Gene Roddenberry: Sinner or Saint?

[BillJ]

There was an interesting discussion raging in the Trek I-X forum about what constitutes a "true" Star Trek fan.

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=153292

One of the more heated sidebars was Gene Roddenberry and his "vision" of the future. It never surprises me how many people defend Gene's actions over the years or are completely unaware of his flaws.

So in the spirit of the season, is Mr. Roddenberry a Sinner or a Saint? Does his vision absolve him of his transgressions?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Whether it was his original intent or not, Gene had an inspirational vision of a better future. Peace on Earth, equality of races and genders.... it's good stuff. Sometimes it went too far (no money?) or got too self righteous and preachy, but it meant well.

As for the man himself.... definitely not a saint! But his failings shouldn't detract from Star Trek - which is and always was far bigger than one man.

 

[Christopher]

It's not a fair question because it only gives us two equally absurd options. The clear answer is "neither." He was no more and no less than what he wanted to be: a human being, a creature with great potential for either good or ill, a fallible entity with the capacity for improvement. He was a larger-than-life figure whose achievements were as great as his weaknesses. He was a man who fell short of his ideals but still strove toward them.

And if we have to pose this as a binary question, I pose this one instead: Is it better to be great in oneself or to inspire greatness in others? Whatever Roddenberry may have been as an individual, he left a legacy that's done a lot of good in the world. We should all aspire to leave legacies that are greater than we are in ourselves.

 

[BillJ]

Way to suck the fun out of it Christopher.

 

[xortex]

Well he did drop bombs on people during the second world war. That has a way of making you seem evil in their eyes. Sexual and moral deviant - probably. Iconoclast - definately. I say saint, but my perspective is particularly bad so if he's a saint to me, that might make him more of a devil to some and vice versa. It's all relative to the biggest mystery of all - JC.

 

[BillJ]

Well he did drop bombs on people during the second world war. That has a way of making you seem evil in their eyes. Sexual and moral deviant - probably. Iconoclast - definately. I say saint, but my perspective is particularly bad so if he's a saint to me, that might make him more of a devil to some and vice versa. It's all relative to the biggest mystery of all - JC.

Don't forget thief...

 

[Skellington]

I'm not sure that Roddenberry, distrustful of organised religion as he was, would appreciate the choices; but taking them in very broad terms, I classify him as a saint. There is no doubt that Star Trek, even if you confine the term to the original series, has inspired people to accomplish things in disciplines technical, artistic and humanist; not to mention that good storytelling and an appreciation thereof is (IMHO) an important part of any healthy society.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Gene Roddenberry was a regular person. He wasn't perfect. He had strengths and weaknesses like the rest of us. Fandom likes to focus on (if not sometimes exaggerate) one aspect or the other, frequently holding him to the higher standards he hoped humanity could reach one day.

 

[BillJ]

Gene Roddenberry was a regular person. He wasn't perfect. He had strengths and weaknesses like the rest of us. Fandom likes to focus on (if not sometimes exaggerate) one aspect or the other, frequently holding him to the higher standards he hoped humanity could reach one day.

But if he preached those higher standards, which are rooted in basic respect for one another, shouldn't we hold him to those higher standards? It smacks very much of "do as I say, not as I do". Because Roddenberry didn't show basic respect to those closest to him, his family and coworkers who helped make his vision a reality.

As I've gotten older and have gained more perspective, I'm finding it harder and harder to separate the man from the visionary. YMMV.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Gene Roddenberry was a regular person. He wasn't perfect. He had strengths and weaknesses like the rest of us. Fandom likes to focus on (if not sometimes exaggerate) one aspect or the other, frequently holding him to the higher standards he hoped humanity could reach one day.

But if he preached those higher standards, which are rooted in basic respect for one another, shouldn't we hold him to those higher standards?

No, that's putting Roddenberry on a pedestal that you can knock him down from later.

Roddenberry never claimed that he was a saint. I think he wanted to show people who were better even than himself.

