Harlan Ellison - Torches, Pitchforks and the Internet

[a_lost_packet_]

I just ran across this interview and I have to say.. It's one of the greatest little bits of passionate crankiness I've read in a long time. If you love a good rant and get giddy when a wordsmith nails criticisms to the church doors with a dramatic flair, you're gonna love this:

A Firebrand at 69: An Interview with Harlan Ellison

The Washington Post has called Harlan Ellison "one of the great living American short-story writers," and the Los Angeles Times dubbed him the "20th century Lewis Carroll." In a career spanning more than half a century, he''s written and/or edited 75 books; 1,700 stories, essays, articles and columns; two dozen teleplays and a dozen motion pictures. Now he wants to write history--in court--with a lawsuit aimed at protecting authors and copyright laws....

...In 2002, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dealt a blow to Ellison when it ruled that AOL wasn''t liable, by way of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act. The law primarily creates a safe harbor for online service providers against copyright liability and litigation for hosting copyrighted files--as long as they take down copyrighted files quickly after being notified. Yet, the fiery Ellison is pressing on with his crusade to hold Internet service provides accountable and is appealing the court ruling. Ellison, a notorious firebrand, has plenty to say on the subject--and he doesn''t care who he pisses off. ...

...
WD: Why don''t writers "get no respect"?

HE: Because half the world is illiterate, or hasn''t read a book since before Reagan introduced mediocrity as a college-level course; and the other half treads water in the gravy of hubris secretly knowing they can write, if only they had the spare time. I keep saying everybody deludes themselves that there are three things in this life they know they can do: they can drive a car more brilliantly than Fangio, and everybody else on the road is inept; they can screw like Don Juan and delight the g-spot every time; and they can write. Better than King, better than Dickens, better than Homer. When in fact these are three of the most difficult things in the world to do, and only a very few people do even one with grandeur, much less all three well. ....

You can't afford to pass up reading this interview. Really. It's a goldmine of indignation wrapped in the guise of one of the most flammable personalities in fiction.


A vid interview on "Pay the Writer" with Harlan Ellison: (Warning - Strong Language) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE (But, it's a darn priceless rant session.)

 

[SJQ]

I don't agree with everything he says, but damn, he says it well! My kinda guy, and I'd kill to have his way with words. Right or wrong, he is definitely worth listening to, if only for the vigor of his invective.

 

[yevaud]

I've previously seen Pay the Writer.

Yep, the once "Enfant Terrible" of the SF world.

 

[JonClarke]

I find Ellison utterly uninteresting and almost unreadable.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

I really think this roundtable is worthy of a separate thread. It sort of cuts to the chase of several discussions in the forum.

The roundtable on Sci-Fi Vortex

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDNrnpefGio[/youtube]

The article written by Harlan Ellison.

Stranger in a Strange Land

"Sci Fi" is a debasement of Science Fiction. - Harlan Ellison (paraphrase)

Note what he's saying here. There's literary science fiction which has substance, meaning, story... Then, there's "Sci Fi" that, as one of those at the above roundtable, means to producers "We can put anything we want in there.. it's Sci Fi." (paraphrase)

Yes, Ellison is getting up on a high horse here. That's not uncommon. But, I think he has a point. There is a break between Science Fiction and Sci Fi. The movie Independence Day is "Sci Fi." Bladerunner is Science Fiction. Starship Troopers is "Sci Fi" while something as seemingly cheesy as Logan's Run is science fiction. (That's one of the things I like about Starship Troopers. It's not pretentious. It acknowledges itself as Sci Fi and cautions viewers to leave any literary merit at the door.)

There's a point where Fantasy and Science Fiction divulge that anyone familiar enough with simple fiction can understand. But, there's an ever increasing number of people that become enamored of "Sci Fi" and believe that it's Science Fiction when it's really just a dumbed-down, bastardized version of the genre.

Sci Fi is Science Fiction without the substance. Sci Fi has five letters giving one the most minimal phonetic capacity to accurately reproduce a series of sounds that could be interpreted as a valid reference to Science Fiction. And, that is all it is..

 

[Andorfiend]

(That's one of the things I like about Starship Troopers. It's not pretentious. It acknowledges itself as Sci Fi and cautions viewers to leave any literary merit at the door.)

