• 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!

David Gerrold's Post- Fascinating

Vger23

Vice Admiral
Admiral
I think he hits the ball right out of the park with this one. I think there are a lot of people who follow Star Trek who need to hear this. The phenomenon he talks about makes me ashamed to be a Trek fan sometimes, far more than any stereotyping or nerd-bashing.

I love it. He says it all right here. Read it and internalize it.

Okay, I'm going to rant. Most of you don't need to read this -- and I expect those who do need to read it will probably not understand why I'm writing it.

But look --

If you're a Star Trek fan, that's great.

Of all the televisions hows ever made, Star Trek -- especially the original series -- was ambitious and ground-breaking and thought-provoking in all the right ways. But more than that, it was one of the few shows that was unabashedly optimistic about humanity.

No, not just that we could go to the stars in glorious ships and and have marvelous computers and replicators and sliding doors and personal flip-open communicators -- although all that stuff is cool -- no, the real msg of Trek is that we can get along with each other.

The failure of all those who have made Trek since then has been to make Trek about finding villains and kicking the crap out of them.

No.

In the original series, we discovered new civilizations -- AND MADE FRIENDS WITH THEM. Sometimes it wasn't easy, but that was the excitement of the challenge. "To seek out new life and new civilizations ... "

And even though it was delivered as a heavy-handed bit of merchandizing, the concept of IDIC was a brilliant expression. Infinite Diversity, Infinite Combinations. It was the idea that in diversity we find strength, we discover the myriad possibilities before us.

In recent years, some people have decided that Trek represents conservative values. No. What are you trying to do with that assertion? Cause Gene Roddenberry to come screaming out of the grave to pound you into the sand? Roddenberry was an unabashed unashamed unconditional liberal. He had his flaws as a man, but his politics were profoundly progressive.

The mutli-racial casting of Trek was a breakthrough for American television. It was not only the most important aspect of Star Trek, it continues today to represent the idea that judging a human being by skin color or ethnicity or even religion is so illogical as to make a Vulcan raise his eyebrow in disbelief.

Okay, that almost goes without saying.

But here's the thing -- I've seen Trek fans declare war on other Trek fans. I've seen Trek fans attack episodes, films, producers, directors, actors, writers, effects men, musicians, etc. for not being pure enough, for not making Star Trek the way they think it should have been made.

Okay, look -- if you're disappointed in an episode or a film or a book, okay, fine -- that's because you brought expectations to it. Not just expectations, you wanted it to be the very best possible.

Guess what? So did the producers, directors, actors, writers, costumers, makeup people, prop men, sound men, lighting men, grips, FX men, editors, post-production people, etc. Everyone. Nobody sets out to make a bad movie or TV show. Everyone always aspires to do their very best, even in the worst of circumstances.

But I've seen so-called "fans" (quotation marks deliberate) engage in jihad behavior because for one reason or another, they've decided that a person on Star Trek's production team, in whatever capacity, is "the enemy."

<F> off. No, I mean it. <F> off.

There's something unique about Star Trek. Almost everyone who gets the privilege of working on Star Trek is a Star Trek fan, eager to work on the show, recognizing that it is a privilege. The fact that we've gotten paid for the privilege is icing on the cake -- we're Star Trek fans too. We don't have to do Star Trek, nobody is forcing us, we're there because we want to do Star Trek, because we love Star Trek, because we love what it represents.

Of all the TV shows and movies in the science fiction genre, Star Trek is the only one that promises us a future where we will have lives we love living, where we will all have opportunities and possibilities and dreams within reach.

If you're a fan -- if you consider yourself a fan -- yes, thank you. Fans made Star Trek possible. Fans kept the show alive. Fans have continued to make Star Trek a phenomenon unparalleled in television history.

But being a fan is not a license to be an a$$hole. It is not permission to appoint yourself a judge of other people. It is not. It is only -- ONLY -- the opportunity to be a fan, to watch the show, to collect the toys and memorabilia, to read the books, -- to be an enthusiastic part of the audience. That's it.

Personal attacks of any kind, on anyone who was part of the team, on anyone who contributed -- on anyone who still wants to contribute -- are not part of the Star Trek philosophy.

Okay, yeah, we're all just human beings. We make mistakes. We stumble and bumble and fumble our way through life -- but when we have the opportunity to choose, we can choose to celebrate what's possible or we can choose to wallow in regret, bitterness, frustration, anger, pettiness, hatred, rage, or any of those other delicious emotions that keep us from being our best.

