lectures. We will question your unfounded assumptions. We will identify the omissions and scream, “bloody murder.” We will fight you as Kirk fought Apollo, demanding our freedom from the tyranny of dishonest slandering. It will no longer be enough to gain the respect of fellow colleagues for being well versed in cultural theories. You need to watch Star Trek! Otherwise, you risk angering the most militant of fandoms by speaking as an "authority" who obviously hasn't read the full book.

---------------------------
Author's note: This essay was directed at a specific circle of postmodernist critics of Trek. This essay is not meant as an attack on every scholar of Star Trek.
----------------------

Saturday, May 12, 2007

How Star Trek Lost its Soul


by Frank Jones


There has been so much speculation about "what went wrong" with the Star Trek franchise as it descended from the heights of popularity in the early-90s to cancellation in 2005. Fans have blamed countless "culprits," such as UPN, the prequel format, and market saturation. Executive producer Rick Berman believed that there had been too many "trips to the well," with 10 movies, 5 series, and hundreds of recycled themes and plots. Other Trek insiders, such as Brannon Braga, remain perplexed, constantly forced to answer contradictory questions: Why is Trek so popular, and why was Trek cancelled?

The rise and fall of Star Trek cannot be explained by a single factor. Yet, perhaps the words of the late Gene Roddenberry are still relevant:
"Although Star Trek had to entertain or go off the air, we believed our format was unique enough to allow us to challenge and stimulate the audience. Making Star Trek happen was a bone-crusher, and unless it also said something and we challenged our viewer to think and react, then it wasn't worth all we had put into the show."
-Gene Roddenberry (Whitefield, 1968)

So, even in 1968, Roddenberry had a clear vision: Star Trek "said something" and that something was meant to challenge viewers' perceptions. Episodes like "Let that Be Your Last Battlefield" could border on the downright preachy, but various "messages" of the show permeated nearly every episode, even "Spock's Brain."

Yes, the Original Series could be campy and choked-full of mind-numbing action/adventure fluff, but, in the end, it was still a morality play that intellectually challenged viewers. The show and its writers had something thoughtful and provocative to say, and they said it unflinchingly.

Remember those debates and discussions among family and friends after an episode of TOS, TNG, and DS9? Is Data sentient? Is Kira a terrorist or a freedom-fighter? Should Kirk have destroyed that planet's god? Did the Prime Directive apply? What does that say about our colonial past?

Can you remember having similar debates following Star Trek: Enterprise? Certainly, there were episodes that fit well with Roddenberry's quote: "Stigma," "Cogenitor," and "Chosen Realm" for example. Yet, overall, what was the message, and where were the morality plays? Where was the commentary on the human condition? Where were the "gray areas" when morality and truth seemed far from clear cut? Where was the soul of Star Trek?

The season 3 Xindi arc, for instance, visually and metaphorically paralleled our post-9/11 world without saying anything remotely meaningful or relevant about 9/11 or the War on Terror. When it comes to debates about terrorism, religious fanaticism, and the "third world," Deep Space Nine was far more relevant than Enterprise. Even Star Trek: Voyager dealt with serious issues such as the Vietnam War, the Holocaust, and the morality of using Nazi science. For Christ's sake, the episode "Critical Care" was a thinly disguised Marxist critique of the U.S. health care system.

What happened to the soul of Star Trek? While the Original Series broadcasted several episodes relating to the Vietnam War, the post-2000 franchise became too skittish to comment on contemporary or historical events. Trek stopped challenging viewers entirely, preferring catsuits, laser fights, and Vulcan zombies in space to intellectually challenging and provocative social commentary. The writers and producers treated the morality-play aspect of Trek as if it were just another component. "Hey we need a Hoshi episode, and we should also do an AIDS episode this season!"

That is not Star Trek. Nearly every episode of the earlier series centered on a moral dilemma, social problem, or provocative debate. Comet snowmen and Tits and Ass were not plotlines. That was the soul of Star Trek: a social commentary on the human condition, thinly disguised by rubber masks and laser fights. Yet, it was tossed out the air-lock amidst efforts to cater to the lowest denominator.




Review and Discuss

Saturday, April 28, 2007

Star Trek Enterprise: Neoconservatives in Space



by Frank Jones

-----

According to Bush administration neocons, especially top-dogs like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, the United States was attacked on 9/11 for no reason at all, and the United States was then forced into an unfortunate war of necessity.

We had to invade the middle-east hunting down the terrorists and killing them. We had to hunt down the weapons of mass destruction, before these superweapons could be used to kill millions of innocent Americans. We had to fight them there, so that we didn't have to fight them on the homefront.