I agree with the rest of your post and I thank you for that link, that was interesting to watch. But I have to take issue with your description of Starship Troopers. That movie was an abomination, a blight upon the human spirit and an insult to one of the greats of science fiction. This is because it was deliberate and vicious parody of the original book made with cruel intent by the director, Paul Verhoeven. The original book Starship Troopers by R.A. Heinlein is mostly a political novel exploring concepts of morality as a science, as well as an interesting modification to the American system of democracy. These were deliberately misrepresented in the movie because Paul Verhoeven had his own political axe to grind and didn't have the moral fibre to either accurately portray the works of someone he disagreed with or to decline the job so that someone else might have been able to make a movie which was not a celluloid abortion. It was dishonest on several levels and frankly disgusting. :evil:

1997 ... Wow it's been 13 years since I saw that movie and it still ticks me off. I suppose that is an accomplishment, of a sort.

P.S. If you haven't read the book, go do so now.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

..P.S. If you haven't read the book, go do so now.

Oh, I've read it. It's just that a few minutes into the movie I realized that the movie didn't share much with the book except the Title.

Judging it alone, by itself with no contrast to the book, it's not terrible. In fact, it can be entertaining. There are some very overt attempts to paint certain pictures and I didn't like that. But, I threw all of that out the window because it was very easy to disregard any serious message the movie might have tried to convey because it so absurdly portrayed.

It's a political comedy cloaked in a Sci-Fi action story. If the director had any real intentions of communicating anything other than that, he did poorly.

 

[yevaud]

Yes, Starship Troopers was sheer Sfi Fi camp. A shame it wasn't filmed faithful to the book, but then it would have been a very different movie. Sci Fi it is.

On the other hand, if you've seen the 1994 movie version of Heinlein's Puppet Masters, that is Science Fiction. And it was panned by many reviewers. Guess why? "Lacked action," "not enough special effects," etc. A valid movie in it's own right, but poorly received because it didn't have Vin Diesel blowing up buildings.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

On the other hand, if you've seen the 1994 movie version of Heinlein's Puppet Masters, that is Science Fiction. And it was panned by many reviewers. Guess why? "Lacked action," "not enough special effects," etc. A valid movie in it's own right, but poorly received because it didn't have Vin Diesel blowing up buildings.

Yup. I saw that one in the theatre. An excellent movie despite the fact that it wasn't the Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny. It should have received a lot more attention than it did.

 

[yevaud]

If you get right down to it, there aren't that many hard SF novels that lend themselves to being good movies. Since we've mentioned Heinlein then, I think the best of his novels to make a movie would be The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. It successfully combines plot, science, and lot's of things being blown up.

(Friday comes to mind as well)

 

[a_lost_packet_]

I've always been a big fan of Starman Jones. It has great movie/miniseries potential. The problem is that there's a bit of filler needed in some of the parts for it to truly shine. But, it's a great "coming of age" story with a character with "special abilities" that seems to a great combination to incite people's interest. (Though, sometimes those stories can be terribly executed, Heinlein is, of course, a Master.. He doesn't make those kinds of mistakes.)

 

[JonClarke]

Heinlen's a writer I thought great when I was 15, passable at 30 and downright nasty at 45.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Heinlen's a writer I thought great when I was 15, passable at 30 and downright nasty at 45.

LOL

True, Heinlein did have "Phases" and certain books that were obviously written for certain age groups. Starman Jones is definitely for a young audience. But, it's still a good story.

Some of his more adult books are.. uh, a LOT more "adult" oriented.

 

[yevaud]

I do have to somewhat agree with Jon. Heinlein's stuff was pretty good, until he tried to actually become Valentine Michael Smith via his later novels.

 

[Couerl]

If you get right down to it, there aren't that many hard SF novels that lend themselves to being good movies. (Friday comes to mind as well)

Well there aren't too many movies that lend themselves to being good sci-fi either. :lol:

Friday was kind of a dorky book that spent too much time exploring open marriage and 60's goofy stuff (even though written much later, 80's I think). Asimov's foundation series could blow the pants off star wars but, revenues aren't there for it and not enough toys and cd's and video games... Nope, sadly,.. Hollywood itself is doomed creatively speaking and all we will get from here on out are things that can be easily transported to netflix, x-box and happy meals..

Sad too because if I had the dough and no pressure to recoup it I'd make a gem I think..

