What do you think?
Rate this book
Smart Pop
Boarding the Enterprise: Transporters, Tribbles, And the Vulcan Death Grip in Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek
With a new introduction from David Gerrold and afterword from Robert Sawyer for Star Trek: The Original Series' 50th anniversary.
Trekkies and Trekkers alike will get starry-eyed over this eclectic mix of essays on the groundbreaking original Star Trek, one of the most culturally impactful science fiction series of the last 50 years. Star Trek writers D. C. Fontana and David Gerrold, science fiction authors such as Howard Weinstein, and various academics including Paul Levinson share behind-the-scenes anecdotes, discuss the show's enduring appeal and influence, and examine some of the classic features of the show, including Spock's irrationality, Scotty's pessimism, and the lack of seatbelts on the Enterprise. The impact of the cultural phenomenon on subsequent science-fiction television programs is explored, as well as how the show laid the foundation for the science fiction genre to break into the television medium.
Trekkies and Trekkers alike will get starry-eyed over this eclectic mix of essays on the groundbreaking original Star Trek, one of the most culturally impactful science fiction series of the last 50 years. Star Trek writers D. C. Fontana and David Gerrold, science fiction authors such as Howard Weinstein, and various academics including Paul Levinson share behind-the-scenes anecdotes, discuss the show's enduring appeal and influence, and examine some of the classic features of the show, including Spock's irrationality, Scotty's pessimism, and the lack of seatbelts on the Enterprise. The impact of the cultural phenomenon on subsequent science-fiction television programs is explored, as well as how the show laid the foundation for the science fiction genre to break into the television medium.
222 pages, Kindle Edition
First published July 11, 2006
26 people are currently reading
505 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
August 9, 2016
I’ve always been a Star Trek fan, a Trekkie. The original series that is, I was never seduced by the later add-ons. So having already listened to an audio version of Captain James T. Kirk’s autobiography, Up Till Now, I just knew I was going to enjoy this book. It promised an in-depth exploration of the original series by way of essays written by a group of gifted writers, many of whom had been involved in the production of the programmes themselves.
A few basic facts:
- There were only three series which comprised 79 episodes
- This base has so far spawned 5 spin-off series and 10 (maybe 11 now) films
- There have also been numerous novels written, comic books devised, computer games built and even fan fictions and parodies put together and shared via social media
I liked the episodic nature of this book. It seemed to mirror the series itself, with each section comprising a view based on a particular aspect or impact of the original programmes. There was some replication of facts, but I forgive it that. I believe its major success is in the way it delivers a 360 degree view of what it was like to be involved in bringing the concept alive, how it impacted those (like me) who became enraptured by the adventures of Spock, Kirk and co and in delving under the skin to provide insights into the deeper messages (e.g. of politics, race and religion) that had, to this point, passed me by. I think it’s a great overall package for anyone interested in Star Trek specifically or, in fact, in SF at any level.
My thanks to BenBella Books and NetGalley for providing a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
A few basic facts:
- There were only three series which comprised 79 episodes
- This base has so far spawned 5 spin-off series and 10 (maybe 11 now) films
- There have also been numerous novels written, comic books devised, computer games built and even fan fictions and parodies put together and shared via social media
I liked the episodic nature of this book. It seemed to mirror the series itself, with each section comprising a view based on a particular aspect or impact of the original programmes. There was some replication of facts, but I forgive it that. I believe its major success is in the way it delivers a 360 degree view of what it was like to be involved in bringing the concept alive, how it impacted those (like me) who became enraptured by the adventures of Spock, Kirk and co and in delving under the skin to provide insights into the deeper messages (e.g. of politics, race and religion) that had, to this point, passed me by. I think it’s a great overall package for anyone interested in Star Trek specifically or, in fact, in SF at any level.
My thanks to BenBella Books and NetGalley for providing a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
October 21, 2020
September 8, 2016 is the fiftieth anniversary of the first airing of Star Trek. It's also close enough to the thirtieth anniversary of the indeterminate date I first saw Trek.
Hold on a moment, would you – I need to hyperventilate a bit.
I had a little thing about my history with Star Trek all typed up and ready to open this review – but, luckily for you, I did not enjoy this book. I'll save my biographical notes (hold your applause), and cut to the chase.
