Shatner Memoirs: Fact or Crap?

[SantaTom]

I have finally, waaaaay behind the curve, gotten around to reading Shatner's original Star Trek Memoriesbook. I've read Star Trek Movie Memories and some of his other stuff, but for some reason, never got around to this one.

I've only started, but like the other Shatner books, this one seems like a fun and interesting read. But for those of you more in the know about his books than I, I'm curious: how much of what he relates in these books is at least mostly connected to reality, and how much is crap? I know some of his co-stars, such as Nichelle Nichols, have taken exception to things in his books. But is that just sour grapes, or based in fact? And, lastly, how much of these works are actually Shatner's and how much is Chris Kreski's?

Just wondering...

 

[nightwind1]

Shat's books are mostly Shat's ego on display.

 

[SantaTom]

Well, I suspected that much... But, to be fair, I have read Leonard Nimoy's I Am Spock and Nichelle Nichols' Beyond Uhura. There's a healthy bit of ego on display in both. And, really, does anyone write a memoir about themselves and their life and not be driven somewhat by ego? But that doesn't mean that there isn't truth to the stories being told.

 

[R. Star]

Well between watching Kirk take on God in Star Trek V and reading The Return, I think I've exposed myself to a sufficiency of Shatner's ego.

There's nothing wrong with a health amount of pride and ego in one's accomplishments. It's when there is excessive embellishment it starts to become a self-parody.

 

[SantaTom]

That's true. However, for the reputation Shatner has for a monumental ego, I really found it to be more on display in Nichelle Nichols' book than Shatner's. Whether that is due to the fact that she truly does have a more inflated ego than Shatner, or simply that he is better at writing in a way which camoflagues his ego, I'm not sure.

Regardless, I came away from Nichols' book feeling as though she thinks she played a part in every significant thing that ever happened on Star Trek, and Shatner at least pays lip service to the contributions of his fellow cast members. He speaks kindly of Nichols, for example, while she does not return the favor.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

What is it about the writing that you read as ego display? I haven't read them, I'm quite curious.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Shat's books are mostly Shat's ego on display.

I don't think that's fair. There's a healthy amount of self-deprecation in them, as far as I remember.

 

[SantaTom]

What is it about the writing that you read as ego display? I haven't read them, I'm quite curious.

In Shatner's works or Nichols'?

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I have finally, waaaaay behind the curve, gotten around to reading Shatner's original Star Trek Memoriesbook. I've read Star Trek Movie Memories and some of his other stuff, but for some reason, never got around to this one.

I've only started, but like the other Shatner books, this one seems like a fun and interesting read. But for those of you more in the know about his books than I, I'm curious: how much of what he relates in these books is at least mostly connected to reality, and how much is crap? I know some of his co-stars, such as Nichelle Nichols, have taken exception to things in his books. But is that just sour grapes, or based in fact? And, lastly, how much of these works are actually Shatner's and how much is Chris Kreski's?

Just wondering...

Shocking as some may find this, Shatner's Memories books are largely accurate. Compared to Justman and Solow's Inside Star Trek (which is probably the gold standard of the "behind the scenes" books for thoroughness and accuracy), Shatner's version of events in Star Trek Memories has some occasional bumps (his account of "City" doesn't quite align with Justman and Solow's version), but overall I'd say it's a pretty accessible account of what happened. Movie Memories may be the best book on the subject of the Star Trek movie era; it's not flawless, but there's no book that's as thorough at covering the six films. (Nick Meyer's book on his films comes close, but it's also riddled with errors.)

It's worth noting that James Doohan didn't participate in Shatner's interviews for Movie Memories, but after seeing that Shatner's book was even-handed, fair, and gave his costars room to vent about him in Memories he participated in Movie Memories.

As for how much of the book is Chris Kreski, I'd say that Kreski does a much better job capturing Shatner's voice than some of his other co-authors. Okay, more seriously, the Memories books are research-driven and I would be willing to bet that there's a lot in the books that isn't Shatner. However, there are many things in the books that are authentically Shatner, and Kreski does a good job at hiding the joins.

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

I thought the best of Shat's books was Up Til Now which is Shatner's autobiography. Terrific book with great insights about the life of a struggling actor and about his hopes and his fears. The chapters about his late wife Nerine were heartbreaking and really resonated with me. Let's just say I've got my Nerine. I was surprised by how afraid Shatner is of being out of work. I shouldn't be because he has so many credits... but he has so many credits because he's so pathologically frightened of being a starving actor. To this day he's afraid! I think it's darling that a wealthl, world famous actor like Shat still carried around that kind of fear. It makes him seem less like an icon and more like a real life human being. My only bitch about Up Til Now is that it had to end.

 

[The Grim Ghost]

It's been awhile since I read any of them, but I remember them having quite a bit of self deprecating humor in them.

