Does Star Trek Even Make Sense?

Sierra Times ^ | May 1, 2003 | J. Neil Schulman

[J. Neil Schulman]

Does Star Trek Even Make Sense?

by J. Neil Schulman

Let’s get this out of the way. I’m a Trekkie.

I’ve been watching Star Trek since it hit the air in 1966. I know every episode of the original series by heart. I watched the Star Trek animated series. I’ve seen all ten of the theatrical Star Trek films, and the spin-off TV series Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: Voyager, and now the latest Star Trek series, Enterprise.

Carrying a press card from the tabloid newspaper, The Star I covered the first major Star Trek convention held in New York City, where I met all the original series’ bridge crew except William Shatner.

At a later convention I fondly recall reclining on a bed at a room party, next to, and chatting with, Nichelle Nichols, who played Lieutenant Uhura.

I even spent a half hour on the phone, sometime in the mid-70’s before Star Trek: The Motion Picture revived his career, chatting with Star Trek’s creator, Gene Roddenberry. Believe it or not, he was so unbothered by fans at that time that his home phone number was publicly listed.

I’ve gone to the Star Trek Experience in Las Vegas several times, and bought my daughter a Tribble.

The point to this is that I feel well-qualified to discuss the ins and outs of the Star Trek universe.

The new series, Enterprise, takes place earlier in the story time-line that the rest of the TV series, before the formation of the Federation, on the maiden voyage of the first Starfleet vessel with a warp-drive fast enough to get anywhere interesting. It’s also before Starfleet’s “Prime Directive” has been passed into law, making it a crime for Starfleet to interfere with the “natural” cultural development of another species – or does that just apply to species that haven’t yet developed warp drive? And does the Prime Directive apply to anyone not in Starfleet? The different Star Trek series keep contradicting each other on these points.

I can see what Gene Roddenberry was thinking when he thought up the Prime Directive. It had something to do with avoiding that bugaboo of the anti-American left, “cultural imperialism.” I don’t recall that Roddenberry ever tried to stop Star Trek from imperializing cultures around the world with American values, so maybe he did think this idea only applied to extra-terrestrials.

But for the life of me, I can’t figure out what the heck the darned Prime Directive means in the first place.

Star Trek episodes throughout the years have made a point of extending human rights to intelligent rocks (the Horta on the original series episode “The Devil in the Dark”); self-aware robots (“Data,” a regular on Star Trek: The Next Generation), and self-aware computer programs (“The Doctor,” on Star Trek: Voyager).

Now, on a new episode of Enterprise, “Cogenitor,” Captain Jonathan Archer (Scott Bakula) upbraids his chief engineer, Charles "Trip" Tucker III (Connor Trineer), for teaching a third-gender sex-slave from a newly encountered species how to read and awakening in it enough of a desire for freedom to ask the Captain for political asylum.

This newly encountered species isn’t rocks. They are almost human. They look human, eat human food (although they find it unfragrant), and one of their females even wants to have sex with a human male on a first date. That’s human enough for me.

Trip demonstrates that the alien third-sex “cogenitor” (Becky Walhstrom) -- treated like a useful fertilization machine by its own culture, not even given the status of having its own name -- has superior cognitive abilities. It learns how to read complex material in a single day, understands human movies at first viewing, and outplays Trip, an experienced player at a game of skill, on its first try.

Captain Archer, concerned with maintaining diplomatic relations with a technologically advanced, and therefore useful future trading partner, more than the messy business of opposing slavery, hands the refugee back to his/her/its shipmates, where the raised-consciousness Cogenitor promptly commits suicide.

The episode ends with the Captain laying a guilt trip on Trip.

Never mind that Captain Archer is the real guilty party for denying the slave asylum, using 21^st century multicultural relativism as his justification.

Probably one of Archer’s ancestors also had practice papering over the brutal crimes of other “equally valid” cultures by working as a producer for CNN.

Wonderful message Star Trek sends out. Rocks, robots, and computer programs can have the protection of human rights, but not third-sex alien slaves. I’m sure this policy will make perfect sense to whatever extraterrestrials we humans actually encounter in the future.