As a once and again Trekkie, when I saw "Boarding the Enterprise" on Netgalley I didn't think about it, just clicked "request". Mindful of the rapidly approaching anniversary, I dove into it, and was pleased … until I wasn't. For one thing, don't get the idea that this is a book celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of Trek. No – it's a book that was apparently originally released around the fortieth anniversary of Trek, apparently dug up and reissued by its publisher to capitalize on a bigger celebration. That is sufficient reason for me to knock a star off its rating. For one thing, the text is dated: "From The Sopranos to HBO’s Rome, from MTV to CNN and Fox News, to the Discovery and the Sci-Fi Channels, all that we see on cable today is the result of Star Trek’s amazing voyages beyond the networks." Ah, the good old days when The Sopranos and Rome were on, and it was still the Sci-Fi Channel… For another thing – really? You can't come up with new material to commemorate something as big as this date? I mean - half a century!
Another reason not to be very fond of this book is – well, the full title is: "Boarding the Enterprise: Transporters, Tribbles, And the Vulcan Death Grip in Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek". Having finished, I marked it thus on Goodreads, and thought "Vulcan Death Grip? Did I skim that part?" Because I did skim parts. So I did a search of the book. Nope, it doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere. Odd.
It did start well. The introduction by Robert J. Sawyer and the Foreword ("Still Trekkin’ After All These Years") by David Gerrold hit all the right notes, and set it up to be the celebration I was looking for. Another odd thing – apparently Gerrold's foreword was written, or revised, for the re-release, because it begins "It's fifty years later." Any other mention of the time frame specifically says forty. (If I ever knew that an early title for the Tribbles episode was "A Fuzzy Thing Happened . . ." I'd forgotten – I think it's better.)
"Star Trek in the Real World" by Norman Spinrad was fine. I enjoyed the recap of how and why the prototype space shuttle was named Enterprise. I didn't so much enjoy the revelation of the flim-flammery that went into the letter-writing campaign to save Trek. I made a note of one line about the show's cancellation: "this 'failure' was still watched by twenty million people a week for three years." I did some checking; the Season 5 debut of The Walking Dead "crushed" cable records with 17.3 million viewers; the season 6 finale came in at 19.36 million. It's a completely different TV universe, of course – but it's something to think about. At any given time I can find several people with whom I can talk about each episode (without going online, I mean – online I can find millions). I can only imagine what it was like to be watching first-run Trek.
Roddenberry consulted experts and the Enterprise was designed and even blue-printed down to the smallest niggling detail, to the point where NASA even took a look at his plans to pick up some tips on spaceship ergonomics.
I enjoyed "I Remember Star Trek. . ." by D. C. Fontana, happily, though I was momentarily distracted by the idea of Shatner's reaction to "Bill Shatner, whose hair was thinning, had to resort to a toupee on every show." It was a nice collection of behind-the-scenes stuff that I had either forgotten about or never saw before.
One network executive, frustrated by our insistence on honesty in the science and truth in the stories we were telling, finally blurted out in a meeting, "You people think that ship is really up there!" Bob Justman had the last word on that occasion. He said, "It is."
After that it became less "Yay Star Trek!" and more "I'm so clever/funny/clever and funny, let me tell you all about it in a Trek context." Some of the articles – such as the ones about religion and personal identity – annoyed in part because I'm frankly weary of complaints about how the point of view of the show changed from one season or episode to the next… It was an anthology show. It had many different writers. Consistency would be nice, but they weren't looking to make something people would be writing footnoted scholarly articles about fifty years hence.
"All Our Tomorrows: The Shared Universe of Star Trek" by Allen Steele – makes exactly that point, discussing the novelty of a series which told standalone stories each week, bound together by the same characters and the same sets. Interesting read; not entirely up to the level I was looking for, but interesting. (But you know I'm looking for nits to pick: I highlighted this - "also revealed that Spock had a first name but that it was unpronounceable; I suspect that it was 'Arnold,' but that he was just too embarrassed to admit it." Cute. But we don't know that it's Spock's FIRST name we're missing. The line from the episode is: "You never told me if you had another name, Mr. Spock." For all we know, Spock is his first name; it's a family name we might be missing. Considering his mother calls him Spock, I think that's reasonable.)
