Star Trek in Reality Shock Horror Incident

[Plumster]

One grew up in the cornfields of Iowa, fighting for his independence, for a way out of a life that promised only indifference, aimlessness, and obscurity

According to Alan Dean Foster anyway.

So, does this finally put to rest the notion of a life of luxury and fulfilment in the heart of the Federation? Where humans had risen to be more than the sum of their parts? Where equality and the pursuit of the betterment of one's self is at the centre of the 'Human Condition'?

Seems to me that this pretty much torpedoes the 'Great Bird's' stylistic and notional view of his universe.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yeah, okay.

 

[Kemaiku]

Different timeline, different Earth, different shit going on. Universe A still has its nice Utopia, universe B here has its shitacular smog ridden Earth were remarks of bestiality and outdated slang prevail.

 

[Plumster]

Different timeline, different Earth, different shit going on. Universe A still has its nice Utopia, universe B here has its shitacular smog ridden Earth were remarks of bestiality and outdated slang prevail.

A bit like Wigan?

 

[JuanBolio]

What smog?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Different timeline, different Earth, different shit going on. Universe A still has its nice Utopia, universe B here has its shitacular smog ridden Earth were remarks of bestiality and outdated slang prevail.

I'll take Universe B for 500 quatloos, Alex.

 

[Plumster]

I'm surprised some of the more enthusiastic Star Trek fans have not picked up on this.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'm surprised some of the more enthusiastic Star Trek fans have not picked up on this.

I really don't think most fans ever take seriously the idea that everyone on Earth is supposed to be happy and fulfilled all the time.

If nothing else, there's Picard's backstory which was one containing at least as much dissatisfaction as is really suggested in this book jacket blurb.

If that was accepted as reasonable during the "utopian" 24th century, who in fact (as opposed to hypothetical "literalists") is going to fret about this kind of thing during Kirk's era?

GR's "utopia" actually consisted mainly of the notion that crime and poverty had disappeared by Picard's time and that the folks we were watching aboard the Enterprise were more emotionally healthy and well-motivated than the "average" human being of our own time.

Is Jimmy Kirk's family poor or deprived of the opportunity for whatever self-improvement or advancement they choose to take advantage of? There's no evidence whatever thus far that such a thing is true.

Nice 'vette.

 

[Plumster]

I'm surprised some of the more enthusiastic Star Trek fans have not picked up on this.

I really don't think most fans ever take seriously the idea that everyone on Earth is supposed to be happy and fulfilled all the time.

If nothing else, there's Picard's backstory which was one containing at least as much dissatisfaction as is really suggested in this book jacket blurb.

If that was accepted as reasonable during the "utopian" 24th century, who in fact (as opposed to hypothetical "literalists") is going to fret about this kind of thing during Kirk's era?

Interesting post - but this marxist idea of utopia is alluded to on many occasions in the various incarnations of Trek.

Inalienable human rights, no food shortages (replicators), no money, little disease, increased lifespan and so on.

What is Alan Dean Foster, very deliberately in my opinion, alluding to? Is he tackling, head on, a very obvious theme that runs through Roddenberry's involvement with Trek?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Interesting post - but this marxist idea of utopia is alluded to on many occasions in the various incarnations of Trek.

Characters can "allude" to whatever they like. What we were actually shown of the various eras and people in them trumps that - always.

You might like the idea of a lot of folks getting bent out of shape over the not-very-plausible suggestion that a vague philosophic notion that very few fans ever bought into in the way you describe it is being jettisoned here, but don't hold your breath.

What is Alan Dean Foster, very deliberately in my opinion, alluding to?

Foster is alluding to absolutely nothing, since it's vanishingly unlikely that he either wrote or had approval over the dust-jacket copy on the book.

What the copy writer is alluding to is that he/she has about a paragraph to set up a brief description of the characters and setting that will hopefull intrigue the casual book browser, and while these things generally don't specifically misrepresent the content the aim is less to accurately communicate any particular nuance of plot and character so much than it is as to grab attention.

You have read book jackets before, right?

 

[Kemaiku]

Different timeline, different Earth, different shit going on. Universe A still has its nice Utopia, universe B here has its shitacular smog ridden Earth were remarks of bestiality and outdated slang prevail.

A bit like Wigan?

Probably. I dunno really, I never did see Earth as this "paradise" mainly for the fact that there are 10 billion or so Humans all sitting around with nothing to do.

Everything is so perfectly maintained down to the weather that every day is more or less the same, with a tiny percentage of the people doing what little work needs to be done. *shrugs*

Remeber that episode of the Simpsons with Scorpio I think it was, the perfect housing estate were nothing ever went wrong and everything was done for you, Marge was nearly driven mad by the end of the first week.

Abrams future maybe more "gritty, dark and realistic" and all that but it still looks like a boring future to live in.

 

[Plumster]

Interesting post - but this marxist idea of utopia is alluded to on many occasions in the various incarnations of Trek.

Characters can "allude" to whatever they like. What we were actually shown of the various eras and people in them trumps that - always.

You might like the idea of a lot of folks getting bent out of shape over the not-very-plausible suggestion that a vague philosophic notion that very few fans ever bought into in the way you describe it is being jettisoned here, but don't hold your breath.

Not at all old chap - it stood out as worthy of discussion - nothing more.

If the shape of some nacelles get's people pissed, then what messing about with the society that so many of them aspire to?

I like the changes, I like nacelles but that's nothing you did not already know.



