|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Mar 23, 2013 11:52:30 GMT -5
I just posted a response to this column over there because I was annoyed by a few of the facts he got wrong, but I figured I'd post a Link to the piece here should anyone want to read it just the same.
The majority of this column focuses on "Star Trek: The Next Generation" by the way, so reactions are of course welcome.
Over at American Thinker:The Politics of Utopia
Glenn Fairman Nothing in the world reveals more clearly how the golden road to the utopian future commonly detours to Hell than modern science fiction. More: www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/post_7.html
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Mar 23, 2013 13:08:21 GMT -5
It's true, modern Trek, and especially the first few seasons of TNG are the height of the liberal Progressive utopian thinking. Roddenberry let himself get too idealistic there, and it took writers like Michael Piller and Ron Moore to say "Yes, but where's the conflict? How do we tell stories?" But even then, the new batch of writers had their own Progressive agenda that maybe wasn't so utopian in scope, but you'll see it in some of the gender issues on DS9 (the first Trek series to never assume romantic relationships are heterosexual), and in the way Voyager was often handled, particularly Janeway (I would argue especially in the hands of Jeri Taylor). Now all of these series have a nugget of Roddenberry in them. But it's really remarkable in contrast when you look at TOS how conservative (and sometimes too jingoistically American) it is. Yes, these days it's hailed for groundbreaking things like the first interracial kiss (which no one seems to remember was involuntary!). But Kirk and his crew tended to have very simple American conserative values. Kirk NEVER assumes there's such a thing as homosexual relationships among alien species. You look at something like "Spock's Brain" where he goes, "where are your mates?" The idea of heterosexual coupling as normal and expected is extremely prevalent on TOS. And that's just one issue, not even addressing my favorite head-scratcher, "A Private Little War". I'm still amazed that there were young writers in the 1960s advocating for the Vietnam War specifically, and broadly for a kind of continued arms race stalemate.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Mar 24, 2013 12:02:48 GMT -5
It's true, modern Trek, and especially the first few seasons of TNG are the height of the liberal Progressive utopian thinking. Roddenberry let himself get too idealistic there, and it took writers like Michael Piller and Ron Moore to say "Yes, but where's the conflict? How do we tell stories?" But even then, the new batch of writers had their own Progressive agenda that maybe wasn't so utopian in scope, but you'll see it in some of the gender issues on DS9 (the first Trek series to never assume romantic relationships are heterosexual), and in the way Voyager was often handled, particularly Janeway (I would argue especially in the hands of Jeri Taylor). Now all of these series have a nugget of Roddenberry in them. But it's really remarkable in contrast when you look at TOS how conservative (and sometimes too jingoistically American) it is. -TK
By the way, the author of the column got testy with me for pointing out his mistakes, so I decided to give him more of a hard time. Perhaps I was being a little too persnickety, but it really did detract from the points he was attempting to make and it's not as though it would have killed him to have been just a little more careful. If you're going to take a genre for granted in that way, then don't write about it, otherwise know what the hell you're talking about; that's how I feel about it anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Mar 24, 2013 13:03:45 GMT -5
Yes, but don't you also miss it at times, given that we've been dealing with modern Trek and its more liberal utopianism since the mid-to-late 80s at this point? American patriotism is not something to be ashamed of even though the liberals happen to think so. Screw them, I say. I do miss it. Yeah, episodes like "The Omega Glory" were a little too cheesy. And sometimes it strains credibility that if earth's government is global, so much happens to America and by Americans. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be proud of it. Other nations do the same thing in their popular fiction (why are Sailor Moon's enemies always attacking Japan if they know Sailor Moon is there to stop them?). That's why I liked when things like 24 came along because at least there we had a character who would give his life (or fake his death) for his President. Even when the President was an idiot. And that's part of why I like Superman. So I would like to see a bit more of that creep into Trek. Sometimes that kind of pride existed in broader terms on modern Trek, which is when it was at its best. Odo still had pride and longing for his homeworld and his people even if he fundamentally disagreed with them. It's rare these days that television has that sense of national pride and good sense. So I watch them when I find them, then they get canceled.
By the way, the author of the column got testy with me for pointing out his mistakes, so I decided to give him more of a hard time. Perhaps I was being a little too persnickety, but it really did detract from the points he was attempting to make and it's not as though it would have killed him to have been just a little more careful.A simple thing like spelling "phaser" is not hard to get right, and when someone corrects you, the gracious thing is to say, "Oh, sorry. I'll fix that." I'm always wary of the type who immediately gets defensive and says things like, "Really? You're gonna correct my spelling and grammar? What about my points? Did you even bother to read or were you too busy proofreading, you judgmental dick?" They need to realize that minor misspellings can make them look ignorant and undermine their points. -TK |
|