The point is that the morality and politics of Star Trek verges on incoherence. In other words, it’s typical of the sort of writing you’d expect from current-day American liberal TV writers. It appears to be written for the sole purpose of allowing one character each episode to spew moral outrage at another character, and which character gets tagged outrageous and which one outraged is pretty well unpredictable. There are no discernible, consistent, overriding principles to help us, just the outrage du jour.

It’s enough to make Spock weep.

Copyright © 2003 by J. Neil Schulman. All rights reserved.

#

In addition to having written for The Twilight Zone, J. Neil Schulman is author of the Prometheus-award-winning science-fiction novels, The Rainbow Cadenza, and Alongside Night. His newest novel is the comic theological fantasy, Escape from Heaven.

[Burkeman1]

The Trek spin off "Deep Space Nine" was by far the most political of all Trek story lines. I don't mean it was political in an ideological direction but that it dealt with the relations of the Federation to other empires and even how it was administered and governed. The Federation government was fleshed out a little and it's inner workings and intrigues. In other Trek series the "Federation" government was barely presented and was only vaguely identified as some perfect utopian govrnmental system of enlightenment. In "Deep Space Nine" the "Federation" is given a human face.

[Burkeman1]

Did humans in the Federation ever seem to rebel against it with a passion of some sort? In "Deep Space Nine" yes. There were human colonists who had settled several worlds on the border with the Cardasian empire (a kind of Trekkie totalitarian Soviet empire). The Federation had fought a long and brutal war with the Cardasians which neither side clearly won. In the peace agreement both governments agreed to give up worlds that had already been colonized to the other. The humans on these worlds that were given over to Cardasian control were not too happy about it. They formed a rebel group called the "Marquis" who fought Cardasian rule and even the Federation if it got in the way. The Federation viewed the "Marquis" as an outlaw group officially but many within the Federation sympathized with it. This stroy line was a constant source of tension in the series. Even one federation officer betrayed the federatin for the Marquis cause and he became a sub story within the series.

[LauraJean]

I liked DS9 and OS, watched most of NG and gave up on Voyager. I would really like to enjoy Enterprise but that episode comparing the Vulcan mind meld with gay behavior was really stupid. I really don't like being hit over the head with a hammer to get a point across. Frankly I would rather watch the worst episode of Babylon 5 then most episodes in the Star Trek series.

[Burkeman1]

I just read your post. I actually posted pretty much the same thing in a post later in this thread (I didn't copy from you.) I feel the same way. The Federation was some vague utopian perfect government and society in all the other series. In DS9 Humanity got it's humanity back so to speak. I loved the glimpses into the internal workings of the Federation and was heartened to see that humanity was not perfect! It actually made us 20th century "barbarians" feel closer to the characters and the show in general. All the other series had a way of making us feel small and pathetic and totally primitive- that the beings in Trek were super humans and we were neanderthals in comparison. DS9 made the humans Human for the first time.

I have only caught about 2 episodes of "Enterprise". I can't judge it. What do you think. (And I agree with your assessment of Voyager- I tried to watch it- but stopped- it was sad.)

[Green Knight]

I just read your post. I actually posted pretty much the same thing in a post later in this thread (I didn't copy from you.)

Didn't think you did. :P Doesn't take a super-genius to see the flaws contained within Star Trek.

I feel the same way. The Federation was some vague utopian perfect government and society in all the other series. In DS9 Humanity got it's humanity back so to speak. I loved the glimpses into the internal workings of the Federation and was heartened to see that humanity was not perfect! It actually made us 20th century "barbarians" feel closer to the characters and the show in general. All the other series had a way of making us feel small and pathetic and totally primitive- that the beings in Trek were super humans and we were neanderthals in comparison. DS9 made the humans Human for the first time.

Totally agree. It also had the closest thing we've had to a religious Starfleet Captain, although not really, what with Sisko eventually putting a lot of faith into the Prophets. Of course, he was their Emmissary, essentially the Bajoran Jesus Christ, so that was cool. As I said, they did things that no other Star Trek show has ever done. When I get around to buying Star Trek DVD sets, rest assured that it'll be DS9 that I start, with.