 

[CalliArcale]

That was awesome. ;-) I stridently disagree with him (but would be much too scared to say so in front of him) on the Internet ruining writing, but you gotta love his style. Nobody can rant like Ellison.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

That was awesome. ;-) I stridently disagree with him (but would be much too scared to say so in front of him) on the Internet ruining writing, but you gotta love his style. Nobody can rant like Ellison.

You know, I think I'm starting to agree with him more every day. (Yes, another TLDR Alp post inbound...)

There are volumes of crap on the shelves. The Science Fiction/Fantasy section is littered with garbage. On occasion, I've been placed in the unfortunate circumstance of having to read some of it.

For the past year and a half, I have been been making a very serious study into the subject of bad writing. I am dutifully contributing my fair share to my own collection while attempting to learn the differences between good writing and transcribed diarrhea. The differences can be subtle and one can't always detect the ripened odor until one finishes reading the book. It's starting to become an all too common occurrence that a book I pick up seems to show itself as a relief from the tide of worthless gibberish loading the shelves yet, in the end, turns out to be as unwelcome as a wet fart. I am collecting a small stack of such masterpieces of poo to remind me that publishers don't always care about content, literary merit or enjoyable stories written for discriminating readers.

The Internetz facilitates the creation of poo. A computer's main job is to create and display information. The User can choose to create quality information or cat-macros, it's their choice. Not that there's anything wrong with entertaining people with cat-macros.. Ceiling Cat have mercy upon us, they are often much needed social commentary. But, not as often as their creators would hope. If the world is filled with Cat Macros, something else is going to have to stand aside.

The ease of one being able to subject the unwashed masses to an assault of garbage has never been more pronounced than it is today. There's an entire industry, the Vanity Press, that bilks hopeful authors of thousands of dollars to publish whatever it is they feel like writing. Hoards of unscrupulous agents and freelance editors also prey on the desires of those who want to become writers, but aren't suitably motivated to try to put some effort into it and learn how to write. They'll lavish their efforts with praise as long as the would-be author writes them a check. The internet will proudly host whatever you are willing to pay for and many things you'd never have to pay for... or want to. Every where you turn, there are new avenues for information. That's generally a good thing, until you actually decide you want quality. Then, your world is reduced to a five-hour quest to find the best search terms to plug into Google in order to return a list of thousands of results, three of which might actually be worth clicking on.

Not too long ago, I visited a "blog" by a self-proclaimed "writer." (I don't want to get started on blogs.. But, there's a reason why the owner has to pay someone to host it and why they usually find it so difficult to make any money doing it.) This person had published several books and an entire series of.. something. So, eager to learn about his personal experiences, I drilled down his list of published works to see what companies had been paying attention to him. I discovered that every single title was a product of a Vanity Press. In other words, he published his own work... That's not such a bad thing, really. Some subjects just don't get good attention by publishers and there could really be gems that publishers, editors and agents have missed. But, by and large, self-publishing is a lot like.. playing with oneself. It's really not very useful for anyone else and usually ends up being a mess.

This "author" made a comment that I think heralds a new Age of Disaster for quality writing - The emergence of the Digital Press. That would be Kindle and its highly competitive rivals. This particular "author" was able to get his works listed on Kindle and was ecstatic that he had actually made more money with revenue from his Kindle downloads than he could have made with his crates and cargo containers of self-published wiping paper. I read some excerpts from his work and some story synopses. Let's just say that they were overvalued at the fifteen to twenty cents a pop people were paying for them in a digital download. Am I being too critical? Probably. Is it completely undeserved criticism? No.

What Ellison has to say on the matter seems to me to be very credible commentary. While he's talking a bit more to the subject of screenwriting, I think it's just as applicable to Print. There was a time when Science Fiction was starving for new material and interesting stories. There was a time when cranking out a page of text involved much more than banging on a keyboard. Heck, look at what I write on this forum! I can generate pounds of internet ink a second, without pause to switch to a new sheet of paper or bother with ink ribbons. I can multiply my garbage ten fold with a keystroke and expose thousands of people to it a day, if I was so inclined. But, that doesn't mean that one pixel of it is worth any more than a pixel generated by someone else. Today, there's not a great deal of effort that is required just to get a book published. But, to get a book published by anyone besides oneself, takes a great deal of personal effort. To add further insult, the competition present at the publisher's end is not entirely fair.. and it's growing.

