The Meaning of Star Trek

Rating:
Summary: Not perfect, but fun for intellectually-inclined fans
Review: Anyone who's not a devoted fan of Star Trek, particularly of its Next Generation incarnation, is likely to find this book incomprehensible. They're also unlikely to buy it in the first place. Richards does ST the honor of taking it seriously, and he offers steady supply of nifty interpretations of what it has to say about life, the universe, and everything. His glosses of individual episodes are superb, and he's led me to rethink several of my favorites. This is literary scholarship written for a literate nonspecialist audience . . . and good scholarship at that.

Well, mostly good.

As noted elsewhere, Richards purports to cover the entire ST mythos, but focuses 80% of his major arguments on the "Next Generation" series. This weakens some of his interpretations, which fit TNG better than the mythos as a whole. The theatrical movies get virtually no coverage, again glossing over some troublesome diversity of data.

Richards fares considerably worse when he ventures outside of ST. His perceptions of Science Fiction as a genre are based on "Star Wars," Asimov's "Foundation Trilogy," Herbert's "Dune," and some passing references to Verne and Wells. His entire reading in SF history and criticism seems to have been Brian Aldiss's brilliant but notoriously polemical 1973 history "Billion Year Spree."

Virtually every generalization Richards makes about SF as a genre is, to be charitable, in dire need of qualification. Trek fans unfamiliar with the genre should *not* take them at face value. Trek fans familiar with the genre should brace themselves. Profane exclamations of disbelief are optional.

Rating:
Summary: Not perfect, but fun for intellectually-inclined fans
Review: Anyone who's not a devoted fan of Star Trek, particularly of its Next Generation incarnation, is likely to find this book incomprehensible. They're also unlikely to buy it in the first place. Richards does ST the honor of taking it seriously, and he offers steady supply of nifty interpretations of what it has to say about life, the universe, and everything. His glosses of individual episodes are superb, and he's led me to rethink several of my favorites. This is literary scholarship written for a literate nonspecialist audience . . . and good scholarship at that.

Well, mostly good.

As noted elsewhere, Richards purports to cover the entire ST mythos, but focuses 80% of his major arguments on the "Next Generation" series. This weakens some of his interpretations, which fit TNG better than the mythos as a whole. The theatrical movies get virtually no coverage, again glossing over some troublesome diversity of data.

Richards fares considerably worse when he ventures outside of ST. His perceptions of Science Fiction as a genre are based on "Star Wars," Asimov's "Foundation Trilogy," Herbert's "Dune," and some passing references to Verne and Wells. His entire reading in SF history and criticism seems to have been Brian Aldiss's brilliant but notoriously polemical 1973 history "Billion Year Spree."

Virtually every generalization Richards makes about SF as a genre is, to be charitable, in dire need of qualification. Trek fans unfamiliar with the genre should *not* take them at face value. Trek fans familiar with the genre should brace themselves. Profane exclamations of disbelief are optional.

Rating:
Summary: Not even close...
Review: I have read many non-fiction Star Trek books of this type and I must say, hands down, this is the worst. At best, the book is factually inaccurate (ex. "Junior" is not the name of any episode I am familiar with, the episode being referred to is "Galaxy's Child"). At worst the book is still factually inacurate, it generalizes themes from one example which the author distorts to make it sound like it is a frequent occurace(ex. "Usually when {Spock} comes out of {a 'spiritual discipline'}, he admits he has gone too far and wants to rejoin Starfleet...". How many times has this happened? One. Yet the author clearly indicates that is happens all the time!), and in doing all this he isults the intelligence of anyone who has ever seen more than a handfull of star trek episodes, and that is probably going to include anyone who is reading the book. In fact, I wouldn't even give it one star, but, unfortunately, this is not an option.