I have only caught about 2 episodes of "Enterprise". I can't judge it. What do you think. (And I agree with your assessment of Voyager- I tried to watch it- but stopped- it was sad.)

Sadly, Enterprise seems to be continuing the same downward spiral begun by Voyager. It used to be that Star Trek shows sucked for the first 2 seasons, and then got really good. NOW the case is different. What you see in their first season is their best, and it's all downhill from there. That was the case with Voyager, and it appears that that's the case with Enterprise. Though from what I understand of the 2nd season finale, they're going to take Enterprise into a new direction, throw in more conflict. So I suggest that you check out the season finale. I think it airs May 21st, though you might want to check your local listing. That, for me, is make or break time for Enterprise. If it doesn't hold my interest with that finale, then I'm gone (At least until Berman and Bragga are fired, but it's not very likely that that'll ever happen).

[GunRunner]

I'm naming my first son Wesley.

[Gothmog]

I agree w/ you, I think the new series ok.

[colorado tanker]

The Federation was some vague utopian perfect government and society in all the other series.

I agree. Star Trek is the embodiment of the gospel of social Darwinism, that some time in the future the human race would evolve such that people would be happy to sit around in polyester jump suits reading Montainge and doing science, free of all seven deadly sins. Seems no one was even tempted to use replicator technology to get rich. No one has much of a sex drive and there was no jealousy or rivalry.

The philosophy is mush, but I still loved the series!

[Jonah Hex]

(And of course, each race will be varied. No more "This race has one culture and one religion" deals).

Excellent point. That brings to mind a great scene from Babylon 5's first season, where the running gag was a week celebrating each race's religion. The Minbari shared a serene ceremony of meditation and renewal, the Centauris hosted a knock-down drag-out bacchanal, while the Vorlon.... who knows?

The Human station commander, on the other hand, held a meet-and-greet session with representatives from most Human religions (Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Shinto, atheists (!), etc.). A nice conflict resolution, especially, watching the non-Human ambassadors' reactions.

[Jonah Hex]

Wasn't he the idealistic young lad who suffered a tragic (and unimaginably painful) death by explosive decompression in the hard vacuum of empty Space after being inadvertantly (and unheroically) expelled from a defective air-lock?

DAMN!!! I missed that episode! When is it due out on DVD?

;-)

[YourAdHere]

I gotta admit, I never, ever, watch Enterprise. However I did tune in for the Borg episode, and was pleasantly surprised.

[lentulusgracchus]

Sadly, Enterprise seems to be continuing the same downward spiral begun by Voyager. It used to be that Star Trek shows sucked for the first 2 seasons, and then got really good. NOW the case is different.

Sorry I'm a little late to the party, but I'd like to nominate a couple of episodes of Voyager and STE that didn't stink as badly as you seem to feel the series overall did.

My main beef with STE is its heavy diet of reruns. They just re-ran the Romulan space mine episode again.....third time!....at least they took the trouble to ensure rough consistency between the Romulan warbirds in TOS and those they present in STE. I'll say this for STE, they've made the Vulcan technology and space architecture more interesting.....the few times that Vulcan space vessels were portrayed in e.g. TNG, they looked like runaway tortoises.

STE had two pretty good episodes: the one involving the industrial pollution introduced by warp-capable interlopers (Nausicaans? -- led, btw, by Geoffrey Combs, "Weyoun"/"Brunt" to DS9 viewers; and I think I spotted him in an old Voyager episode, too) was good, and the ion-storm episode was also fairly watchable. I also liked the space repair-station episode. Sort of a spacegoing Bates Motel. Hitchcock would have liked it -- he was always up for anyone who, in addition to the usual bill and gratuity, charged a blood price for services rendered. Shades of "lamb Armistrand".

