Monday, May 09, 2005

Orson Scott Card

Mr. Card has pronounced Star Trek dead.

When a sci-fi author with multiple awards to his name says things like this, one feels obligated to listen. However, when he exposes his ignorance, you get to laugh while you listen.
As science fiction, the [original] series was trapped in the 1930s — a throwback to spaceship adventure stories with little regard for science or deeper ideas. It was sci-fi as seen by Hollywood: all spectacle, no substance.
Sure, there was little regard for real science. Can you name me a science-fiction television series that has had a grounding in real science? While I'm waiting for an answer (it may be a while), I'll dispute the notion that Star Trek had little regard for deeper ideas. It wasn't The Twilight Zone, true, but it wasn't exactly Here Come The Brides, either.
The later spinoffs were much better performed, but the content continued to be stuck in Roddenberry's rut.
Hardly fair, either. The later spinoffs were, it's true, better performed -- but the content was also much more mature, including the story arcs that Card elsewhere criticizes the original series for lacking.

Ultimately, Card's point is valid -- Star Trek is probably dead (or at least in need of a decent rest and some retooling). But I think it's pretty funny that the criticism is coming from Card -- who wrote the novella "Ender's Game" in 1978, and has since milked/reworked it for the following novels (including a short story collection):
  • Ender's Game
  • Speaker for the Dead
  • Xenocide
  • Children of the Mind
  • Ender's Shadow
  • Shadow of the Hegemon
  • Shadow Puppets
  • First Meetings: In The Enderverse
Aside from his Ender series, Card has written a bunch of crap (my opinion, and I freely admit to having read little of it). So I suppose he's as qualified as anybody to talk about the lack of originality and ideas in Star Trek as is anyone.

posted by MeanMrMustard @ 11:58 AM