From: HDW@UCSVAX (H D WALDEN)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars
Subject: Re: STAR WARS vs GALACTICA vs STAR TREK
Date: 11 Nov 92 02:19:08 GMT
Organization: UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS - AMHERST
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <1992Nov10.170725.1@uwovax.uwo.ca> 4224_5201@uwovax.uwo.ca writes:

> In article <1689BB585.JC924@uacsc2.albany.edu>, JC924@uacsc2.albany.edu writes:
> >stuff deleted
> 
> >(HATE MAIL AGAINST THE ONE TRUE DARK LORD OF THE SITH)
> 
> >>>      Every time you buy a Star Drekk Pocket Book from Gene's professional
> >>> hacks, you are taking away valuable time from reading real SF. Save your
> >>> money. Only the books from the 1970's (from Blish and others) are worth your
> >>> time.
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> John P. LaRocque
> >>> J.LaRocque@uwo.ca
> >>>
> > I have never read such pretentious, opinionated crap in my life!  I can't
> > believe that someone can dismiss Star Trek so easily and still consider
> > themselves a science fiction fan.  One of the most important aspects of
> > science fiction as a form of literature is that there is room within it for
> > a wide range of material -- from Jules Vern to Superman, from Star Trek to
> > the original Buck Rogers, from Cyberpunk to Quantum Leap.  For one person to
> > say that only one type of literature or only one type of TV program is REAL
> > science fiction is unbelievable.  Sure, everyone is free to say that they
> > don't like something (I, personally, hate cyberpunk and I also dislike most
> > 40's space operas), but to say that Star Trek is not REAL science fiction
> > is absurd.  I have been reading and watching science fiction for over
> > forty years.  Some of it I like and some of it I don't like, but I would never
> > say that, because I happen not to like something, it isn't REAL science
> > fiction.  I am a big fan of ST:TNG and, at the time, I was a big fan of
> > the old series (although I now enjoy TNG much more).  If you don't like
> > Star Trek, fine; but don't say that those of us who do don't know anything
> > about science fiction.
> 
>      Trekkies make such an EASY target, by their extreme love of that one TV
> show and placing it above all others. As for being an SF fan for 40 years,
> you sure haven't been very discriminating. How can you dismiss 40's space
> opera and cyberpunk? I have a near complete run of Planet stories (1939 -
> 1955 - before YOU became addicted to SF ). This Space opera magazine is
> the mother of all SF magazines. Trashy stories, camp classics, and even really
> good stuff (yes, Philip K Dick sold his first stuff to them). My own favourite
> cover is the Black Priestess of Varda (1947). Check out Startling and Thrilling
> Wonder stories. They had many things which FAR outclasses Astounding SF, that
> repetitive magazine where humanity always wins and the inferior aliens are
> outclassed once again (just like the racist Star Trek: both generations, never
> mind the token aliens on BOTH universes).
> 
>      Sure science fiction covers a lot of ground. There is a difference
> between good stuff and garbage. Star Trek is fun, often amusing, sometimes
> intelligent. But how can you not include Leslie Stevens Buck Rogers, written
> by Star Trek writer D C Fontana (yes really). And how can you even mention
> the original, from Amazing Stories (August 1928, March 1929). This is one of
> the most RACIST SF books ever written, pandering to Yellow Peril fears. The
> comic from 1929 started out pretty much the same way. Flash Gordon (1934) had
> some of the same racist themes, but it is far superior to Buck Rogers. Flash
> Gordon is the greates movie serial of its era (the big budget FATHER of Star
> Wars), the best drawn comic of its era, and it did not have the same 
> intellectual pretentions that haunt Star Trek to this day. 
> 
>      Space Opera is devoid of the truly pretentious crap that infects
> Picard and the New Crew (wait til Deep Space Nine kills Star Trek even more!)
> Sometimes Space Opera works, sometimes not, but it always aims to entertain.
> Something the most boring episodes of Star Trek, still stuck in the 1940's
> racial superiority of the human race, never can do. 
> 
>      And if you want intelligent, check out Theodore Sturgeon, who also wrote
> Star Trek, who went NUTS in the 50's with really daring intelligent SF stories.
> The kind of Stories, Gene "Pretty Maids all in a row" Roddenberry would NEVER
> adapt for Star Trek: any generation. Viewers would be offended in the extreme.
> 
>      By the way, Star Trek the Old Generation is the ONLY generation!



	I WISH TREKKIES WOULD STICK TO THEIR OWN NEWSGROUP!!!!!!!!!!!!!...

				-"There will be no one to stop us this time!"