Rating:
Summary: Not a valid genre?
Review: I have read many non-fiction Star Trek books of this type and I must say, hands down, this is the worst. At best, the book is factually inaccurate (ex. "Junior" is not the name of any episode I am familiar with, the episode being referred to is "Galaxy's Child"). At worst the book is still factually inacurate, it generalizes themes from one example which the author distorts to make it sound like it is a frequent occurace(ex. "Usually when {Spock} comes out of {a 'spiritual discipline'}, he admits he has gone too far and wants to rejoin Starfleet...". How many times has this happened? One. Yet the author clearly indicates that is happens all the time!), and in doing all this he isults the intelligence of anyone who has ever seen more than a handfull of star trek episodes, and that is probably going to include anyone who is reading the book. In fact, I wouldn't even give it one star, but, unfortunately, this is not an option.

Rating:
Summary: Absurd Premise and Flawed Analysis
Review: If the fact that legions of people regularly trek (no pun intended) into the mountains to learn the Klingon language isn't proof enough that some folks take Star Trek far too seriously, then this book should be the final piece of evidence. This book looks at Star Trek, particularly The Next Generation, and venerates it as if it were the Holy Bible or the complete works of William Shakespeare.

One thing the author fails to fully take into account is that Star Trek, in all its forms, is, ultimately, a television show and it's raison d'etre is to generate profits. This is what keeps the show alive and, therefore, has a correlating influence on the writing. The writers of Star Trek, like any other show, attempt to pen scripts that the show's target audience will find entertaining, which maintains viewership and keeps advertising dollars flowing. In other words, all of the noble and laudable ideals of Star Trek are driven by nothing other than good old fashioned capitalism, yet Richards writes as if Gene Roddenberry, et al were completely untainted by such influence and were scribing a treatise on the human condition for the ages.

The author is classically trained and, to his credit, he uses his skill to craft a literary-style criticism, but the fact is there is hardly any material that could be considered critical of Star Trek. The book is technically well written, but the general arguments are akin to those made by high school aged music geeks who drone on about the poetic merit of rock lyrics, as if Richards is desperately trying to legitimize his preoccupation with Star Trek. He is so blinded by his affinity for the show that he views it through rose-colored glasses, offering only glowing praise and awed reverence. One may argue that such a fan is the only person who could write a book like this, but to maintain credibility the author must be somewhat objective.

Science fiction has the ability to capture the imagination of people like no other genre. With the possible exception of Star Wars, Star Trek has cultivated a following that has no equal. However, there is a line between enthusiasm and obsession and it seems that Star Trek has more than its share of obsessive fans who increasingly display their inability to discern fact from fiction. This is the type of person who will find this book edifying and will take it seriously. Richards has earned himself a permanent card table at future Sci Fi conventions where he can autograph this book and debate its contents endlessly with 35-year-olds in Borg costumes. The uninitiated should stay away.

Rating:
Summary: Some interesting points but poor writing.
Review: The thing that struck me most about this book is how much it reminded me of how my friends and I used to write in High School. We'd have some topic to go over, usually one we didn't care about, and we'd just put out any old thing to just get credit. The Meaning of Star Trek almost seems like that.

The biggest problem that I have with the book is that it is so selective in terms of the material it looks at when attempting to prove a point. On the whole, I believe the author discusses about ten to fifteen episodes in depth, and mentions another 10-15. This is from a series of shows that have literally hundreds of episodes to choose from. He just selects the episodes that let him prove his point and ignores all the rest, even if they do not agree with the point he is making.

He does put a perspective on the Star Trek universe that was new and different from my own thought and what I've read in other books, but his perspective is very biased. It almost seems like he decided beforehand that he wanted to say some things were true of Star Trek and then only focused on those episodes that would specifically prove his point, rather than examining the serieses in detail and drawing conclusions based on the whole picture.

Rating:
Summary: sorry, but television ain't literature
Review: This book attempts to look at Star Trek as if it was literary art as generated by a solitary genius. I mean, come on! As good as TV gets, it will never compare to Tolstoy or Nabokov. Yet Richards strains to analyse the stories for a depth that may or may not be there.

