Star Trek... Or Star Trick?

Meta
Title:	Star Trek... Or Star Trick?
Creator:	J.R. Wilson
Date(s):	March 1976
Medium:	print
Fandom:	Star Trek: TOS
Topic:
External Links:
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

Star Trek... Or Star Trick? is a 1976 essay by J.R. Wilson.

It was published in Sol Plus #2.

Some Topics Discussed

• Star Fleet as a military organization, taking what they please
• comparisons to dictators and aggression by then-current Earth governments
• Star Trek's relentless Earth-centric assumptions and focus on its culture
• Roddenberry's view of age, of beauty, of intelligence
• the unrealistic technology of warp drive
• "The Corporation, my friends, is the most logical unifier of them all."

Excerpts

We have heard it said that the "Roddenberry Universe" of Star Trek is a "window to the future," a realistic insight into what the coming centuries hold for the biped inhabitants of Terra.

Bunk!

I will grant you that, within its self-admitted limitations of production for an American television show -- vintage late 1960s -- Star Trek had its good, even plausible, points. But as a realistic view of where we will be some two centuries hence -- hardly.

What I hope to do here is point out some obvious flaws -- as well as some perhaps less than obvious contradictions -- in the so-called "Roddenberry Universe" (yes, I know, many of them already have been covered and explained, by way of production limitations, in The Making of Star Trek and other assorted tomes of wisdom, but that does not excuse them from diverting our minds from reality) and present an admittedly superficial discourse on what I personally feel is a more likely future.

First, the problems of Star Trek.

They are numerous, encompassing all forms of inquiry from science to sociology to physiology to government.

Let1s start with government.

There are numerous indications within the various Star Trek episodes -- the platitudes of a certain Star Fleet officer notwithstanding -- that the Federation is a military government, one more closely akin to the so-called Communist bloc than to a single republic, or even a loose confederation such as the British Commonwealth.

The most blatant insult to anyone's intelligence is the dominance of Earth (and the use of that term rather than Terra insults my sensitivities -- anyone who calls me an -- ugh -- "earthling" is gonna get a fast one in the chops, or mandibles or whatever the hell).

Federation ambassadors are often referred to as "Earth" ambassadors. You sometimes hear them calling it the "Earth" Federation. And, despite the presence of Spock, pointed ears and all, they refer to the Enterprise as an "Earthship", the crewmen as "Earthmen" (which is only a small notch above ... you know), etc., etc., ad nauseum.

Yet Vulcan and almost every other planet they come across is far, far older than Terra. Let's face it folks, there just ain't no way this insignificant speck of dust circling a minor sun on the rim of the galaxy is going to come stomping into such a dominant role among these advanced cultures. It is far, far more likely that we, rather than the Vulcans (considering Vulcan is the name of the planet, Vulcanian, which I have heard Spock use once, seems more likely), would be the minor components of a star cruiser's crew; that we, rather than the other planets, would play a minor role. And, if they are smart enough to have developed high cultures and intergalactic travel, they surely would not be so totally stupid as to place all 12 of their star ships in the exclusive control (save for the Intrepid) of such a frankly barbarous and self-destructive race as homo sapiens (which, frankly, I don't think we have quite evolved to yet, still being, intellectually speaking, more along the lines of homo habilis).

Ah, you say, but perhaps it was here, on this puny speck of space dust, that the first ability to make intergalactic flight was born. That, my friends, is what is commonly called excessive egotism along racial lines -- speaking now of the human race (that, of course, being the only "race" there is among humans). And the odds against it happening that way are, no pun intended, astronomical.

... our next--and perhaps even more important -- area of unreality: the apparent saturation of the galaxy by humanoids. Hell, even the lizards of Gorn walk upright and have two hands with opposing thumbs.

While I firmly believe that life is the rule rather than the exception in this galaxy -- not to mention in the Universe -- and being far older and greatly more advanced than ourselves, I simply cannot conceive of this duplication of form. And I totally reject the idea that humanoids, while not the same in anything except general appearance, can produce half-breed offspring such as our friend Spock. That is a violation of every physical, medical, and genetic law imaginable.