 

[SantaTom]

I've made it quite a ways into the Star Trek Memories book, and I've noticed something that stands out as different from Movie Memories. In both books, Shatner quotes extensive passages from interviews with other actors, production people, etc. And in both books, he says he conducted the interviews himself. And other actors, such as Nichelle Nichols, have referred to being interviewed by Shatner for the book.

However, in Movie Memories, the quotes always use phrasing that makes it sound as though the people being interviewed are speaking directly to Shatner. When talking about Shatner, they'll say things like "so then you and I went to see Roddenberry" and so forth. But in Star Trek Memories, they always speak of Shatner in the third person. You know, like "Bill and I then rehearsed the scene". Just today, I noticed that in excerpts from several people including Leonard Nimoy and Nichelle Nichols.

Anyone know the reason for the difference? Was this some sort of editorial decision to word things that way? Or did someone other than Shatner actually conduct the interviews?

 

[Lonemagpie]

I imagine that'd be an editorial decision for clarity

 

[Jonas Grumby]

What is it about the writing that you read as ego display? I haven't read them, I'm quite curious.

Well, it's like the whole book is him talking about himself and his perceptions and the way he remembers things.

Oh, wait...that's exactly what a memoir is supposed to be, isn't it.

 

[SantaTom]

For me, personally, the thing I identified as ego in Nichelle Nichols' book is the thing that is usually present in any interview she ever gives: namely, she wants to greatly inflate the contribution her character made to Star Trek in general and television history overall.

Yes, Uhura was an interesting character and, yes, Star Trek did make some strides at portraying a more diverse cast in which all were equals. But Uhura was never a major part of the series. She was always a supporting player. There is not so much as one episode that is actually about Uhura. And, as has been discussed numerous times here, Star Trek was not nearly as groundbreaking as it is often portrayed. The "first ever interracial kiss on television" was nothing of the sort. And even her famed story about Martin Luther King, Jr. is of questionable credibility.

That's what bothered me about her book. Whether "ego" is the correct term or not, I'm not sure.

 

[Ghel]

I liked Shat's memoirs. In his defense of Shatner against those who say he displays ego, his memoirs acknowledge that aspect of himself. Towards the end of the first memoir he mentions that at a number of points, he asked for scene changes without thinking about how it would affect other actors, etc. Perhaps it's affected, but his writing clearly demonstrates that he feels bad for slighting others at times and putting himself first without recognizing how it will affect others.

For a real sense of overgrown ego, read George Takei's autobiography. His memoir moves between how he should have been captain sooner in Star Trek (as though it's not a fictional, ensemble show) to how great he was for being a part of the roads and highway planning committee in California (or a post similar to that). Essentially, his memoir reads as though Takei believes himself to be the pinnacle of acting and statesmanship. I'm willing to say that this is a bit of a stretch.

 

[Christopher]

But Uhura was never a major part of the series. She was always a supporting player. There is not so much as one episode that is actually about Uhura.

You can say the same about Sulu. The one time they tried to build an episode around him, "This Side of Paradise," it got rewritten for Spock. And Chekov only got subplots here and there. This was not an era of ensemble shows.

And, as has been discussed numerous times here, Star Trek was not nearly as groundbreaking as it is often portrayed. The "first ever interracial kiss on television" was nothing of the sort.

No, not technically, but it was the first black-white kiss, and that's the category of "interracial" that was most revolutionary for 1968. Since Americans tend to reduce race to, almost literally, a black-and-white duality, the description, while technically imprecise, does legitimately convey the cultural impact it had.

 

[Desert Kris]

I think I picked up the Movie Memories book on something of a whim, while browsing a section of the bookstore I rarely did. At that time, my favorite era of ST was TOS movie era, the uniforms, that particular incarnation of the Enterprise, I loved the visuals. And it was more accessible on home video for the longest time for me.

I started skimming through movie memories, and I got lost in it for a time, fascinated by the behind the scenes perspectives. What impressed me was that it seemed like a really good chunk of the text was devoted to interviews from many different people, with some of Shatner's memories sprinkled in. And I was impressed that Shatner seemed to be reflecting on his faults, and including other commentators even when they were having a go at him. When I eventually pulled myself out of the book, I realized that it was too interesting to leave the bookstore without it.

Eventually, I bought the first book, Star Trek Memories, when I found it in a used bookstore, and found it to be very similar (but a bit of a blur because I couldn't remember TOS stories very well at the time).

So I found them an interesting behind the scenes look that made an effort to include a lot of alternative perspectives. I'm sure there are errors and moments of emphasis and de-emphasis, but without having read a lot of other, comparative behind-the-scenes books, I wouldn't know how to very precisely pick out contradictions.

I got a kick out of the Captain's Log: The Making of ST V, but it made the section on ST V in Movie Memories seem a bit repetitive. Mainly, the book drew attention to early concepts of The Final Frontier movie that had kind of already been done in The Search for Spock (for example, a paradise world that degenerates into Dante's inferno).