![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lazypadawanI finished my yellowed copy of "Star Trek Lives!," a 1975 book about Trek fandom by the triumvirate of Jacqueline Lichtenberg, Sondra Marshak, and the late Joan Winston (the lady who wrote the book about the Trek cons).
Easily the most entertaining and interesting part of the book is Winston's account of her visit to the Star Trek set during the last six days of TOS's production in 1969. It was thanks to her t.v. connections, her talent for chopped chicken liver, and her innate charm that not only got her permission to visit the Paramount lot set, but also earned her lifelong friendships with much of the cast. It was almost too-good-to-be-true. DeForest Kelley gave her rides home at the end of the day. Incorrigible flirt William Shatner let her massage his neck and shoulders...gee, I could only dream of doing that for Harrison Ford or Hayden Christensen. I'd say there's hope for Matt Lanter but I'm old enough to be his teen mom. Leonard Nimoy would kick it and chat with Winston about all kinds of interesting stuff (he also did extensive interviews with the other two authors on separate occasions). Everybody loved her and even when others were getting kicked off the closed set, they always insisted that she stay as their special guest. She was there for the final wrap party and described how Shatner filmed his last scenes sick as a dog. People make fun of Shatner all of the time, but you'd have new respect for the guy after reading about his ultra dedication to the job even if he looked like he was about ready to pass out from a bad case of the flu.
The rest of the book explores Trek's popularity and there's a chapter at the end about fan fiction. However, it's not exactly presented in the way you would expect. This is really for the amen chorus rather than for outsiders or even the casual t.v.-watching fan. Nobody in the book explains how/why she came to Trek fandom, i.e. "I just turned on the tube one afternoon and ZOMG my life totally changed." I think every Star Wars fan practically does so as a point of introduction, i.e. "My Uncle Miltie took me to the Hoosier City Drive-In on July 4, 1977" or "I went to the midnight showing of TPM on May 19, 1999 at the AMC 100." They don't even talk about why Trek appeals to them. Instead they tackle Trek's appeal from a general standpoint, although their theories are their own.
Some of their reasons for Trek's appeal are apparent even to me, thanks to watching the show myself and knowing a lot of Trek fans over the years. Chief among them is the show's optimism that the future doesn't have to suck. Not only are we still here in the 23rd century, we're flying around in cool starships and getting along with other races, even with beings from other worlds. Sure there are still some problems but Trek's overall theme is that those problems can be overcome.
There's some dissertation on the characters representing certain ideals and even Gene Roddenberry admits that Kirk and Spock represent aspects he wishes he had more of. What I hadn't known before was Ayn Rand's influence on Roddenberry, which come to think of it, makes some sense in regards to the characters in TOS. (Rand would have been apoplectic over the blatant socialism of TNG and the depiction of capitalism in DS9.) Nimoy explaining the art of acting as opposed to fannish perceptions is pretty interesting to read too.
But Lichtenberg and Marshak keep throwing at you concepts like the Spock Charisma Effect, the Psychological Visibility Effect, and the Goal Effect as reasons why people are drawn to the show without fully explaining or outlining what these "effects" are. They're just pulled out of nowhere.
Another thing is the idealization and almost hagiographic depiction of the folks who brought Trek to life. To a significant degree, I understand it. Every fan base feels that way about the people who work on their favorite show or movie. We love the characters and story and it's natural for that love to bleed onto the real-life people involved. What did Tom Baker say about the love of a fan being the blindest love of all? I thought everybody did a great job on TOS and it's one of the most seminal shows ever produced for the medium. There's a reason why people still watch it 42 years after its cancellation. But I can't imagine very many people in our know-too-much post-TMZ world who would look at any show's/movie's stars in quite an innocent, wide-eyed way. In fact, I hope they don't. I think one must earn admiration beyond playing a part. The Trek guys had plenty of faults. Roddenberry was an alcoholic and a notorious womanizer, even if his marriage to Majel Barrett seemed to be a happy and stable one. There were plenty of divorces and re-marriages to go around. Quite a bit of tragedy too.
The final part of the book was about fan fiction, where they discuss the phenomenon and critique some stories. There's a plug for one of the author's long-running alternate universe, which was so popular whole teams of people were writing material set in it.
Easily the most entertaining and interesting part of the book is Winston's account of her visit to the Star Trek set during the last six days of TOS's production in 1969. It was thanks to her t.v. connections, her talent for chopped chicken liver, and her innate charm that not only got her permission to visit the Paramount lot set, but also earned her lifelong friendships with much of the cast. It was almost too-good-to-be-true. DeForest Kelley gave her rides home at the end of the day. Incorrigible flirt William Shatner let her massage his neck and shoulders...gee, I could only dream of doing that for Harrison Ford or Hayden Christensen. I'd say there's hope for Matt Lanter but I'm old enough to be his teen mom. Leonard Nimoy would kick it and chat with Winston about all kinds of interesting stuff (he also did extensive interviews with the other two authors on separate occasions). Everybody loved her and even when others were getting kicked off the closed set, they always insisted that she stay as their special guest. She was there for the final wrap party and described how Shatner filmed his last scenes sick as a dog. People make fun of Shatner all of the time, but you'd have new respect for the guy after reading about his ultra dedication to the job even if he looked like he was about ready to pass out from a bad case of the flu.