WHile as a Star Trek fan I did enjoy the descriptions and criticism in this book - you do see it in a different light - it adds up to too much about a disposable medium. Characters can't evolve much in TV, great themes cannot be explored except as formulae.

Rating:
Summary: Thorough, scholarly analysis of Star Trek
Review: This book will broaden your understanding of the Star Trek universe. Definitely worth reading by any serious Star Trek fan.

Rating:
Summary: Star Trek from an interlectual perspective
Review: Thomas Richards book is outstanding. It is a very deep analysis of Star Trek from a cultural - historical and a literature point of view. The author is focusing almost on Star Trek - The Next Generation alone, - that is a shame, i.e the Dominion of Deep Space 9 would have been worth analysing.

Rating:
Summary: Perspective vs. Meaning
Review: Thomas Richards neither flaunts nor abandons his academic training in his book, 'The Meaning of Star Trek.' Rather, what he is presenting is a thesis paper for popular consumption, much like Stephen Hawkins presented physics in his, 'A History of Time & Space.' Mr. Richards goes to great lengths to bury what could be tedious references within his text while presenting enough detail to emphasize his essential points. He is careful to reacquaint the casual Star Trek admirer with information before he goes on to underscore his conclusions. Unfortunately, in his effort to please so broad an audience he disappoints the academian, draws criticism from Star Trek aficionados, and irritates well informed followers of the overall scr-fi genre.

For my taste, there are three major flaws. The first is redundancy for the purpose of emphasis and clarity. Mr. Richards belabors his favorite topics by repeating the same examples from exhaustive perspectives. It is as though he is anticipating criticism and he wants to leave no room for any interpretation but his own. It is of no surprise that not only would this be a technique employed in the presentation of a thesis/paper for academic review, but is is also a device found in several of the ST:TNG episodes, "A matter of Perspective," and, 'Measure of a Man,' among others. Like a lawyer, Mr. Richards has points that he does not want us to miss, and he doesn't want us to be able to undermine his conclusions either.

The second flaw is an uncomfortable element of contradiction. For example, Mr. Richards states, '... most characters do not actually develop over time.'(pg.68) But he concludes the segement with, '... experience... turns out to be a strengthing factor in the development of the character.'(pg.100) Personally, I would only single out Miles O'Brien as THE character who walked into the Star Trek universe naked of personality and history. And ONLY James T. Kirk was able to board and disembark The Enterprise as nearly immutable. Every other major character appears with strongly rooted histories that support development within a given episode or demonstrate an evolution as they make their way through the Star Trek universe. I would point to Picard and Worf as the most obvious examples, even if confined to ST:TNG.

Finally, Mr. Richards occasionally becomes distracted by a particular event then leaps to a gross generalization. Instead, he should stick to his formula of defining his position then presenting his support. Case in point: Mr. Richards ruminates the death of Tasha Yar as an event and a storytelling vehicle, then extrapolates it to the conclusion that Star Trek cannot handle the broader topic of death. This seems myoptic given Spock's & Kirks's demise on the big screen, the murder of Jadzia Dax & the disposition from life of Benjamin Sisko on ST:DS9, and the explosion of Kes out of Voyager's plane of existence. Mr. Richards misses 'The Meaning' by getting lost in the singular example, a regretable tendency repeated throughout his book. Admitedly, the 'death episodes' are not the most memorable, but the death experience resonates the Star Trek underscore: Hope. The conviction within the Star Trek universe is that nothing is allowed to dissolve into an inescapable pessimism. Even death is merely regarded as an,'Undiscovered Country,' if you'll excuse my free-wheeling of the quote.

I would not dismiss Mr. Richards', 'The Meaning of Star Trek.' Rather, I would re-title it,'A Personal Interpretation of Star Trek.' It is by no means a bad interpretation. If I was offering a course on Star Trek, Mr. Richards' book would appear on my suggested reading list. However, it is simply not the last word.