Even we Terrans come in a rainbow of colors -- not just skin, but hair and eyes as well. And take a close look around this old planet. How many "humanoids" do you see? With the vast diversity of life on our own planet -- already proven to be capable of the development and support of humanoids -- why, if they are so common elsewhere, are we not swarming with them here? The most intelligent -- perhaps, in many ways, even superior -- creature we share this world with is about as far from humanoid as you can get (I refer, of course, to the dolphin, with whom, I feel, we must first demonstrate the capability -- and desire -- for intelligent communication before our extraterrestrial friends will find us worth talking to).

Social problems: Why is it everyone on board the Enterprise is beautiful? In only 200 years are we going to eliminate all those physical failings which make most humans, at best, ordinary? Will no one be overweight -- or underweight -- or have stringy hair -- or no hair -- or bad eye-sight or hearing or walk with a limp or anyone of a million other problems? Granted, Star Fleet line personnel may be chosen from the best of physical specimens, but that does not mean they will all be young gods and goddesses. You can be in perfect health and still be ugly (take a close look at some of our better athletes sometime.)

...even assuming an "Earth" domination, why are they all from the old home planet (with a few notable exceptions, such as Scotty's girlfriend who was born on a Martian colony -- still not out of this solar system)? If Terra dominates, doesn't it also breed once it leaves home?

Ahhh -- you feel I am being unduly harsh on a fine TV show? Never. It is a fine TV show -- but it is not a realistic view of the future. It is not, in fact, good science fiction in the rigorous criteria for that genre set by the implacable John Campbell, who demanded not only top notch

characterization, but reasonable science from his authors. While in some areas the creators of Star Trek have been amazing in their abilities, in far more they have been sorely deficient. Much of this, again, is due to the limitations of production and various other understandable problems with which I have no quarrel as far as a TV show is concerned. But as a purely acceptable view of the future, it is a dismal failure, fond of it as we may be.

Let us take that first subject -- the structure of the Federation. Frankly, I do not believe the future of space exploration, colonization, etc., by the inhabitants of this planet lies with any government or organization of governments. And certainly, God forbid, with any military unit. There is another force at work here, another force with more power, more creativity -- more resources -- than any government or league of governments.

I refer, my friends, to "The Corporation." Which corporation? It doesn't really matter. Probably one not even in existence right now. But a corporation can span the nationalistic self-limitations of governments and draw on resources -- both human and physical -- of many nations. It can conduct its work without the waste and political expediency of governmental bureaucracy. It can avoid the duplicity and idiocies of military minds.

It can also draw on loyalties far greater than nationalism -- profit. And I am a firm believer in the ultimate profitability of outer space.

To paraphrase: There's gold in them thar stars! Not to mention food, space for an ever growing population, and minerals both necessary to our existence now and new elements we have not yet dreamed of.

I hope what has been said here will present food for thought and discussion -- and not, please, the wasteful and nonproductive spines of mindless argumentation. Both my criticism of Star Trek and my own view of what is likely to become of us are open to debate, challenge and, I would assume, constructive dissection.

Star Trek, as with all science fiction and even fantasy, has provided us with something more important than a plausible look at the future -- they have provided us with hope. No matter what kind of future they envision, it is at least a future, and under the current circumstances of Man's existence, that in itself is a considerable contribution. Though often scorned by those with closed minds, science fiction is the only form of literature which gives us hope for tomorrow, for it is in tomorrow that science fiction writers live; it is in tomorrow that their worlds and the people who populate them dwell.

Fan Comments

• M.L. Dodge wrote an official rebuttal to this essay. It was called "From the Office of M.L. Dodge, U.F.P." It was printed in "Sol Plus" #3.
• several letters of comment in Sol Plus, as well as other zines
• Steve Kimmel wrote a rebuttal that was printed in Sol Plus #3. It was called What is Science Fiction?.

After the printing of Kimmel's essay, the editors printed this statement in "Sol Plus" #4, as well as a very lengthy argument by Kimmel and Wilson. They prefaced it with:

In SOL PLUS 2 we printed an article, "Star Trek... Or Star Trick" in which author, J.R. Wilson, expounded a few of his favorite ideas of where the aired ST was in error. We promptly received a rebuttal from Steve Kimmel which was printed in SOL PLUS 3 as "What is Science Fiction?" This generated a heated (and slightly hostile) letter from Wilson to the editors which we handled in our usual courageous way: we sent Wilson and Kimmel each other's addresses and told them to go at it. The following debate is the result. This is a private debate, not a town meeting. Please do not send us ten-page rebuttals of both and/or either debater. If you would like to send in a sentence or two on what is said, we will print these in our "Sensor Readings," as room permits. As usual, the views of either debate are not necessarily those of the editors. We will continue the debate as long as interest is generated or for 10,000 words, whichever comes first.

