• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Decanonization Time!

If Star Trek is a idealistic place I struggle with the way certain characters are treated. We all have a cross to bear.

It's also a drama set in a sometimes dangerous final frontier. Starfleet strives to live up to its ideals, but, as in real life, people (including aliens) are sometimes going to struggle to live up to those ideals and wrestle with their inner demons -- especially out on the final frontier.

And that conflict -- between our ideals and our frailities -- is where the drama lies. A story in which ideals are never tested by harsh realities has little to say about the human condition. And quite possibly little entertainment value.

To quote Sisko: "It's easy to be saint in Utopia.

But Star Trek, at its best, is not about perfect people in a literal utopia. It's about people striving to achieve utopian values and goals, even if the humanity is still a half-savage child race with a long way to (as god-like aliens love to remind us).

As on TOS, DS9, DISCO, etc.

(Sorry for the double post, btw. I was coming late to the party and reacting to several pages of posts at once; lost track of the fact my replies would appear one after another.)
 
Last edited:
As a one-off I'd love a series where they actually do lean into the full early-TNG utopian promise. Transporters cure death, replicators make anything on demand, the crew are essentially pacifists, etc.

Everything becomes a puzzle of how to get everyone else in the galaxy to stop trying to kill you, and you can try different things and recycle yourselves in the transporter until you figure out how to do it. Every time someone kills you, you just appear again five minutes later and say "sorry, we can't seem to understand why we've upset you, can we start over?" while they go berserk.
 
I imagine such a story would be incredibly difficult to write.

Likewise, a story in which every character, including deliberately shady side-characters like Garak, are supposed to be flawless epitomes of virtues and idealism. But he's witty and engaging and adds spice and character to the proceedings -- as supporting characters should. He's not the hero, he's not the villain, but he keeps us guessing, which is good storytelling.

Casablanca is both a wonderful movie and a great example. It's a movie about flawed people, warts and all, in a high-pressure environment, faced with difficult choices. And much of its power comes from the way it keeps us guessing, right up to the end, which way each character will fall. Do you collaborate with the Nazis, or do you just keep your head down and try to stay out of trouble, or do you join the Resistance? How will far will Ilsa go to save Viktor? How far will Rick go to get her back, if he can even forgive her for breaking his heart years ago? Will the charmingly cynical Captain Renault (who gets soo many good lines) finally do the right thing in the end -- or is he too busy trying seduce other men's wives?

Can't imagine the movie would still be a classic (and highly recommended) if everybody -- including Peter Lorre and Claude Rains -- instinctively did the honorable thing right from the start.

Which to be clear does not mean the movie is just pure entertainment, devoid of idealism (although it is fabulously entertaining, packed with great characters and sparkling dialogue). To the contrary, it's very much a morality play about flesh-and-blood people facing crises of conscience.

"The human heart in conflict with itself," as Faulker famously put it.

(At the risk of getting all English-litty.)
 
Last edited:
This is theater. A great character is not necessarily the most honorable or moral character; they can simply be the most fascinating or compelling character.

I harp on this because I often see folks talking past each other on this point.

"Dmitri is such a great character!"
"Huh? He's a morally ambiguous hot mess who is often his own worst enemy."
"Exactly!"

For some folks, it seems, the "best" characters are the best role models. For others, the best characters are the most capable or skilled. ("Scotty is the best because he can fix anything!") And for some us, the best characters in a work of fiction are the most interesting ones.
Appreciate the write up.

Since I'm often dealing in human suffering I just don't find it as entertaining as much sby more and characters being interesting is not an automatic plus.
 
Appreciate the write up.

Nothing personal, btw. As a writer and editor, I obviously have strong feelings on the subject of writing and storytelling and Star Trek. And trust me, you are not alone in your perspective. Over the years, I have often debated these issues with other fans, viewers, and readers.

And having grown up on TOS, I personally prefer my Trek to be more "Final Frontier" than "utopian." Complete with characters who are not always idealistic role models. What's a space-age "wild west" without some colorfully shady characters and bad guys to keep things interesting now and then?

Says the guy, it dawns on me, who has written two entire trilogies about villains: first Q, then Khan. Which remain my most popular and bestselling Trek books, for what it's worth.
 
Last edited:
Nothing personal, btw. As a writer and editor, I obviously have strong feelings on the subject of writing and storytelling and Star Trek. And trust me, you are not alone in your perspective. Over the years, I have often debated these issues with other fans, viewers, and readers.
It's why I appreciate your perspective. This is not a view I hold lightly and have wrestled with a long time in my life.

I don't take it personally at all.
 
For some folks, it seems, the "best" characters are the best role models. For others, the best characters are the most capable or skilled. ("Scotty is the best because he can fix anything!") And for some us, the best characters in a work of fiction are the most interesting ones.
I would say the best characters of all are those who manage to be all three at once.