You say that Foster had not control over the cover story of his novel? I find that rather hard to believe.

Is this true? You know this to be the case?

Can you say that without any reasonable doubt? Sounds like you are getting a bit 'bent up' and 'out of shape'. These are wild assertions.

 

[Plumster]

Scrub this post please - duplicate.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

...then what messing about with the society that so many of them aspire to?

If the filmmakers do that - and if there are more than a few fans who have very specific aspirations to live in a vaguely-defined utopia - we might find out.

Thus far, neither appears to be the case. Certainly nothing in the previews - not the visual imagery, certainly - or any of the twenty minutes of footage seen by members of the press thus far suggest any departure from the very optimistic visualizations of future Earth that we're accustomed to seeing from Star Trek.

You say that Foster had not control over the cover story of his novel? I find that rather hard to believe.

Why do you imagine for a moment that he would? This is work for hire that's being managed and packaged by marketing people, not a novel by Stephen King.

I dunno, I could be wrong - go over to Trek Literature and do a poll of how many authors write their own jacket copy or have final approval over it or other aspects of marketing.

Sounds like you are getting a bit 'bent up' and 'out of shape'.

Nah, but there are moments when your enthusiasm for stirring the shit at the expense of the faithful bores even me - and that's pretty bad.

 

[Plumster]

...then what messing about with the society that so many of them aspire to?

If the filmmakers do that - and if there are more than a few fans who have very specific aspirations to live in a vaguely-defined utopia - we might find out.

Thus far, neither appears to be the case. Certainly nothing in the previews - not the visual imagery, certainly - or any of the twenty minutes of footage seen by members of the press thus far suggest any departure from the very optimistic visualizations of future Earth that we're accustomed to seeing from Star Trek.

There would appear to be a 'military industrial' complex thing going on - chimneys spouting gas into the atmosphere and that line about space being rather unpleasant place to be.

Not sure I agree with you.

 

[Plumster]

Nah, but there are moments when your enthusiasm for stirring the shit at the expense of the faithful bores even me - and that's pretty bad.

I think that's awfully unfair. It is not right that people resort to this to simply avoid having the debate.

Not cricket Sir.

Foster's line is out there on the jacket of that book - it's fair game now.

 

[datas_cat_spot]

I'm surprised some of the more enthusiastic Star Trek fans have not picked up on this.

I really don't think most fans ever take seriously the idea that everyone on Earth is supposed to be happy and fulfilled all the time.

If nothing else, there's Picard's backstory which was one containing at least as much dissatisfaction as is really suggested in this book jacket blurb.

If that was accepted as reasonable during the "utopian" 24th century, who in fact (as opposed to hypothetical "literalists") is going to fret about this kind of thing during Kirk's era?

Interesting post - but this marxist idea of utopia is alluded to on many occasions in the various incarnations of Trek.

Inalienable human rights, no food shortages (replicators), no money, little disease, increased lifespan and so on.

What is Alan Dean Foster, very deliberately in my opinion, alluding to? Is he tackling, head on, a very obvious theme that runs through Roddenberry's involvement with Trek?

I don't see how these things would preclude individuals from being unhappy or discontented. Either way, I think it says something about Kirk if he finds the circumstances that satisfy the majority of the population insufficient.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

There would appear to be a 'military industrial' complex thing going on - chimneys spouting gas into the atmosphere and that line about space being rather unpleasant place to be.

Now you're really reaching...nah, you have been from the beginning.

God forbid "Bones" McCoy say a discouraging word about space travel. Very un-Trekkian.

I think that's awfully unfair. It is not right that people resort to this to simply avoid having the debate.

Nah; it has the virtue of being true.

Foster's line is out there on the jacket of that book - it's fair game now.

Someone's line - not necessarily Foster's - and it doesn't say much of anything that's going to stir up any debate. Not without a lot of goading and creative interpretation on the part of someone looking for an argument, anyway.

But I'm willing to wait for the hordes of outraged trufen to descend here and object mightily to the implications that a line of dust jacket copy has for "Gene's Vision." I'll wait, but I won't hold my breath...

 

[Plumster]

I really don't think most fans ever take seriously the idea that everyone on Earth is supposed to be happy and fulfilled all the time.

If nothing else, there's Picard's backstory which was one containing at least as much dissatisfaction as is really suggested in this book jacket blurb.

If that was accepted as reasonable during the "utopian" 24th century, who in fact (as opposed to hypothetical "literalists") is going to fret about this kind of thing during Kirk's era?

Interesting post - but this marxist idea of utopia is alluded to on many occasions in the various incarnations of Trek.

Inalienable human rights, no food shortages (replicators), no money, little disease, increased lifespan and so on.

What is Alan Dean Foster, very deliberately in my opinion, alluding to? Is he tackling, head on, a very obvious theme that runs through Roddenberry's involvement with Trek?

I don't see how these things would preclude individuals from being unhappy or discontented. Either way, I think it says something about Kirk if he finds the circumstances that satisfy the majority of the population insufficient.

Emmmmm - interesting - I like this.

So, it could be that having all the things that negate the struggle of life is what leads to a life of indifference, aimlessness, and obscurity.

That's possible.

My life as a playboy leads me to much the same conclusion.

 

[Plumster]

I think that's awfully unfair. It is not right that people resort to this to simply avoid having the debate.

Nah; it has the virtue of being true.

No it does not. Your entire post is supposition as is mine. Let's stick to the OP shall we?