What is Star Trek?

Over the years I've heard many people proclaim many iterations of Star Trek to not be Star Trek. It has even gone so far as to proclaim certain individual episodes of particular series as specifically not Star Trek. As an example, some have said "The City on the Edge of Forever" in TOS is a great episode of science fiction but it is not Star Trek. My particular bias is that they are all Star Trek in some way or another, so I'm not equipped to argue what is or is not Star Trek about any particular episode or movie. I watch them for the entertainment value and character exploration. I do have my biases as to which episodes, series, or movies I like or dislike but that is in terms of writing, character development, or acting.

One of the chief complaints I've heard to define Star Trek is that true Star Trek is always optimistic. I would argue this is a false notion. There are plenty of episodes in TOS that are not optimistic. There are episodes which, if you sit back and think about it, present a pretty awful reality. Optimism wasn't always the key feature of TNG either, most definitely not DS9, and not of VOY either. Some of those episodes were bleak, if not for our heroes but for the folks they encountered.

Another argument I've heard to define Star Trek is that it's about exploration. That, too, is a false notion. Not every episode of TOS was about exploration. Some were personal stories about one or more of the characters. Some were about war. Some were merely space westerns. With the TNG era shows, some episodes were just holodeck adventures. Exploration did not define Star Trek.

I've also heard some say Star Trek is supposed to be lighthearted and fun. No. Have those people actually sat through an entire season? Most episodes of TOS were neither lighthearted nor fun. There was some comedy in there but those episodes were few. The same can be said of the TNG era shows. Each season gave us a few fun episodes but most were not played for laughs. Ditto ENT and DSC. Star Trek cannot be defined as lighthearted and fun.

Some have said Star Trek is family fare. No way. TOS pushed as many limits as they possibly could in regards to story and wardrobe. The Standards and Practices department rode their asses about some of the stuff they tried to get away with on the show. They tried hard to not be family fare, but the network kept the reins pulled tight. The TNG-era shows pushed as many boundaries as they could as syndicated shows. Star Trek was not meant to be family fare, they were forced to color within the lines by the S&P bean-pushers.

What it comes down to is that certain iterations of Star Trek are, or are not Star Trek depending on the goalpost that you wish to move in order to define Star Trek. For some people, only the original series is Star Trek. Nothing else qualifies. For some people, TNG is Star Trek but not DS9. For some people, VOY is absolutely not Star Trek. For many people, TOS and the TNG-era shows are fine but ENT isn't Star Trek. For some people, most of the other series are Star Trek but not DSC. It all gets so confusing.

I'm not one to be a gatekeeper. I'm not going to say who is, or is not, a fan of Star Trek. I will say if you don't like certain iterations of the franchise, you should be able to clearly articulate what you don't like and consider that some of the things you voice in that regard could be hiding in plain sight in the iterations of Star Trek that you do like.

Just a Reminder

Until I decide to settle in elsewhere, I'll be using my blog more when G+ shuts down. I will cross-post to Twitter, MeWe, YouMe, and Pluspora, but the original content will be on this blog. I will soon shut down G+ comments on my blog so all comments will live here only. For other ways to contact me, I would recommend texting (ask for my number if you don't already have it), Facebook Messenger (ugh, but I'm there) or Hangouts. I know it's unlikely that even a large fraction of the people who follow me on G+ will continue to follow me elsewhere, but I'll try to leave as many breadcrumbs as possible.

Hollywood Endings

Have you ever noticed how most movie and TV show phone conversations never end in a socially-appropriate manner? Most of us were taught by some authority figure regarding how to answer the phone. I remember it actually being a unit in my elementary school. The teacher brought out dummy phones and we had mock phone conversations, rehearsing how to answer and how to end a phone call. Later in life, business etiquette lessons stressed how to conduct business phone conversations. In any case, just hanging up on someone was considered rude. Both parties were supposed to verbally indicate that the conversation was over, perhaps by rehashing the main points, thanking the other person for their time, or providing a friendly farewell. Most movie and TV show conversations end with none of this. Someone just hangs up. Is this lazy writing or do Hollywood writers think this is how most phone conversations really end? It wouldn't be the first time Hollywood writers habitually got something wrong about phone calls. If you remember from the 90s, you rarely saw Caller ID used in a movie or TV show. At the time, most landline phones in Hollywood were unlisted, so Hollywood writers didn't use Caller ID in their personal lives. Watch almost any movie or TV show from the era and they'll refer to "tracing the call" to discover the phone number in situations where an average Joe would just look at the Caller ID. Do folks in Hollywood just hang up on people to end their phone calls?

Home Turf

The more I think about where I'm going to end up as G+ winds down, the more I'm convinced I'm going to take a step back, way back, from social media. I've been wandering around in the realm of social media since 2006. I have primarily been a content creator. I greatly enjoy writing. I enjoy scouring the web for newsworthy material. I enjoy sharing my opinion on newsworthy material. I enjoy meeting new people and having a good conversation with them. I enjoy being able to be authentic. G+ provided me with all of this, and no other platform I've tested has come close to replacing it. I don't like the idea of rebuilding, and as I see people scatter to different platforms I see rebuilding as being the major project. I've met a lot of wonderful people thanks to G+ over the years but I think it's time to wrap it up.

Since the announcement that G+ was ending, I've looked at Pluspora*, Facebook, MeWe, and Twitter as possible replacements for what I like to do online. All have been found lacking in one way or another. Pluspora* is clunky and I'm not going to sideload a mobile app to be able to use it through an app on my phone. I worry about its longevity since it is privately-supported. Facebook, dear god no. Although my Facebook activity has increased, I just can't use it for what I like to do. MeWe has too much eye-candy for me. I don't want pretty. The neo-Nazi fan base also troubles me. I also get to much contact spam from that platform. I just can't go with Twitter. Although it's an easy platform to which I can post links, it is not a platform I can use for conversations. Threads are too hard to keep together and follow. I'm just not a hashtagger.

That leaves me with my own blog, which you are reading now. Until someone convinces me I should be elsewhere, I'll be here, doing things my own way. If you wish to follow me, I'll post links to this blog everywhere before I shut things down elsewhere. My contact information remains the same. My email address is a matter of public record. My phone number is accessible for most people, with texts being greatly preferred over calls. I can also be reached on Hangouts and Facebook Messenger.

In my migration plan, I will continue to post to G+ but will move more of my posting activity to my blog. When I decide to flip the switch on G+, all of my activity will be on my blog, with links occasionally shared to other platforms. I don't plan to have conversations on other platforms, but anything is possible. As I stated at the beginning, I'm taking a step back. I'm not going away.