Related Sections: Columnists Movies Opinion TV
Gene Roddenberry created Trek, but others made it prosper
As a writer you are always reminded that it is characters that are memorable, that ultimately you are second-rate if you haven't come up with a Sherlock Holmes or a Nick Adams, a Lady Macbeth or a Mrs. Dalloway. Or, closer to home, a Captain Kirk or Ripley.
And yet ... for the sci-fi writer, important as characters are, what may be more important are the worlds we create.
They come to mind quickly. Tolkien's Middle-earth and Le Guin's Earthsea. Star Wars' Tatooine and Asimov's Trantor. Herbert's Dune and McCaffrey's Pern. Zelazny's Amber and Silverberg's Majipoor. Niven's Known Space and Heinlein's Future History. Star Trek's Federation and Pratchetts' Discworld. Bradbury's Mars and Burroughs' Barsoom.
Those are just realms or planets with short, memorable brand names. You will also know Philip K. Dick's bizarre futures, Harry Turtledove's alternate histories, a zillion different comic-book worlds and the incredibly evocative far-future earths of Jack Vance and Gene Wolfe. You saw Chris Carter's weird turn-of-the-21st-century X-Files America as seen through the eyes of Scully and Mulder.
It's easy to connect an author with his or her world. And to most of us, that's how it works: Exercising the godlike power available to any sci-fi or fantasy writer, you create your world and remain its sole proprietor ... at least until you die, and your children write sequels.
In film, television and games, however, it's different. Worlds need to be designed and rendered, either in physical form or as CGI. The audience needs to be able to see landscapes, structures, buildings, clothing. Actors need to be able to understand the unique motivations of fantasy characters in order to portray them.
This process forces a writer to explain, to collaborate, to share. To let others into his playground.
It's a sci-fi writer's nightmare.
Several columns ago, I described the writers' room, a common tool these days for most television dramas, especially those that are serialized. I noted that this kind of instant, multi-partnered collaboration doesn't come easily to most writers.
You can triple that for sci-fi writers. The talent or drive that allows us to imagine and bring to life worlds like those I just listed is a deeply personal one ... most of us recognize that those future or fantastic realms are quite revealing, like 3-D multi-spectral images of our personalities, often revealing traits or fears we don't admit to ourselves.
Change my world? Make me explain it? Let you improve it? No way! Build your own!
And yet many classic sci-fi stories have been shaped by multiple hands. One of the most famous is Tom Godwin's "The Cold Equations," the story of a teenage girl who stows away on a courier starship delivering emergency medicine to a colony planet. She only wants to see her brother.
Trouble is, there's only enough life support and fuel to allow the pilot and supplies to reach the colony planet. The choice is clear: To save thousands of colonists, the girl has to be thrown overboard.
But in the first several drafts of the story, the author kept finding ways to let her live. Finally Campbell stepped in and told Godwin, "You've got to kill her."
Godwin did, and in doing so created a classic rather than just another clever piece of sci-fi that would have been forgotten a month after publication.
Closer to the sci-fi television world, there is the famous "Amok Time" episode of the original Star Trek, written by Theodore Sturgeon. In this episode—which led off the second season of the series—Spock's youthful betrothal to a Vulcan woman triggers a bizarre personality change in the first officer. We learn that Vulcans' reproductive drive is quite different from that in humans, that they mate every seven years—and the drive to do so is overpowering.
It's a terrific episode that dramatically changes and enriches our view of Spock, who until now had been brilliant, enigmatic and supposedly emotionless.
On a more trivial note, we also see the first use of the phrase "Live long and prosper."
Did Theodore Sturgeon add those elements to the Star Trek universe? Given the nature of Sturgeon's prose work, which often dealt with sexuality, I feel confident that Spock's sexual conflict was his. (If it had existed in the original Roddenberry development, it would have been used earlier.)
"Live long and prosper" seems to have been invented on the set, by the director and cast.
I never worked with Gene Roddenberry, and I met him only briefly, so my portrait of him is secondhand and not especially positive. Nevertheless, I honor him as the Prime Mover behind Star Trek.