Some Examples of Fan Comments

I have been persuaded to reply to Mr. Wilson's article, and reassure those who are troubled by what I believe was a fashionable pessimism over the future of the human race, especially popular in collegiate circles in' your era.

... in 1787, thirteen sovereign states [in the United States] managed tb do something quite unique: frightened by Shay's rebellion into some kind of effort to make practical rules to protect their lives and property against internecine warfare, they fought through a long, hot summer to set up a Federation where the members, no longer sovereign, but no longer adversaries, could live in peace, cross borders without passports, and trade without paying duties. What these people did, almost four hundred years ago, we have seen done over and over; first the union of English speaking nations, the Pan-African Union, the Latin-American Union, the Asiatic Consolidation, the European Common Federation, and finally, after the fearful carnage of the Third World War, a common impulse toward World Federation.

The Federation was not accomplished, as Mr. Wilson speculated, by the multinational corporations, those elephantine figures of in- efficiency and short-sightedness whose sole purpose is to obtain an immediate return on the cheapest possible product, but by elected governments, which financed research, and represented all people, not just stockholders.

[...]

The present predominance of humans in the Federation offices, and especially in Star Fleet is quite simple to explain. Star Fleet is a volunteer force, made up of the races particularly interested in its programs. Other planetary federations, in space longer than Terrans, have become slightly blase about it and returned to their own concerns. The newest member, with the energy and daring of its adolescent status, has flooded the organization. This is merely the normal behavior of each newly acquired member. The Federation policy has always been to encourage the fledgling to try his wings.

The Federation, which is only a larger copy of our familiar Earth Federation, maintains, with taxes from its hundreds of thousands of worlds a number of scientific, cultural and economic organizations, and regulates interstellar space. It does not rule a single planet! Star Fleet, which is both an exploratory and defensive arm of the federation Council, is subject to extremely careful regulations, preventing its interference in the political life of any of the members, except under direct orders in the case of some member in need of reminder of its solemn and legal commitment to the Charter regulations it endorsed when it joined.

[...]

Human beings, who quickly become accustomed to new situations, had little trouble in coping with the Universe. Mr. Wilson's estimate of the longer term of education is based on his contemporary failures, the decrease of application on the part of both teachers and students that resulted in the graduates of 1976 being two-thirds as knowledgeable as their counterparts of the decade before, with the neglected studies taken in college, and the normal college levels pushed into post graduate work. A return to more classical tradition and greater mental discipline, advances in educational techniques, and a will to excel has turned out numbers of young, responsible officers, in their late teens, eager to go out into space. It should be remembered that these people are the cream of mankind, not the average; and that the superior mind is usually found in a superior body as well. Starship crews are made up of attractive young to middle-aged members whose space experience is a training ground for promotion to high Federation posts in later years.

That the human race contains members who are corrupt, evil and brutal is undeniable, but that it also contains the noble, heroic and compassionate, and that those members predominate is proved by the fact that we still exist, and that we have and will continue to improve the lives and intellect of our race...there is certainly much room for improvement, but unless those whose abilities mean them to contribute to that improvement lose their nerve in the face of setbacks, we will continue to work at it. We of 2176 have many problems, but they are not your problems (we have solved them as you have solved those of 1776) and our descendants will cope with them. Be of good cheer, and work for the world you wish to have.

After reading "Star Trek... Or Star Trick" and "A Controversial Shade of Green" in SP II, I have only one thing to say... I don't care... You can dwell upon the technicalities of Star Trek forever and a day, but you'd be missing the point. The major reason Star Trek was made was to entertain and that's just what it does. I, personally, don't think it's too realistic, either, but that's the whole point to it!

If Star Trek ever became a reality in my life, it would ruin all the fun of it. I couldn't daydream about it anymore because it wouldn't be a dream...I (and I believe a lot of other fans are this way) prefer not to delve into the technicalities. If I did, I could find more flaws in Star Trek than most people. But, instead, I choose to live in sweet ignorance and watch rerun upon rerun upon rerun, not worrying about what's wrong with the show. It's just one great science fiction-fantasy, and that's the way it should be!