Everyone else was either for us or against us.

Apparently, Jonathan Archer and his crew did what the United States could not do. They won the War on Terror. After Earth survived an unprovoked attack by the mysterious Xindi, the NX-01 entered the expanse, hunting down the WMD and bringing justice to the victims' families. Along the way, it was OK for the noble captain to torture suspected terrorists, so long as he got vital information about the secret locations of the WMD. It was also OK to strand a helpless crew in space, because the Enterprise needed their warp coil.

Every questionable decision and immoral deed could be justified simply by stating, "Earth is in immediate danger. Terrorists are out to kill our people." If Starfleet had signed a Geneva Conventions with the Vulcans and Andorians, it probably wouldn't have applied. An attack on the homeland justified anything.

Archer never had to answer for his crimes. But then again, neither did Cheney or Rumsfeld. It's a shame, but make no mistake about who the real victim of Archer was: Star Trek, which can no longer claim to represent a progressive or enlightened view of humanity's future. Instead, we'll see more of the same. While their movie night showed bad B-movies from the 1960s, our Star Trek will be catered to the lowest common denominator.

Pass the popcorn.

(The views expressed in this article are solely those of its writer. Trekdom invites readers to submit critiques or counter-arguments)

-----------
Comments
----------

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Boldly Gone - One fan's thoughts on Star Trek XI


Boldly Gone?

by DDD

The biggest Star Trek news of 2007, so far, is that “Star Trek XI” will be a remake.

Not just any remake, mind you, but rather a “re-imagining.” The writers who label it such fail to explain whether this requires more or less creative effort than a “reboot,” like Casino Royale or Batman Begins. All I know for sure is that I’ve yet to decide whether I’ll be driving my “pre-owned” car to the theater to yet another franchise “re-imagining” on the silver screen.

But there’s bigger news implied by the announcement that the new Star Trek is throwing out the bathwater. If this movie is a re-telling of the original series instead of just the telling of an untold story from those days, then the original adventure is probably done for good. And, in a way, the end of Star Trek is a relatively new idea.

Sure, back in the sixties it was almost over after two years of the original series, and seemed over for good when the show was canceled after year three. But then it happened. The story that Trek fans have all heard dozens of times. The tale of how Star Trek’s popularity exploded after its cancellation, and how it was kept alive by fans, syndicated airings, the animated series, books, comics, conventions and more. The story of how the late 70’s ushered in a quarter century of Star Trek being in virtuously continuous production.


During those years, it seemed like Star Trek could be as perpetual as television itself. If the original movies ended, The Next Generation would take over. If one series ended another was waiting in the wings, or was likely already on the air.

But, alas, all good things do come to an end, especially when they are no longer good. TNG transitioned from the most popular TV series in the history of syndication to an utterly mediocre film series. Voyager and Enterprise were both ill-conceived in the minds of many fans. Deep Space Nine was good, but not good enough to stem the fatal hemmorage of the franchise audience. Eventually the day came when there was no new Star Trek on air or in the works.

But even when Enterprise ended in 2005, just as when Star Trek ended in 1969, and at each of the smaller endings and turning points along the way, fans believed it would continue. A new Trek, a new Enterprise, new actors and characters, sure, but always with the backdrop of what had gone before, always building on that unusually rich tapestry provided by decades of storytelling.

No more. Whether or not Star Trek XI is good or bad, success or failure, future Trek offerings will likely be set either in the universe of the remake, or will remake the universe yet again. All Trek’s yesterdays become relevant only in how they provide recyclable ideas for tomorrow’s Enterprise.

And it’s kind of a shame. A shame that, with William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy still healthy and willing to contribute, Trek fans can’t have one more trip to their well before that well is plugged in favor of a new one. A shame that Hollywood lacks the creativity to both re-create Star Trek for a new millennium and embrace the ongoing story about which generations have become so passionate.

I write this not to take a movie announcement too seriously, or to be melodramatic. Yes, Star Trek is just an entertainment. Sometimes its magic exceeded its quality, and a few of its fans obviously drank too much of the kool-aid.

But allow those of us who will to pause to recognize the story that may finally end, even if only to be retold. To remember the story that made passionate fans engage in storied letter writing campaigns that renewed Star Trek for a third season, and even named the first American space shuttle.

It was the story that has entertained generations. It inspired many to scientific, medical and creative careers. It was told by writers like Gene Roddenberry. Fans like Bjo and John Trimble helped keep it alive. It is part of American culture and history, and has been called one of our modern mythologies. It was something special, which makes its passing, if it is finally here, a moment of note.

- DDD