We always have that choice. Sometimes we make the wrong choice. Sometimes, if we see that, we can learn from the mistakes, the wrong paths taken. Great -- that's part of Star Trek too.

But nowhere in Star Trek, nowhere in the fandom that surrounds Star Trek, is there a justification for behaving like an a$$hole. Star Trek -- at its best -- was about NOT behaving like an a$$hole. And its best fans are the ones who seek to emulate that.

In my not-so-humble opinion.

https://www.facebook.com/david.gerrold/posts/10205146788641680?fref=nf
 
Is Bjo Tremble still alive? DC Fontana? You see, I think it would be beyond belief to be able to sit in a room with Gerrold, Fontana and Tremble and just listen to them talk and reminisce.

The man gets it and I'm sorry he left TNG so early in its run.

I think this is my favorite theme from his rant:
The failure of all those who have made Trek since then has been to make Trek about finding villains and kicking the crap out of them.

No.

In the original series, we discovered new civilizations -- AND MADE FRIENDS WITH THEM. Sometimes it wasn't easy, but that was the excitement of the challenge. "To seek out new life and new civilizations ... "
 
Agree 100% with Gerrold's statements. Quite refreshing. Although I'm not quite sure who actually thinks Trek represents conservative values. I've always personally felt it to be left-of-center on the whole. Perhaps DS9 fits more into that mold, but I find many of its influences as more libertarian than particularly conservative, which is why it's my favorite series over all of them.

And unfortunately, I think some anti-Abrams zealots will take the "we're Star Trek fans too" as proof that NuTrek should have never been made, as many of them believe that several of the top people were never fans of the original. Don't know if this actually true or not or if I'm getting mixed up with Nu-Battlestar Galactica, which had its own tidal wave of fanboy civil wars during its run.
 
Is Bjo Tremble still alive? DC Fontana? You see, I think it would be beyond belief to be able to sit in a room with Gerrold, Fontana and Tremble and just listen to them talk and reminisce.

The man gets it and I'm sorry he left TNG so early in its run.

I think this is my favorite theme from his rant:
The failure of all those who have made Trek since then has been to make Trek about finding villains and kicking the crap out of them.

No.

In the original series, we discovered new civilizations -- AND MADE FRIENDS WITH THEM. Sometimes it wasn't easy, but that was the excitement of the challenge. "To seek out new life and new civilizations ... "

In ST09, I quite liked the fact that Kirk made it a matter of public record that he tried to save Nero in order to show the Romulan Empire that he tried, and that there was no bad blood between them. Sure it was lip service, but it was still an acknowledgement.

I wish either ST09 had expanded on that a bit more in the epilogue, or that there was some sort of follow up in STXII with unprecedented negotiations, that both powers suffered because of Nero. And in doing so, it would stay truer to the sentiment that exploration could yield friends rather than enemies (besides, what a twist on TOS then, that one of the Federation's more formidable enemies in the prime universe would be the opposite in the alternate universe, all because one captain did the right thing).

To me, that would be pretty true to Trek.
 
I'm no fan of Star Trek fans either, but I'm unimpressed by this post. Basically he's advocating blind, uncritical, unconditional loyalty to a brand name. We tried that. The results were Enterprise and Nemesis. Critical and commercial failures that nearly killed the property forever.

No thanks.
 
The general idea is don't be a jerk and I agree with that. Good message overall. I'm not sure about this part:

We don't have to do Star Trek, nobody is forcing us, we're there because we want to do Star Trek, because we love Star Trek, because we love what it represents.

To many it was a job that they did to feed themselves or get a leg up in acting... Patrick Stewart or Robert Beltran come to mind.
 
I'm no fan of Star Trek fans either, but I'm unimpressed by this post. Basically he's advocating blind, uncritical, unconditional loyalty to a brand name. We tried that. The results were Enterprise and Nemesis. Critical and commercial failures that nearly killed the property forever.

No thanks.

I don't see that at all in his post. I see him advocating that fans not act like assholes.
 
To many it was a job that they did to feed themselves or get a leg up in acting... Patrick Stewart or Robert Beltran come to mind.

Patrick Stewart tackled the work with gusto, Beltran not so much. The people who disturb me were the one's who kept hanging around trying to get one more Trek check. Takei, Frakes, Sirtis, Burton...
 