More more more from J.R. Wilson ... His spritely article is a ST-gourmet's delight. I don't find myself capable of providing a "good" rebuttal, possibly because I largely agree with him, but pray solicit more of his wit and wisdom for future issues.

Mr. Wilson's article called "Star Trek...Or Star Trick?" appears to be fairly well written and organized. However, his basic premise is faulty.

I doubt seriously if Gene Roddenberry felt himself an oracle, a prophet come down to Earth to tell us of the fantastic wonders of the future yet to come. Granted that the Star Trek universe is not an accurate picture of mankind's world 200 years hence. But was it ever meant to be? I think not. I feel that Star Trek was meant to be entertainment -- a kind of entertainment much more sophisticated than shoot-em-up westerns and blubbery soap operas. But entertainment nonetheless. Star Trek was fantasy. Not prognostication. At times powerful in its imagery, at other times not. But the main thing was that Star Trek was using a hypothetical future as a framework for entertainment purposes. The key word is hypothetical. A future world is a much more malleable and versatile setting for drama, conflict, and statement. Within an invented world where all aspects of a thing can be shaped or created afresh to help tell a story, there exists a much greater chance to make a statement about the nature of man or society or (very important!) the world we live in today than there might be in an l860's cow town, for instance. Consider for a moment the satirical possibilities~ when the Enterprise crew may stumble at any time on any conceivable type of society or governmental system imaginable. The ability to examine the feasibility of any kind of organization or governing setup is limitless.

The fact that some of the details of the ST universe were inconsistent is certainly not to be pounced upon. The fact that so coherent and authentic a world was created in so little time by so few people is a cause for congratulations. That the continuity was preserved so well throughout the three years of production, despite the fact that the scripts were written by almost as many different people, is a credit to those writers and to the cast and production crew.

Most anyone can see that Star Trek was not trying to predict the future. The intent was simply to remain authentic wherever possible, so as to be as believable as possible. To provide a wonderfully flexible medium without forcing the audience to accept too much on faith alone.

So Gene Roddenberry created a world that was "futuristic." Not the future.

Most-likely-to-hate is an article called 'Star Trek... or Star Trick,' in which the author 'proves' by leaping from a false premise (that military takes orders from diplomats only if they represent a military dictatorship) into a sea of speculation concluding with: the Federation is a military dictatorship. It calls for a cool, politically knowledgeable reply in a future issue.

'Star Trek -- or Star Trick?' is an article from which I quote: 'What I hope to do here is point out some obvious flaws -- as well as some perhaps less obvious contradictions -- in the so-called" Roddenberry universe"' ... and present an admittedly superficial discourse on what I personally feel is a more likely future...' which he then proceeds to do. I followed willingly enough while he tore the whole ST universe apart, but parted company when he got to his own interpretation of the future. What I don't understand is, are there really fans over the age of twelve who honestly believe that the ST world could be REAL?

Wilson cuts down ST because it is supposed to be a "window to the future." He then proceeds to viciously examine ST's obvious flaws and contradictions with a vengeance. He seems to miss the point that ST is entertainment and not trying to predict the future, Star Trek needed its futuristic setting as a backdrop to say what it wanted to say, but it certainly wasn't Roddenberry's omniscient look into the future. Anyway, it is presented in SOL PLUS in the spirit of free speech.

There are several key assumptions behind Star Trek, some of which have drawn fire recently. To me the most obvious are 1) Travel at speeds faster that light with all the necessary requirements; 2) A galaxy that is populated with intelligent, frequently humanoid life forms; and 3) A Terran dominated Federation of intelligent societies. It is my belief that these are supportable and reasonable assumptions.

[...]

Clearly the most serious difficulty is the vast numbers of humanoid life forms. This was a difficulty imposed on Star Trek by restrictions of budget, time and good sense. The cartoon series had greater freedom, in this regard, and made good use of it. Perhaps Wilson was more intellectually satisfied by the variety of creatures found on Lost in Space. In addition, to make the show good literature would require that we be able to identify with as many aliens as possible. This could only really be accomplished with humanoids. I doubt seriously if a good science fiction story could be built on the assumption of Captain Flipper, commanding the I.T.T. Starship Free Enterprise, it's five year mission to seek out new markets, punish hot check writers and boldly go where no salesman has gone before.