"The Prime Question" by Eric Greene re-treads the well-worn path about how Kirk loved to flout the Prime Directive. How original. There's more, about how Trek handled political commentary and the race issues of the day… Again, been there and done that. I did find it interesting to read "It was largely through Spock, for instance, that Star Trek dealt with questions of racial identity and assimilation, and growing up as a multiracial kid, I especially identified with him because he was the only mixed-race character I knew of in pop culture." That persepective never occurred to me. Spock was pretty amazing.
"We Find the One Quite Adequate: Religious Attitudes in Star Trek" by Michael A. Burstein – Another article which tries to find one unified religious outlook in a series that was written by several people. On the whole, pointless. Also, the essay includes complaints about that one wedding and that one memorial service being conducted by, respectively, Kirk and Spock rather than a ship's chaplain. Well, if they had a chaplain aboard for every religion represented aboard the Enterprise, they would, to paraphrase Chief Brody, need a bigger boat. The Trek podcast I've been listening to talks about the not-infrequent need to retcon (create retroactive continuity); on this question I can retcon to my heart's content. Are there five Catholics aboard? Each holy day they can convene in the chapel, or a briefing room, or someone's quarters, and basically 23rd-century-Skype with a priest back home for Mass. Lather, rinse, repeat for different denominations and beliefs. There. Done.
"Who Am I? Personal Identity in the Original Star Trek" by Lyle Zynda – see prior, re: several authors. I understand the impulse to explore a concept throughout the series – I'm just not interested in the grafting on of deep philosophical and political subtexts that the writers probably never intended.
"What Have You Done with Spock’s Brain?!?" by Don DeBrandt talks about how stupid it is for Vulcans to try to be emotionless, with attempts at humor. See below, re: "trying to be funny". Mr. DeBrandt, if you're so clever, why don't you go create a completely unique, consistent, and interesting alien race? Oh, sorry – you're too busy writing CSI novels. No – CSI Miami novels. Never mind. It irritates me deeply when someone takes a moment from the series, excises it from context, and runs with it, solely to make their point. To wit: "So how did Kirk react to seeing his best friend finally happy and in love? 'All right, you mutinous, computerized, disloyal half-breed— we’ll see about you deserting my ship!'" Uh, no. That's how Kirk reacted to seeing his friend under the control of spores which rendered him incapable of making independent decisions or of accomplishing more than looking for shapes in clouds.
"Lost Secrets of Pre-War Human Technology: Seat Belts, Circuit Breakers and Memory Allocation" by Lawrence Watt-Evans – Something I find far too often to be true in "humorous" books is that there's a ... difference between "trying to be funny" and "being funny". There's a vast gulf there. This article was slightly amusing, but pushed the joke too far. For one thing, the writer might be clever enough in 2016 (or 2006) to know that computers since the fifties were capable of memory allocation which would have prevented half the computer explosions Kirk caused over the years – but seriously, in 1966, when the vast majority of the population had never touched a computer and manuals were probably abstruse and hard to obtain, could all the writers of Trek reasonably have been expected to know about something like memory allocation? As to seat belts – sure, given the amount of knocking about the crew took, seat belts might have been a good idea. But, looked at from a production point of view, a) they would have cost more, and b) would viewers really want to watch every week as crewmembers buckled themselves in, and then had to pause to unfasten themselves before they went rushing off to emergencies?
"Exaggerate with Extreme Prejudice" by Robert A. Metzger actually achieved humor, if somewhat heavy-handed humor. It's a possible explanation for how exactly Scotty achieved his miracles, based on the author's reality, and it's pretty clever. As with so many other articles in this book, I hesitate about the use of 21st century knowledge when discussing 23rd century technology – that's two full centuries in which untold discoveries can be made which will render everything in this article irrelevant. But it's pretty clever.
"To Boldly Teach What No One Has Taught Before" by David DeGraff brought back the spirit I had hoped for in the book, discussing how DeGraff, as a teacher, uses Star Trek and science fiction in general to put his lessons across for his students. Very nice. If the whole book had been examples of "I'm [fill in occupation here] because of Star Trek, and here's my story", I'd read the heck out of it.
"Who Killed the Space Race?" by Adam Roberts – Spoiler alert: according to this guy, Star Trek killed the space race. He has some points, but I think it's a shallow analysis, and – yet again – inappropriate to the theme of the book, at least as I thought it was going to be.