Casablanca is both a wonderful movie and a great example. It's a movie about flawed people, warts and all, in a high-pressure environment, faced with difficult choices.
Surprisingly, I've never actually seen Casablanca (and have no immediate plans to do so, although I certainly wouldn't mind seeing it). But one of the things I like about another movie, The Right Stuff (and the book upon which it was based), is that it shows the research test pilots of Edwards AFB, and the Mercury Seven, in the most unflattering light possible (short of defamatory untruths), and they still come off as heroes.

I will also note, slowly going through the Harry Potter books for the first time, is that Snape is an extremely interesting character, precisely because it's so hard to tell whose side he's really on (or why, even after what's been revealed in the first four books about his having carried a torch for Lily Potter, he has such a bee in the bonnet about Harry). (And I wouldn't mind finding out how the Malfoys, the Goyles, and the Crabbes came to be such complete and utter pureblood-supremacist, wizard-supremacist, assholes. Somebody give them a "Hitler's whistle"!)
 
So being gay and on minimum wage means I'm just the antichrist in Gene's vision then.

I personally don’t know Roddenberry’s personal thoughts on the subject.

Though TNG did commission “Blood and Fire” early in TNG’s run. Seems a falling out between him and David Gerrold deep-sixed the whole thing.

Make of it whatever you will.
 
I personally don’t know Roddenberry’s personal thoughts on the subject.

Though TNG did commission “Blood and Fire” early in TNG’s run. Seems a falling out between him and David Gerrold deep-sixed the whole thing.

Make of it whatever you will.
Well, I can’t speak for Roddenberry, but I say find your bliss, wherever that may be.

:techman:
It was intended as a joke about Gene's vision being considered sacred by some and my inability to make large sums of money and lack of desire to sleep with women being the opposite of him.

I don't know what Gene's opinion on homosexuality was and he is slightly too dead for it to really matter.
 
I personally don’t know Roddenberry’s personal thoughts on the subject.

Though TNG did commission “Blood and Fire” early in TNG’s run. Seems a falling out between him and David Gerrold deep-sixed the whole thing.

Make of it whatever you will.

David Gerrold has plenty to say about it. See for example his novel Blood and Fire, which repurposes the script as a story in Gerrold's own Star Wolf universe. It's been a few years but my memory is that GR wanted to be seen as the cool progressive guy he actually wasn't, so he got his virulently homophobic lawyer Leonard Maizlish to do the dirty work and verbally stomp on Gerrold and pretty much drive him off the show.

Edited to add a bit from an article on my old dead website

Blood and Fire is a return to form, a more tightly focused and suspenseful novel. It's also much more closely tied to the Star Trek universe than its predecessors. It's based on the unproduced Next Generation episode discussed above, and follows the script very closely. It expands on it, of course, being longer and having the space to add more subplots and complications, but there are no significant changes. The only scene from the episode that's completely missing from the book is one in which Picard talks with Wesley Crusher about the dangerous situation Beverly Crusher is involved in. Otherwise, it's pretty much all there; many lines of dialogue are reused with little or no change.

But it's not just a Star Trek story with the names changed. It's also, in this form, a barbed commentary on Star Trek, especially on Gerrold's experiences working on The Next Generation. In the novel, the starship infected by the Regulan bloodworm (a Trek term first used by Gerrold in "The Trouble With Tribbles") is called the Norway. The Norway Corporation was the name of Gene Roddenberry's production company. There are also mentions of tribbles and of characters with the names of people associated with Star Trek in the real world: graphic artist Michael Okuda and novelists Diane Duane and Peter Morwood. There's even a reference to the "Big E," the flagship of the fleet.

Starships in Gerrold's universe have HARLIE-model artificial intelligences. A few have the more dangerous and unstable LENNIE models.

'The LENNIE units are particularly nasty; they have a higher incidence of psychotic behavior than any other intelligence engine.... The LENNIE units are the only Intelligence Engines specifically designed to lie.... They're process-oriented to a degree that you or I would call obsessive; they're greedy, selfish, uncaring, and if such a thing were truly possible in an intelligence engine, also thoughtless. The feelings and concerns of other beings -- even their own crews -- are irrelevant to LENNIEs.... LENNIEs are intended for institutional use, not starships. They're designed to be soul-sucking lawyers." (p.71-72)

Can there be any doubt that LENNIEs were inspired by Gene Roddenberry's lawyer, the late Leonard Maizlish? Back in 1994, when Maizlish died, Gerrold posted about it on CompuServe, commenting that Maizlish was an unpleasant and unethical person who violated Guild rules and was responsible for a number of people leaving the show. He also mentioned that he knew no one who was sorry to hear about Maizlish's death. The book has another parting shot at him, a mention in passing of "... parasites from Maizlish; it's a planet orbiting a bloated dead star." (p.147) If it seems a bit harsh to take potshots like that at someone who's dead, consider this: in an article at Salon.com, Gerrold says, "To my face, [Maizlish] called me 'an AIDS-infected c_________. A f___ing f_____.'"
 
Last edited:
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top