I think there's a bit too much noise in publishing fiction today, especially in the trade paperback market. That market hasn't always been the most discerning to begin with, but many of our favorite authors who are noted for the quality of their work are heavily represented within it. Now, we have the Digital Press beginning its rise which competes directly with the convenient and economical trade paperback. With the flack already obscuring literary merit on the shelf, I think the Digital Press is only going to add to the confusion. There are already too many writers out there willing to accept next to nothing for their work in order to be recognized as being apart from the hoard of the unpublished. There are agencies out there that take advantage of that fact to pick the pockets of hopeful writers and get some cheap profits from trumped up novels riding on the crest of the latest fad. Now, there's a new outlet for the angst-ridden writer who never bothered to devote themselves to actually learning the craft - The Undiscerning Digital Press. The Digital Press is literary E-Bay. I think we're all going to suffer for it long before we'll reap any benefits.

I've learned a lot through my years as a reader. Now, I'm starting to learn what it takes to put oneself on the other side of the book. I'm finding out that success is not as frequently determined by merit as one would hope. It seems that writing is plagued by the same advances that have caused the demise of the beloved family-run restaurant - There's too-damned-many fast food eateries and drive-thrus.

 

[yevaud]

ALP, I think what we're seeing nowadays is what I call the "Google God" effect. Average people have been told throughout their brief lives that they're all "special" and must "express themselves." This results in average people with average talents believing they are, well, talented. You see this everywhere today. And what with information - poorly understood by them - freely available, everyone considers themselves "expert" in everything.

Rap music, which is really just bad chanted poetry set to a very basic repetitious beat - yet these people are "artists." Cheesy novels written poorly, yet the writers are lauded to the high heavens. Acting so bad it beggars the imagination that the actors actually were paid for their "art." Cartoons that are barely chicken-scratches, yet they're syndicated across a hundred newspapers. Comedians who insist on using the foulest of language, as they have no talent to actually create polite jokes and thus must continually shock instead.

And so on. It is the talent "law of the lowest common denominator" nowadays.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

ALP, I think what we're seeing nowadays is what I call the "Google God" effect. Average people have been told throughout their brief lives that they're all "special" and must "express themselves." This results in average people with average talents believing they are, well, talented. You see this everywhere today. And what with information - poorly understood by them - freely available, everyone considers themselves "expert" in everything.

You know, I believe that every human being is special. In our own way, we're all unique. It's just that being unique isn't always a positive thing. Jeffrey Dahmer was obviously one of the most unique little snowflakes in the drift.. and, he was certainly noticed. Despite the constant rain of special little snowflakes, a few somehow manage to be honestly worthy of being noticed as extraordinary. But, to be noticed as extraordinary, you truly have to stand out. Anyone can Google and anyone can write, but not everyone can be Albert the Great. (Google Scholars are immediately detectable by being incapable of further discussing whatever high-brow subject on which they just commented... they'll explain the nuances of the speed of light, but not use a lower-case "c" in their explanation, preferring "C" because it looks more important...)

Rap music, which is really just bad chanted poetry set to a very basic repetitious beat - yet these people are "artists." Cheesy novels written poorly, yet the writers are lauded to the high heavens. Acting so bad it beggars the imagination that the actors actually were paid for their "art." Cartoons that are barely chicken-scratches, yet they're syndicated across a hundred newspapers. Comedians who insist on using the foulest of language, as they have no talent to actually create polite jokes and thus must continually shock instead.

I was treated to an interview with a rapper this morning, courtesy of NPR. The rapper was JZ <Just taking a stab at the likely spelling..>. An album of his rap music went quadrillion-platinum or some such and contained a song that had within it a derived version of a song from the Annie musical. JZ related that he had seen a production of the musical on television as a child and it really made an impact on him. So, after a few lies, he managed to get the rights to use it in a song. NPR dutifully played the rap song and.. well, it didn't grate on my bicuspids as bad as most I have heard. That probably due to my expectations gathered from its previous association with something worth listening to, rather than JZ's mastery of the craft. JZ went on to inform the interviewer of the meaning behind his song and his desire to capture some of the grit that he felt the revisited message really needed. He sounded passionate with sincere intentions of communicating something very meaningful to him. As the show progressed, somewhere between his impassioned explanations and the woeful failure of his music, I had an epiphany. I can now say I know exactly what the problem is with Rap music.