"Alexander for the Modern Age: How Star Trek’s Female Fans Reinvented Romance and Heroic Myth in Their Own Image" by Melissa Dickinson – Really? You want to celebrate a milestone anniversary of this show by telling me about slash fiction? I'm appalled. Not as appalled as I was when I first learned of what were called the "K/S ladies", but pretty damned appalled. For me, it's an extreme violation of what the characters are about, positing that in order to feel strong emotions about each other they must be more than friends. That's puerile, shallow, and moronic, and the only way you're going to rouse more anger is if you bring Frodo and Sam into the discussion. Don't.
"How Star Trek Liberated Television" by Paul Levinson – ok; interesting: Star Trek changed things by being a success in syndication. Problem is, this was already discussed earlier.
"Being Better" by Howard Weinstein talks about the Message of Star Trek, and how it faded in later series, which may well be part of why they were less successful. "The original Star Trek often reiterated simple verities about human aspirations. So did the original-series movies, and (in more subtle undertones) The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine. But I think Voyager and Enterprise muted the message; Star Trek’s audience no longer heard the call that first brought them into the tent, and drifted away." Feels right to me. (ETA: Not anymore it doesn't: Enterprise feels more "TOS Trek" than any of the others, in a lot of ways. And Voyager's good.)
I learned a few things, or re-learned them – that Lee Cronin was actually Gene L. Coon (a near-anagram), and Walter Koenig (of all people) didn't participate in the animated series (wonder why). I learned that after the second TOS season science fiction writers were not sought to write for any of the shows – far from it. I learned (or re-learned) that "the word 'quasar' comes from 'QuasiStellar Radio Source'". And there was an happy moment of connection on reading about the "marmalade rocks and tangerine skies" of Mars.
There were moments of what I wanted in this book, but they were badly diluted. Honestly, this is a time to celebrate the series that has meant so much to so many for five decades. I wanted more of this:
"We may not be quite sure how to get there from here, but as Edith Keeler said in Harlan Ellison’s episode 'The City on the Edge of Forever' (1–28), Star Trek taught us that the days and the years ahead are worth living for. More than anything else, the series was about hope." … "Long before Star Trek, poet Emily Dickinson wrote: 'Hope is the thing with feathers that perches in the soul.' For us, hope was the thing with warp-drive nacelles and we wanted to beam aboard for the ride."
That's what it's all about, Charlie Brown.
I knocked off a star for trying to pass a retread over on the fandom; another star came off for the near-misery of some of the essays. Another half-star off for the slash article and a complete lack of Vulcan death grips – 2.5 stars, where allowed. In the spirit of the half-century, and for that last line about hope, three where there are no half stars.
The usual disclaimer: I received this book via Netgalley for review.
Hold on a moment, would you – I need to hyperventilate a bit.
I had a little thing about my history with Star Trek all typed up and ready to open this review – but, luckily for you, I did not enjoy this book. I'll save my biographical notes (hold your applause), and cut to the chase.
As a once and again Trekkie, when I saw "Boarding the Enterprise" on Netgalley I didn't think about it, just clicked "request". Mindful of the rapidly approaching anniversary, I dove into it, and was pleased … until I wasn't. For one thing, don't get the idea that this is a book celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of Trek. No – it's a book that was apparently originally released around the fortieth anniversary of Trek, apparently dug up and reissued by its publisher to capitalize on a bigger celebration. That is sufficient reason for me to knock a star off its rating. For one thing, the text is dated: "From The Sopranos to HBO’s Rome, from MTV to CNN and Fox News, to the Discovery and the Sci-Fi Channels, all that we see on cable today is the result of Star Trek’s amazing voyages beyond the networks." Ah, the good old days when The Sopranos and Rome were on, and it was still the Sci-Fi Channel… For another thing – really? You can't come up with new material to commemorate something as big as this date? I mean - half a century!
Another reason not to be very fond of this book is – well, the full title is: "Boarding the Enterprise: Transporters, Tribbles, And the Vulcan Death Grip in Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek". Having finished, I marked it thus on Goodreads, and thought "Vulcan Death Grip? Did I skim that part?" Because I did skim parts. So I did a search of the book. Nope, it doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere. Odd.