And one choice he made more intelligently than any sci-fi producer before, and many since, was to invite other writers into his playground. He shared Star Trek, not just with Theodore Sturgeon, but with Harlan Ellison, Robert Bloch, Jerome Bixby, Jerry Sohl and Norman Spinrad, all of them with extensive credits as novelists and short story writers.
It would be foolish and parochial of me not to mention the conceptual contributions made by D.C. Fontana and Gene L. Coon ... you don't have to be a published-in-prose sci-fi writer to have good sci-fi ideas. These two writers made many contributions to the Trek universe.
And what an empire it became. Four additional television series, a dozen feature films, novelizations by talented folks such as James Blish and Alan Dean Foster, but hundreds of original works by Greg Bear, Vonda McIntyre, Diane Duane, Joe Haldeman and many, many others.
While George Lucas' Star Wars empire has been made richer and deeper by other hands, no sci-fi world has benefited from this conceptual open door the way Star Trek has.
But I wonder ... Did Roddenberry enjoy the way his creation evolved? Was he able to sit back and appreciate the brilliance of the concept behind "Amok Time"? Maybe ... after the program was produced and aired. But if he was like most sci-fi writers I know—or like me—his initial reaction to Sturgeon's radical idea was almost certainly "That's not my Spock".
(Did Tom Godwin like what happened with "Cold Equations"?)
Roddenberry ultimately got the lion's share of the credit for Star Trek, and the commensurate share of the money. (In film and television, credit usually = money.)
Well, money comes and goes. Writers die.
But worlds live on.
The hardest thing about being a sci-fi writer is learning to share yours. And if you look at Roddenberry or Lucas, or Tom Godwin, it's usually a good, if painful, lesson.
For years Michael Cassutt has been waiting vainly for some energetic collaborator to take one of his ideas and turn it into a vast sci-fi empire. Meanwhile he writes novels, short stories, scripts and nonfiction. He is developing a sci-fi series and feature film while teaching at the University of Southern California's School of Cinematic Arts.
By Captain Calvin Grant at 10:39 AM ON 10/05/09
It all can be sum up by the saying.....
Success as many Fathers, while failure is an orphan.
By Just Me at 11:15 AM ON 10/05/09
As I recall, Gene L. Coon claimed that he was more responsible for what Star Trek became on screen in the 1960's than Gene Roddenberry was. He did write many scripts and was a producer on the show. He's credited with introducing the Klingons, Khan, Zefram Cochrane, and the Prime Directive. He also helped rewrite scripts such as The Trouble With Tribbles.
By SuperJoker at 11:27 AM ON 10/05/09
"Peace and long life" is the countersign to "Live long and prosper".
By Shakespeareprof at 12:31 PM ON 10/05/09
Gene Roddenberry had two things going for him: he lived longer than many others who were behind the original series, and he was really good at creating and spreading his own myth. While he deserves the credit for getting Star Trek off the ground, he wasn't the only one who made it fly. some fans, however, insist on worshipping him as if he were God. The fact remains that The Next Generation got better and better the less and less he had to do with it.
By Jacqueline Lichtenberg at 12:59 PM ON 10/05/09
I don't know if this is posting. This captcha is terrible.
You wrote:
----------
Did Roddenberry enjoy the way his creation evolved? Was he able to sit back and appreciate the brilliance of the concept behind "Amok Time"? Maybe ... after the program was produced and aired. But if he was like most sci-fi writers I know—or like me—his initial reaction to Sturgeon's radical idea was almost certainly "That's not my Spock".
--------------
During the collection of material for my Bantam paperback STAR TREK LIVES! (1975) my collaborators and I spent a lot of time visiting with Gene before and after his appearances all around the USA.
He was a seasoned TV writer, used to the TV series collaboration and brainstorming. Though ST was his baby, a dream that arose out of being a dedicated fan of Radio young-boy-adventure series (you should have seen his eyes up close when he referred to those radio shows!) -- Star Trek was indeed developed to be a collaboration.
He CHOSE the writers he invited, and he was delighted with the results as it shaped his conception. I tried to get him to invite Marion Zimmer Bradley & he did, but she declined because she really disliked TV in general.