I don't see the problem with Beltran, he complained when the writing started to suck which is all an actor can really do. And I don't see anything wrong with sticking around for the money and doing their jobs... all I meant was that not everyone who works on the show is themselves a fan of star trek.
 
I'm no fan of Star Trek fans either, but I'm unimpressed by this post. Basically he's advocating blind, uncritical, unconditional loyalty to a brand name. We tried that. The results were Enterprise and Nemesis. Critical and commercial failures that nearly killed the property forever.

No thanks.

I don't see that at all in his post. I see him advocating that fans not act like assholes.

Problem is his definition of asshole appears to be anyone who has an opinion that's any less than unabashedly positive about so much as a single episode and who dares to express that opinion in any form.
 
When did David Gerrold forget how to write? The tone and phrasing are immature. It's the kind of essay writing I'd expect from Hayley Dunphy on Modern Family, which is especially jarring given that Wikipedia puts him at 71 now.

It's not just that he's old enough to know better. He USED to know better. Maybe he's over-compensating nowadays by trying to sound like a sassy young thing.
 
When did David Gerrold forget how to write? The tone and phrasing are immature. It's the kind of essay writing I'd expect from Hayley Dunphy on Modern Family, which is especially jarring given that Wikipedia puts him at 71 now.

It's not just that he's old enough to know better. He USED to know better. Maybe he's over-compensating nowadays by trying to sound like a sassy young thing.

Well, it *is* a Facebook post. For some reason, people approach writing on/reading Facebook as a different medium than, say, a personal blog, BBS, or newspaper editorial.
 
When did David Gerrold forget how to write? The tone and phrasing are immature. It's the kind of essay writing I'd expect from Hayley Dunphy on Modern Family, which is especially jarring given that Wikipedia puts him at 71 now.

It's not just that he's old enough to know better. He USED to know better. Maybe he's over-compensating nowadays by trying to sound like a sassy young thing.

Well, it is Facebook ... :lol:
 
I'm no fan of Star Trek fans either, but I'm unimpressed by this post. Basically he's advocating blind, uncritical, unconditional loyalty to a brand name. We tried that. The results were Enterprise and Nemesis. Critical and commercial failures that nearly killed the property forever.

No thanks.

I don't see that at all in his post. I see him advocating that fans not act like assholes.

Problem is his definition of asshole appears to be anyone who has an opinion that's any less than unabashedly positive about so much as a single episode and who dares to express that opinion in any form.
You're reading things into the post that aren't there. Nowhere does he call for an unabashedly positive reaction.
 
Thank you for sharing the post. If there is one aspect that frustrates me with Star Trek discussions is how quickly it turns in to a hate fest towards the people who made the show/film/work/whatever. It is one thing to disagree-it is another to take that disagreement and use it as a weapon.

I may not 100% agree with Gerrold but I understand his frustration.
 
You know, when I first read this post, I read into it too much. I thought he was essentially saying that fans have no right to be critical of the product. But that's not all what's he's stating. He's ranting against the nasty 'jihadi' attacks that can happen on fan forums. Well thought-out post actually.
 
When did David Gerrold forget how to write? The tone and phrasing are immature. It's the kind of essay writing I'd expect from Hayley Dunphy on Modern Family, which is especially jarring given that Wikipedia puts him at 71 now.

When I look for great writing, I head straight over to Facebook and if I don't find it, I check the age of the writer so I can assess how jarred I should be

A celebration of Infinite diversity in infinite combinations would be more convincing if we actually saw it. Trek has been dining out on it's reputation for progressive values for decades without justification. Everyone is straight. Everyone still strives for marriage and kids like it's the damn 50's

By comparison to other sci-fi, Trek can often look painfully conservative and saying so should be encouraged
 
A celebration of Infinite diversity in infinite combinations would be more convincing if we actually saw it. Trek has been dining out on it's reputation for progressive values for decades without justification. Everyone is straight. Everyone still strives for marriage and kids like it's the damn 50's

By comparison to other sci-fi, Trek can often look painfully conservative and saying so should be encouraged

This!
 
I'm no fan of Star Trek fans either, but I'm unimpressed by this post. Basically he's advocating blind, uncritical, unconditional loyalty to a brand name. We tried that. The results were Enterprise and Nemesis. Critical and commercial failures that nearly killed the property forever.

No thanks.

That's not what he was saying. He was saying that there's no reason to be jackasses to each other or to spew hatred and ill-wishes at the production teams.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top