The artists have something they want to say, but they're using a medium and a method that is ill-suited for meaningful communication.

Rap is simply not structured to communicate what JZ wanted to communicate, IMO. His passion is wasted on a form of expression that is designed to reduce everything to extremely simple components. Unless he is gifted with a talent-infusion from a beat-box wielding Shakespeare, he will never communicate anything of much substance to anyone and his passion will lie wasted on the cutting room floor.

Just because one has a form of expression does not mean it is appropriate or just as suitable as any other. Anyone can sing. But, not everyone has a voice worthy to be enjoyed or the capability to express themselves with their voice. There are probably a good many weekend Karaoke stars that should remain silent and become writers. And, there are a lot of writers that should probably try their hand at becoming Karaoke stars, because the method they're using and the medium they are working in are obviously not appropriate. Not every artist with a terribly annoying voice is going to be Bob Dylan. Skill is important. But, if you lack skill, then you can sometimes make up for it.. but only by having something that is damn well important enough to say. There are too many people that lack skill and yet possess the mistaken opinion that the story they wish to tell is worthy of being told.

Yet, it's so darn easy to sit down and start typing... as my posts can confirm.

And so on. It is the talent "law of the lowest common denominator" nowadays.

The screaming masses can certainly dilute the message of a few worthy voices. There are a great number of people cranking out prose, music and various bits of "expression" and calling it Art simply because they created it. Well, it might be Art, but just because you created it doesn't mean it's Good Art. Expression for the sake of expression is self-serving and useless. If you can not communicate your message then you have failed as an Artist.

There's a special place that I reserve for particularly bad books. I have a ritual whereby the book is exorcised from my memory, except for the juicy parts that I can't wait to rant about to my friends. Once the ritual is complete, I huck the book across the room so it lands in a small pile of its similarly worthless brethren. That pile is growing alarmingly fast and it's not my fault. These are really bad books... Someone out there is writing them and someone else is publishing them. The events leading to their infestation of Barnes&Nobles would make for a good crime drama or horror story.

Are we suitably enriched with this varied mass of virtually inept prose? Did McDonald's raise the standard of childhood nutrition? We are beset on all sides by a public that is being taught to love mediocrity. They're being force-fed it by the truckload. Hey, I'm a fun loving guy. I love a good, meaningless romp through someone's mind just as much as the next guy. But, for crying out loud, the only reason I even entertain such a thing is because I have some expectation that not every playful romp I engage in must be meaningless!

I'm getting just as screwed over at the book-stand as I am at the drive-thru. Except, instead of fries or cheese on my burger, writers are forgetting to include a well crafted story worth reading in their books.

 

[believer_since_1956]

I do have to somewhat agree with Jon. Heinlein's stuff was pretty good, until he tried to actually become Valentine Michael Smith via his later novels.

I agree approximately starting with Number of the Beast he started going in a direction I found kind of boring. "Time Enough" for love was good but he should have stopped trying to tie up all the loose ends there.

Clarke did the same with 2061 and 3001 while they were interesting they just didn't click like 2001 and 2010 did with me.

The only who was able to actually pull it off was Herbert with "Heretics of Dune" and "Chapter House Dune" which surprised me since books 2,3,4 of the Dune series I would read on sleepless night instead of sleep pills, worked every time. LOL

 

[a_lost_packet_]

You're a stronger man than I am. I couldn't get past God Emperor.. Dune was great. Messiah.. OK. Children of Dune was.. interesting. God Emperor was enough for me to even get out a "lol wut?" before I had to put it down.

 

[believer_since_1956]

You're a stronger man than I am. I couldn't get past God Emperor.. Dune was great. Messiah.. OK. Children of Dune was.. interesting. God Emperor was enough for me to even get out a "lol wut?" before I had to put it down.

I had the same impression as you. When I read "Heretics of Dune" and "Chapter House Dune" I was blown away they were better than the original Dune. I later found out that the middle three were written when his wife was suffering from Cancer which explains a lot to me. It is worth picking up the other two you will be surprise how good they are. Also the books that were written by Kevin J. Anderson and Herbert's son sre not bad first few require a lot of patience to get into but all in all I've read worse. "Hunter's of Dune" and "Sand Worms of Dune" rap up the original five books with an intersting plot twist involving Duncan Idaho.

 

[tom_hobbes]

I'd like to dive in with a few thoughts, if I may and agree with most of the sentiments if not all the specifics.

Packet is of course absolutely correct that Ellison is at the very least an entertaining if incendiary commentator on most subjects. I've loved his stories over the years and more to the point I adored his intelligent, passionate, engaged journalism, often hyperbolic but always vigorously argued. Of particular note for me was The Glass Teat and The Other Glass Teat, his collected television reviews from the sixties. Simply brilliant.

I agree with Calli that the signal to noise ratio in publishing generally and SF specifically has been steadily declining although the process has been accelerating for some decades now. Even amid continual dire predictions of the imminent heat death of the genre, the bookshelves have for some time been packed with books that wear the clothes but only dimly comprehend what SF is all about..

On the subject of Sci Fi versus SF debate, as Damon Knight pointed out, the standard definition of SF always tended to be that it was what you pointed to when you said it, before offering a more precise definition largely care of James Blish. Unfortunately the definition of Sci Fi seems generally anyway to be equally subjective.

My own addition to the debate would be to suggest that the key difference is the seriousness of intent of the author. And I don't think hard science versus fantastic can immediately serve to identify Sci Fi for us. I'm certainly not arguing that SF can not be entertainment, good art is often serious and entertaining. And the question,' is this entertainment?' can can't identify Sci Fi either. (Conversely, serious intent is no guarantee of serious work.)

If the intent is nothing other than bums on seats, with no regard for science or logic, no interest in provoking thought or challenging assumptions, then it's probably Sci Fi.

Then again a film may wear Sci Fi clothing and still be pure science fiction. SF is a broad church.

With this in mind I would argue that Verhoevens Starship Troopers as one of the examples discussed is clearly both Sci Fi and Science Fiction. I never thought very highly of the book compared to other Heinlein, I think I read it too late.

As a film Starship Troopers becomes something different than the book. On the surface it is a violent gung ho romp, underneath it's a serious and satirical examination of strident militarism when married with technology, and in some ways a critique of both the book and Heinlein, as viewed from a European perspective. I mean European in the sense that as Ballard might be said to have exemplified the European approach to SF, for a time, Heinlein might be said top have exemplified the American approach, even though that's a grossly simplified statement and probably wrong.

In Verhoevens hands, the film is at the same time a savage indictment and a reveling, glorifying affirmation of that same martial cultural outlook, depending where you stand. His work utilizes ambiguity at every level including form, and of course it is purely intentional. Troopers can function absolutely happily as Sci Fi and as Science Fiction.

Sticking with Verhoeven, there is a good argument that Total Recall is pure science fiction. On one hand it has absurd science, explosions and action and appears to be a mindless romp. On the other hand, it not only allows but encourages and supports the interpretation that everything we see from the point at which Arnie visits the Total Recall office, is taking place in his mind. As evidence we fleetingly glimpse the heroine of the story as one of the dream avatars on offer upon a screen in the Total recall office. The film then becomes science fiction and can get on with its larger purpose whatever that may be, mining it's science fiction tropes while dressed from head to foot in a garish Sci Fi sensibility. Total Recall is at once pure Sci Fi and pure Science Fiction. Not an easy tightrope and not the typical definition of either genre.

I allow that I could merely be trying to rationalize my fondness for trashy films but I don't think it can be successfully argued that Verhoeven is not serious.

In contrast I consider Star Trek to be pure sci fi and often avoided it for this reason. I did genuinely enjoy this latest instalment which had me gasping at it's sheer audacious cleverness, re-inventing and re-wiring the entire franchise from the inside.

That said, and cleverness aside, does it have the seriousness of intent which might qualify it as science fiction? I would argue that it doesn't, because at heart, it’s not interested in the effects of science and technology on society or what the alien-ness of the other might tell us about ourselves. It rarely goes much deeper than the latex skin and most damningly of all it never thought to include seatbelts on the enterprise. Perhaps there’s an argument to be made that the Next Generation stuff made some attempt to go not just further, but deeper. I couldn't say, not knowing enough about it.

Oh, and one more example to further confuse things, John Carpenters They Live satisfies all of my expectations of serious science fiction, and yet it looks like all the worst excesses and schlok of Sci Fi. It's not always what meets the eye that counts.