Finally, after she read my Star Trek fanzine series, Kraith, she watched Star Trek and changed her mind about Star Trek (but not TV).
Gene's first season ambition was to get veteran SF writers whose work HE actually admired involved in the series but "they" wouldn't allow it.
He managed to pull that off for the second season, but "they" didn't like how inept narrative writers were at scripting -- cost too much to fix -- so he had to use staff writers for the third season and we all know what a disaster that was.
Still, he made the number of eps needed to get syndication which is why we have what we have today. He had to swallow a LOT of dictatorial meddling, and his main skill as a producer was not the art (as you pointed out the less he had to do with writing scripts the better it became) but rather the art of negotiating and compromise.
And after all, compromise is what "producing" is really all about, unlike the art of SF narrative writing.
And don't forget the Kirk character contribution of Harlan Ellison, CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER (and the Guardian and later the whole Time Travel element).
Jacqueline Lichtenberg
By Bill_IL at 1:11 PM ON 10/05/09
Another prime example of this "enrichment" as you call it would be the world of Darkover created by the late Marion Zimmer Bradley. She let others into her world (controlled it appears to keep it true) and it blossomed and grew into something GREAT. Even after her passing the world of Darkover continues and the Sword and Sorceress books enrich even more
By Rob at 2:45 PM ON 10/05/09
Yes, many have made Star Trek prosper, but only JJ Abrams has made it fail. The money made from non-fans doesn't mean anything. Without the heart that Abrams ripped out, Trek is dead.
By Just Me at 3:15 PM ON 10/05/09
Many people have declared Abrams Trek a blockbuster, but it's not. Night at the Museum 2 made more money for crying out load. Abrams Trek did good box office but not blockbuster box office like Transformers or The Dark Knight.
By beans at 3:37 PM ON 10/05/09
Transformers sucked period
By Crusade2267 at 4:14 PM ON 10/05/09
But Abrams Trek was as close to Blockbuster as Trek has come in many a year. Maybe not the highest grossing film of 09, but certainly garunteed a sequel, unlike Nemesis was.
By Captain Sheridan at 5:09 PM ON 10/05/09
At the other end of the spectrum would be Babylon 5 where Straczynski wrote 99 out of 110 episodes.
By OldGuyInOhio at 6:23 PM ON 10/05/09
THANK YOU, CAPTAIN SHERIDAN!
As usual, "SpiFy" "forgot" to include BABYLON 5!
Shame, shame, shame on SPIFY!
By jbs780 at 7:39 PM ON 10/05/09
Rob...do you have NOTHING else to do but beat a dead horse? I mean really now! The Trek movie was a hit. you con't excape that FACT. Geez man! for your own sake...GET OVER IT! You keep singing the same tired verse of the same tired song over and over and over and over and over again. Surely ther is something else happening in your life! Get on with something that makes you happy and let the rest of us enjoy the coming Trek movies. Then we'll all be happy.
I mean GEEZ! Is it never gonna end with these people?!?
Captcha failed.
By a different tim at 8:01 PM ON 10/05/09
I have been a fan of Star Trek for over 20 years now. I have seen almost every episode of every series and been to a few conventions. I consider the Abrams Star Trek his best work in any medium that he has been invovled with so far. The people that hate it are the ones who know the specs of all the ships and only care about the technicalites of the ST. Stop speaking for the rest of us. I can guarantee anyone that the people who were around for the TOS when it firsted aired are fans of the new movie. It's because they understood that it's about the story and characters and the changes in society that the nation was facing and what it would face through out the future, while personifying it to space exploration. Not about warp speed, not space travel and not about forward nacels. Story, characters and struggles. Of course you have a right to your opinion but just keep in mind what ST is all about and let go of what you think it needs to be. Change is good and keep your mind open when it comes to ST. If you still can't handle it than write your own script and make your own version.
By hermy at 8:10 PM ON 10/05/09
he all have to thank Gene Roddenberry for what he crated.and how he tryed to keep the humanity in scfi.but he wasen't perfect.i got tired of all the aliens being to human looking.and even the few robots they had looked human.but to make shows work it takes alot of people working together.and fresh ideas to keep it going.
