From: edw@distant.uucp (Ed Watkeys)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.
Date: 21 Jan 93 05:48:12 GMT
Reply-To: edw@distant.uucp
Organization: Distant Software
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v2


In article <serb.350@polisci.umn.edu> (talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic), serb@polisci.umn.edu (Scott Erb) writes:
> In article <C11w7s.H03@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> 
> >In article <serb.349@polisci.umn.edu> serb@polisci.umn.edu (Scott Erb) writes:
> 
> >>I second this.  Star Trek constantly interweaves drama and suspense with 
> >>social, philosophical and even spiritual issues, making it perhaps the most 
> >>intellectually stimulating set of shows on the tube today.
> 
> >   Which is a bit like saying that "Gertrude, here, is the furriest
> >   goldfish in my aquarium".    Granted, Star Trek may be intellectually
> >   stimulating compared to, say, Monday Night Football, or intellectually
> >   stimulating if you have the intellect of a potted plant of a piece
> >   of lawn furniture.    But that's as far as it goes.  
> 
> >   I gave up watching TV altogether a year or so ago precisely because
> >   the very best it could manage was ca-ca like the Simpsons or STNG,
> >   masquerading as quality for "thinking viewers" (almost an oxymoron)
> >   when in reality it's distinctly lowbrow.
> 
> I still disagree.  In the last couple of years ST:NG has dealt with medical 
> ethics, gender issues, parenting, the futility of war, justice (in many 
> different ways), cultural relativism and multiculturalism, the relation of 
> technology to science, and to life, and I could go on and on.  As a social 
> scientist with an interest in physics and science, I can accept some non-
> scientific aspects in order to deal with problems of our society in a 
> differnt context.  The idealism of ST:NG (we can achieve something better) 
> is also a needed addition to our cynical (and as your posting shows 
> sometimes hypercritical :> ) culture.  It's also NOT low brow.  I recognize 
> attempts to deal with different philosophical positions and issues in those 
> episodes.  Granted, this is done subtely and the average viewer may not 
> recognize them all the time, but it does have to appeal to a mass market to 
> stay on the air.  It's an art to do that while saying something, and given 
> the number of educated people who enjoy it, you are probably somewhat 
> presumptuous in your comments.  OK, more than somewhat.
> 
> >>  Granted, the original is 60s TV and can't be judged by 90s standards.
> 
> >   Please restate:  are you saying that 90's standards are better or
> >   worse than 60's standards?
> 
> Much worse.  The role of women, minorities and the ability to deal with 
> social issues was very difficult in the sixties.  In fact, many 
> controversial ideas of Gene Roddenberry (dealing with racism and sexism) for 
> the original show were nixed by studio execs.  I'm sure this still happens 
> with the new shows, but the opportunities have expanded greatly.
> 
> >> And some of the episodes are rather bland (that can be said about every
> >> series).   
> > 
> >   Not to mention every show.
> 
> Only if you don't think about them and just want to sit there and be 
> entertained.  Then it will be bland.
> 
> >   The average Star Trek viewer is a child of the TV generation and
> >   isn't very well-read.   So he doesn't realize that all these
> >   themes are treated with VASTLY greater insight and wit in such
> >   diverse writings as Greek classical literature, the Bible, the
> >   Vedic scripts, Shakespeare, and thousands of great works of 19th
> >   and 20th century literature, including important works of science
> >   fiction!
> 
> Perhaps the average viewer.  But I've read many diverse subjects, and while 
> classical Greek literature and the bible and SHakespeare are good, fiction 
> doesn't stop being good just because it becomes modern.  Shakespeare was 
> criticized in his day for appealing to the masses and lacking intellect as 
> well.  Also, many modern issues aren't dealt with in those classics.  
> Furthermore, TV is also a form of art.  Just like many plays are rather bad 
> and die out, so do many TV shows.  Some live on, and for TV, Star Trek is 
> one because it deals with philosophical issues.  Your above paragraph smacks 
> again of intellectual arrogance and lack of tolerance.  Furthermore, I could 
> give some very critical remarks about especially the Bible and Greek 
> classical literature, but that would be another subject.
> 
> >---peter
> 
> - Scott
> 
If Peter didn't mention the Bible, I would have thought that he was a victim
of Ayn Rand. The Simpsons comment is what got me really wondering. I personally
think that the Simpsons is one of the best shows on television. Things such
as mob behavior and the hypocrisy of most of society's inhabitants are constant
sources of material in the show. The show could easily be called "Young
Friedrich Nietzsche in Late Twentieth Century Suburbia." There is so much depth
and texture to the show you truly get out of it what you put in in terms of the
effort you exert in watching it. Also, it's actually funny, and it doesn't
have a laugh track, which makes it unique in the television industry.

Ed

--
Edwin H. Watkeys III                                   edw@distant.uucp
Distant Software                               dsinc!jabber!distant!edw
+1 215 387 7971                                     edw%distant@bts.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage