Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sri-unix!BALZAC%YKTVMZ.BITNET@Berkeley From: BALZAC%YKTVMZ.BITNET%Berkeley@sri-unix.UUCP Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: ST III Message-ID: <383@sri-arpa.UUCP> Date: Tue, 24-Jul-84 14:49:19 EDT Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.383 Posted: Tue Jul 24 14:49:19 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 27-Jul-84 08:22:48 EDT Lines: 66 From: Stephen R. Balzac >From a friend of mine not on the net: Date: 24 July 1984, 14:07:01 EDT From: ELLIS2 at YKTVMT To: BALZAC How about putting this sucker in for me, please? I am continually reading messages about Star Trek in the Digest. Some comment positively, others comment negatively. Now, I have met plenty of people who really like Star Trek, and plenty of others who simply do not like it. I have met still others (very few of these) who have never even watched ST, and others (even fewer of these) who truly love ST. But I am surprised at the types of negative comments that have been written about Trek in this Digest. The question I have to ask is: why? I can understand people not liking Trek because they don't like Shatner, or sf, or cult fandom, or just the whole show itself. I can understand people who like Trek only because they like Shatner, or sf, or cult fandoms, or just the show itself. It is easy to understand that some people have never seen Trek. (It is sometimes hard to believe that there are others who love Trek for the reasons that I do, but I believe there must be somebody out there.) But I like Star Trek for very philosophic reasons. Star Trek attempts to project--and sometimes comment on--different philosophic items: honor, love, death, friendship, courage, etc. Also included in the philosophies are moral questions: overpopulation, killing, self-defense, prejudice. Now, there are episodes when the acting is terrible, or the story, the dialogue, the effects--everything, in fact--is terrible. You could even argue that EVERY piece of Trek ever produced is terrible in all of these ways, and more. (I would not agree, but that is irrelevant.) But Star Trek is something else entirely. Star Trek is a commercial product, a vehicle to make certain people as much money as possible. As we have seen, in Trek and other productions, this commercialism often comprises stories, characters, and the like. But through all of Trek's tribulations, it has ATTEMPTED in a very serious manner to present and examine moral and philosophical entities. Still, Trek must make money, and these two points are often irreconcilable. I am sure there are those of you out there that will say that there was not one instant of Trek that was ever any good. But is that really true? For, from the outset, Trek has sought to do what no other entity had ever done: produce a forum for ideas and philosophies for the general public. I am not a "Trekkie". I was touched when Spock died, felt like I had lost a friend, in fact. But I accepted it. It was good drama (in my opinion). For this reason, I did not want Spock to come back; I felt (and feel) it would (and did) sacrifice some of the impact of ST II. I mention this because I want to show that I am not a "Trekkie". I am a Star Treek fan, a science fiction fan, if you must have a label. But I like the genre of sf for the same reasons I like ST: it provides a means of presenting and examining philsophies and ideas. Not all sf is good at so doing; those pieces I do not like, but I do not condemn--they have tried, but they could have been better. Other pieces of sf I feel are trash: they do not try to do anything. If you consider Star Wars sf, then (I feel) it is garbage. I loved Star Wars; I feel it was not trash. But it was not science fiction. What it comes down to is this: you might not enjoy Star Trek, or you might feel that it misses its intended mark (even to 100% innaccuracy), but can it be CONDEMNED? Some of you have written very biting remarks about Trek, and those hit home because they concern not just a show or movie, but a group of philosophies and ideas. Even if you feel that Trek misses the mark (and I agree that it has, at least sometimes), doesn't it deserve some measure of appreciation for what it has attempted to be, and what it has become on different levels? I mean, can you imagine what Trek would be like--how good, even great, it would be--if somebody who loved ST and sf produced it. Maybe someday that might happen. I, for one, am hoping it does.