 

[BillJ]

Gene Roddenberry was a regular person. He wasn't perfect. He had strengths and weaknesses like the rest of us. Fandom likes to focus on (if not sometimes exaggerate) one aspect or the other, frequently holding him to the higher standards he hoped humanity could reach one day.

But if he preached those higher standards, which are rooted in basic respect for one another, shouldn't we hold him to those higher standards?

No, that's putting Roddenberry on a pedestal that you can knock him down from later.

Roddenberry never claimed that he was a saint. I think he wanted to show people who were better even than himself.

So we shouldn't expect for Roddenberry to show basic respect for other human beings? We shouldn't hold him accountable for the fact that the way he treated others around him never changed from the time he created Star Trek until his death?

It seems that Roddenberry used the visionary shtick as a license to continue treating people as tools that could be used and discarded as he saw fit.

 

[Robert D. Robot]

I don't view him as a saint (and I would suspect that he would not have viewed himself that way, either) and since we are all sinners (to some degree), I guess I would say that he is a sinner.

I would not DEFINE him primarily as a sinner, though. He is just a human being... a figure who inspired many, but a flawed human being non-the-less. I do not care for his infidelity, but I have friends, colleagues, and relatives who have willingly waded into that particular mire. The Alexander Courage incident bugs me a good bit, as I have friends involved in creative pursuits and dislike this greedy, petty aspect of GR. I bought the Writer's Bible, Starfleet patches, and film clippings from Lincoln Enterprises years ago. Not the goofy IDIC pendant, though. I guess the IDIC thing doesn't bug me too much. He wanted to make money from his creation and at least this was not a theft from another creative individual like Alexander Courage.

I don't think his human failings should detract from the people and actions that his work inspired. From our Founding Fathers to Martin Luther King-- none of those guys were without their flaws and sins (including some infidelities), but look what their works inspired. If those really big guys get cut some slack, I can do the same for our flawed Great Bird.

 

[C.E. Evans]

But if he preached those higher standards, which are rooted in basic respect for one another, shouldn't we hold him to those higher standards?

No, that's putting Roddenberry on a pedestal that you can knock him down from later.

Roddenberry never claimed that he was a saint. I think he wanted to show people who were better even than himself.

So we shouldn't expect for Roddenberry to show basic respect for other human beings? We shouldn't hold him accountable for the fact that the way he treated others around him never changed from the time he created Star Trek until his death?

We should expect Roddenberry to be a human being who wasn't perfect and made mistakes/bad choices in his life like human beings frequently do (especially in a town named Hollywood).

 

[Gary7]

It's not a fair question because it only gives us two equally absurd options. The clear answer is "neither." He was no more and no less than what he wanted to be: a human being, a creature with great potential for either good or ill, a fallible entity with the capacity for improvement. He was a larger-than-life figure whose achievements were as great as his weaknesses. He was a man who fell short of his ideals but still strove toward them.

And if we have to pose this as a binary question, I pose this one instead: Is it better to be great in oneself or to inspire greatness in others? Whatever Roddenberry may have been as an individual, he left a legacy that's done a lot of good in the world. We should all aspire to leave legacies that are greater than we are in ourselves.

QFT. I refused to vote for these reasons.

 

[xortex]

Star Trek, the voyage to space, oh
Star Trek, to reach the unknown,
Exploring stars as our destination, to
Search our minds through imagination
Star Trek, our one true home.

Not bad. I just winged it.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

We are all sinners. Gene was no different.

 

[xortex]

Best answer is both and neither.

 

[Lord Garth]

A sinner who used sainthood to preach at conventions, brow beat Harve Bennett, and bind the TNG writing staff.

 

[RandyS]

Best answer is both and neither.

That could apply to all of us.

Except me of course. I'm wonderful.

For an evil sinner.

 

[Tora Ziyal]

And if we have to pose this as a binary question, I pose this one instead: Is it better to be great in oneself or to inspire greatness in others? Whatever Roddenberry may have been as an individual, he left a legacy that's done a lot of good in the world. We should all aspire to leave legacies that are greater than we are in ourselves.

Wow! Excellent question, Christopher, and I agree with your answer.