The recycling of Roddenberry-capable actors goes on. In addition to Combs, I've seen J.G. Hertzler ("Martok") play a couple of Klingons recently, one each on STE (he played Bakula's attorney) and Voyager. Also, did you notice that Roxann Dawson ("Torres") directed the STE "pann fahr" (or however you spell it) episode? A bad episode, for sure -- I wouldn't mention it otherwise.

Voyager managed some very good episodes: the two-parter "The Year of Hell" was quite good, with Kurtwood Smith (now on "That 70s Show") as "Annorax", the brass god of timelines. (Smith was also in DS9 as "Thrax", and in the flick ST VI: The Undiscovered Country as the Federation president.)

The introduction of Species 8472 in the 1996 or 1997 Voyager season-ender, in which "Seven of Nine" is also introduced, was a real action eye-opener -- the estrogen got drowned in a sea of adrenaline. Introducing "Seven" was absolutely spectacular, I thought. Jeri Taylor or no Jeri Taylor, there was no mistaking what "Seven" was supposed to be: an ultimate Borg Babe with Ultra-Brains (I mean, doesn't having a Hive Mind give a girl some kind of advantage?!).

So Voyager has had its moments, and taken on its own terms I would say that only about one episode in three was a clunker. Many of the episodes were indeed eaten up with Roddenberryesque 60's Barney-the-Dinosaur PC feelgood fuzzies (any episode involving "primitive species", e.g., that would automatically invoke the Prime Directive).

Understand from cruising IMDB.com that there is a new flick, Borg Encounter, due out this year. Unless that's the STE episode we saw instead.

One other thing I've liked about all the series is the way they let their actors get their fingers into directing various episodes. LeVar Burton, Roxann Dawson, Siddiq El-Fadil, Rene Auberjonois, Michael Dorn, and Avery Brooks are just some of the actors who've directed Roddenberry series episodes, sometimes crossing over to other series to do it. I can't think of one offhand, but I'm sure Colm Meany will have directed an episode or two: he has done small Irish films in his off-seasons for years, in which he has both acted and directed.

The series have also attracted numbers of repertory and rising actors, like Harris Yulin and Louise Fletcher on DS9, and Kurtwood Smith mentioned above. There have just been a pile of these actors. BTW, who played the Man from Section 31 on DS9? I've seen him in several films and TV series since then, I think.

[Junior]

Hell, what do you expect from a communistic society? The word "profit" is a perjorative (as if human nature can change in only a few hundred years).

[Junior]

What makes the TOS characters better is the tension between McCoy and Spock, with Kirk in the middle.

They represented the Id, Ego and Superego.

[Snowy]

5) I'm a female, and I still think they need a little more sex on the show. Or at least some romance.

What about decent underwear for Trip? When ratings begin to drop, and they have to show crew members in their underwear. Trip always has on these horrible looking 'outfits' that are supposed to be underwear. Geez.

[Chemist_Geek]

and one of their females even wants to have sex with a human male on a first date. That’s human enough for me.

Obviously not human, Captain... ;-)

[Chemist_Geek]

I have an allergy to serving under anyone named "Wesley." What kind of sicko would name their son "Wesley," anyway?

"Then he explained the name was the important thing for inspiring the necessary fear. You see, no one would surrender to the Dread Pirate Wesley. So we sailed ashore, took on an entirely new crew and he stayed aboard for awhile as first mate, all the time calling me Roberts."

[Chemist_Geek]

I'm not clear on matters of rank, but does anyone serve under an Ensign?

An ensign is the lowest-ranking commissioned officer. (In the U.S. Navy, anyway.) They have authority over and responsibility for individual systems or groups within a ship's division (deck, engineering, supply, weapons). They supervise, hopefully taking the advice of senior non-commissioned officers like the Chief Petty Officers, enlisted personnel.

[Chemist_Geek]

It is a sad truth that not all scientists know everything about every science.

There's too much to know! Right here on my desk are three issues of J.Electrochem.Soc. which I must get through, but getting the seminar together is interfereing with both that and the lab work...

[exDemMom]

Right here on my desk are three issues of J.Electrochem.Soc. which I must get through, but getting the seminar together is interfereing with both that and the lab work...

Lab work??? Who has time for that?