Home :: Books :: Science Fiction & Fantasy  

Arts & Photography
Audio CDs
Audiocassettes
Biographies & Memoirs
Business & Investing
Children's Books
Christianity
Comics & Graphic Novels
Computers & Internet
Cooking, Food & Wine
Entertainment
Gay & Lesbian
Health, Mind & Body
History
Home & Garden
Horror
Literature & Fiction
Mystery & Thrillers
Nonfiction
Outdoors & Nature
Parenting & Families
Professional & Technical
Reference
Religion & Spirituality
Romance
Science
Science Fiction & Fantasy

Sports
Teens
Travel
Women's Fiction
The Meaning of Star Trek

The Meaning of Star Trek

List Price: $19.95
Your Price:
Product Info Reviews

<< 1 2 >>

Rating: 3 stars
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.

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: Not a valid genre?
Review: Various reviewers have sneered at Richards for analyzing and attempting to find meaning in what is "just a tv show.", treating it like it's "the Bible or Shakespeare". After all, the show's producers were motivated only by capitalist greed, and so couldn't produce a vision such as Richards credits them with. Why not?

A Tale of Two Cities was written in installments, for Dickens' profit. Shakespeare's plays were produced primarily to generate income for the Bard. The capitalist motivations for a work doesn't disqualify it of any merit. Granted, the nature of television makes it less intrinsicly intellectual than books. Still, a television show containing purpose and thought is possible--if accomplished far to seldomly (see the current range of garbage offered). Such a creation was Star Trek.

I find The Meaning of Star Trek a brilliant, thoughtful analysis of the politics, diplomacy and intellect of this fictional yet consistent work. I recommend it for anyone who enjoyed The Next Generation, whcih is the primary subject of analysis. For those who enjoy this book, I also consider The Ethics of Star Trek worth reading, though considerably inferior to 'Meaning'.


<< 1 2 >>

© 2004, ReviewFocus or its affiliates