The rest of the book explores Trek's popularity and there's a chapter at the end about fan fiction. However, it's not exactly presented in the way you would expect. This is really for the amen chorus rather than for outsiders or even the casual t.v.-watching fan. Nobody in the book explains how/why she came to Trek fandom, i.e. "I just turned on the tube one afternoon and ZOMG my life totally changed." I think every Star Wars fan practically does so as a point of introduction, i.e. "My Uncle Miltie took me to the Hoosier City Drive-In on July 4, 1977" or "I went to the midnight showing of TPM on May 19, 1999 at the AMC 100." They don't even talk about why Trek appeals to them. Instead they tackle Trek's appeal from a general standpoint, although their theories are their own.
Some of their reasons for Trek's appeal are apparent even to me, thanks to watching the show myself and knowing a lot of Trek fans over the years. Chief among them is the show's optimism that the future doesn't have to suck. Not only are we still here in the 23rd century, we're flying around in cool starships and getting along with other races, even with beings from other worlds. Sure there are still some problems but Trek's overall theme is that those problems can be overcome.
There's some dissertation on the characters representing certain ideals and even Gene Roddenberry admits that Kirk and Spock represent aspects he wishes he had more of. What I hadn't known before was Ayn Rand's influence on Roddenberry, which come to think of it, makes some sense in regards to the characters in TOS. (Rand would have been apoplectic over the blatant socialism of TNG and the depiction of capitalism in DS9.) Nimoy explaining the art of acting as opposed to fannish perceptions is pretty interesting to read too.
But Lichtenberg and Marshak keep throwing at you concepts like the Spock Charisma Effect, the Psychological Visibility Effect, and the Goal Effect as reasons why people are drawn to the show without fully explaining or outlining what these "effects" are. They're just pulled out of nowhere.
Another thing is the idealization and almost hagiographic depiction of the folks who brought Trek to life. To a significant degree, I understand it. Every fan base feels that way about the people who work on their favorite show or movie. We love the characters and story and it's natural for that love to bleed onto the real-life people involved. What did Tom Baker say about the love of a fan being the blindest love of all? I thought everybody did a great job on TOS and it's one of the most seminal shows ever produced for the medium. There's a reason why people still watch it 42 years after its cancellation. But I can't imagine very many people in our know-too-much post-TMZ world who would look at any show's/movie's stars in quite an innocent, wide-eyed way. In fact, I hope they don't. I think one must earn admiration beyond playing a part. The Trek guys had plenty of faults. Roddenberry was an alcoholic and a notorious womanizer, even if his marriage to Majel Barrett seemed to be a happy and stable one. There were plenty of divorces and re-marriages to go around. Quite a bit of tragedy too.
The final part of the book was about fan fiction, where they discuss the phenomenon and critique some stories. There's a plug for one of the author's long-running alternate universe, which was so popular whole teams of people were writing material set in it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-03-01 05:00 am (UTC)I envy the people with the nerve and the charm to pull off something like Winston did. It takes everything I can scrape up just to approach an actor's table to sign a photo at Celebration! :P
Trek doesn't hold the place in my heart that SW does, but still has a sizable presence nonetheless, and that idealism for a future I'll never see is a huge part of it.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-02 02:21 am (UTC)It's just as well. I don't think I could make chopped chicken liver anyway.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-02 02:12 am (UTC)I've actually read "Star Trek Lives!" myself, when I found a copy at a local library years ago. I remember the "last days on set" and "fan fiction" parts... although not the Randian reference. (However, it particularly caught my attention now because I seem to recall a connection between complaints about the "postcapitalism" of The Next Generation and accusations that criticisms of that show's early days were due to Gene Roddenberry not "stepping back"... which is somehow familiar.)
I can actually imagine that Star Trek being a TV show might have something to with people not having "starting out stories"; it might be less dramatic to just tune in one evening than to see a movie at the movies... However, this does sort of make me wonder about those who just saw the Star Wars movies on video, and reminds me of the first Special Editions trailer.
It was probably not having cable that kept me from really starting to watch Star Trek, but I do understand the whole "optimism" angle even as I remember it having been mentioned before. There seems a lot of despair about the future these days, the only option being whether we die slowly and horribly when oil runs out or slowly and horribly through global warming... even a positive possible future or two (not built around denial) would be nice.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-02 02:30 am (UTC)I'm always interested in other people's fandoms even if I'm not part of them. I like Trek just fine. I watched all of the TOS and TNG, and several episodes of DS9. I saw all of the Trek movies. Most of my earliest fannish experiences were at Trek cons and stuff. I always felt a little like I was at somebody else's party but for the most part, Trek fans have been all right by me.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-02 07:37 am (UTC)