By ks47 at 10:16 PM ON 10/05/09
V Nice op piece. Thanks, Michael!
By StarFuryG7 at 4:17 AM ON 10/06/09
I also noticed that Straczynski wasn't mentioned in this article, especially considering he was the epitome of the kind of sci fi writer described by the author, but Straczynski's hogging of "Babylon 5" also hurt it as much as it may have helped it. Where originality could have been injected into the show, especially after three or four seasons, viewers instead got much of the same kind of storytelling, themes and writing that Straczynski routinely tended to churn out for the series. Lines became familiar and easily recognizable even when coming out of the mouths of different characters, and just when it looked as though he would finally let other established sci fi writers in to help pen scripts for the show's fifth and final season as he had said he would, he ended up writing all but one episode for that season also, which turned out to be a big mistake as season five was the weakest of the series, striking most people as more filler rather than expanding the horizons of this otherwise fantastic universe that he had created instead.
A shame.
By Just Me at 8:39 AM ON 10/06/09
"The people that hate it are the ones who know the specs of all the ships and only care about the technicalites of ST... I can guarantee anyone that the people who were around for TOS when it first aired are fans of the new movie."
I watched TOS on TV in the 60's and I too have have seen every episode of every Trek series, as well as every movie, and I went to a convention back in the 70's, but I don't know all the Trek spec's and I certainly speak for no one but myself. That said, Abrams Trek is one of my least liked Trek films, falling back on time travel to support a plot full of holes and contrivances, a script muddled by sloppy writing, and changes to Trek "canon" which serve no real purpose other than to put the filmmakers stamp on the franchise.
Yes, Trek is about story and characters, but I didn't see much of that developed in Abrams Trek. It had it's moments, as any Trek film does, but it didn't ring true for me. On the other hand, it's all we've got right now, so I'll be at the theater for the next one. Maybe it will get better.
By a different tim at 9:22 AM ON 10/06/09
@ Just Me
I am glad you came forward and said something. I should have written a little more clearly. I didn't mean everyone who was around for the original airing would like the new trek, just that they new what trek was really about. And as far as Abrams goes I just think it is his best work so far. Not great, but certainly better than what he has done in the past.
It's been pointed out that I ride a high horse before, but it just really irks me when people are to concerned with tradition. True Trek did lose a lot when Roddenberry died and we all saw the changes and most of them were for the negative. However he did make Trek mostly about changed and if this new film changes things than maybe it was time for it. Granted the writing was not the best, but I think it's a step forward and yes hopefully it will get better. Its our jobs as fans to give positive feedback on what we saw, from what I hear studios eat that up, and if we didnt like something than we can say so in a positive way.
By Bll at 11:17 AM ON 10/06/09
What number is Spock thinking of in the above picture?
By Rob at 5:21 PM ON 10/06/09
jbs, take a hike. You keep trashing me everywhere I go. That is very old & tiring. Do YOU have nothing better to do? Don't like my opinion? Piss off.
By Spaceman Spiff at 8:33 PM ON 10/07/09
It really bothers me that there seems to be a trend lately by some people to try and belittle Roddenberries contribution to Trek. I mean come on poeple He created it for crying out loud. He may not have been the only person involved with it but you can not deny that the Trek we all love would not exist without him. So get off his back and give him some credit.
jbs780 wrote
~~I mean GEEZ! Is it never gonna end with these people?!?~~
As long as the three Amigos (Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman) are involved, Probably not.
By Captain ZacaryR Wildstar at 8:12 PM ON 10/14/09
Yeah, it wasn't you guiys who has to come back in time to make sure Roddenberry got it right to secure our future. only to have it skrewed up by abrams. Leave trek aloneW time Travel isn't fun just to fix your mistakes you know.
Visit mobile.syfy.com/wire on your mobile device.
Captain ZacaryR Wildstar:
Yeah, it wasn't you guiys who has to come back in time to make sure Roddenberry got it right to secure our future. ...More »