It did start well. The introduction by Robert J. Sawyer and the Foreword ("Still Trekkin’ After All These Years") by David Gerrold hit all the right notes, and set it up to be the celebration I was looking for. Another odd thing – apparently Gerrold's foreword was written, or revised, for the re-release, because it begins "It's fifty years later." Any other mention of the time frame specifically says forty. (If I ever knew that an early title for the Tribbles episode was "A Fuzzy Thing Happened . . ." I'd forgotten – I think it's better.)
"Star Trek in the Real World" by Norman Spinrad was fine. I enjoyed the recap of how and why the prototype space shuttle was named Enterprise. I didn't so much enjoy the revelation of the flim-flammery that went into the letter-writing campaign to save Trek. I made a note of one line about the show's cancellation: "this 'failure' was still watched by twenty million people a week for three years." I did some checking; the Season 5 debut of The Walking Dead "crushed" cable records with 17.3 million viewers; the season 6 finale came in at 19.36 million. It's a completely different TV universe, of course – but it's something to think about. At any given time I can find several people with whom I can talk about each episode (without going online, I mean – online I can find millions). I can only imagine what it was like to be watching first-run Trek.
Roddenberry consulted experts and the Enterprise was designed and even blue-printed down to the smallest niggling detail, to the point where NASA even took a look at his plans to pick up some tips on spaceship ergonomics.
I enjoyed "I Remember Star Trek. . ." by D. C. Fontana, happily, though I was momentarily distracted by the idea of Shatner's reaction to "Bill Shatner, whose hair was thinning, had to resort to a toupee on every show." It was a nice collection of behind-the-scenes stuff that I had either forgotten about or never saw before.
One network executive, frustrated by our insistence on honesty in the science and truth in the stories we were telling, finally blurted out in a meeting, "You people think that ship is really up there!" Bob Justman had the last word on that occasion. He said, "It is."
After that it became less "Yay Star Trek!" and more "I'm so clever/funny/clever and funny, let me tell you all about it in a Trek context." Some of the articles – such as the ones about religion and personal identity – annoyed in part because I'm frankly weary of complaints about how the point of view of the show changed from one season or episode to the next… It was an anthology show. It had many different writers. Consistency would be nice, but they weren't looking to make something people would be writing footnoted scholarly articles about fifty years hence.
"All Our Tomorrows: The Shared Universe of Star Trek" by Allen Steele – makes exactly that point, discussing the novelty of a series which told standalone stories each week, bound together by the same characters and the same sets. Interesting read; not entirely up to the level I was looking for, but interesting. (But you know I'm looking for nits to pick: I highlighted this - "also revealed that Spock had a first name but that it was unpronounceable; I suspect that it was 'Arnold,' but that he was just too embarrassed to admit it." Cute. But we don't know that it's Spock's FIRST name we're missing. The line from the episode is: "You never told me if you had another name, Mr. Spock." For all we know, Spock is his first name; it's a family name we might be missing. Considering his mother calls him Spock, I think that's reasonable.)
"The Prime Question" by Eric Greene re-treads the well-worn path about how Kirk loved to flout the Prime Directive. How original. There's more, about how Trek handled political commentary and the race issues of the day… Again, been there and done that. I did find it interesting to read "It was largely through Spock, for instance, that Star Trek dealt with questions of racial identity and assimilation, and growing up as a multiracial kid, I especially identified with him because he was the only mixed-race character I knew of in pop culture." That persepective never occurred to me. Spock was pretty amazing.
"We Find the One Quite Adequate: Religious Attitudes in Star Trek" by Michael A. Burstein – Another article which tries to find one unified religious outlook in a series that was written by several people. On the whole, pointless. Also, the essay includes complaints about that one wedding and that one memorial service being conducted by, respectively, Kirk and Spock rather than a ship's chaplain. Well, if they had a chaplain aboard for every religion represented aboard the Enterprise, they would, to paraphrase Chief Brody, need a bigger boat. The Trek podcast I've been listening to talks about the not-infrequent need to retcon (create retroactive continuity); on this question I can retcon to my heart's content. Are there five Catholics aboard? Each holy day they can convene in the chapel, or a briefing room, or someone's quarters, and basically 23rd-century-Skype with a priest back home for Mass. Lather, rinse, repeat for different denominations and beliefs. There. Done.
"Who Am I? Personal Identity in the Original Star Trek" by Lyle Zynda – see prior, re: several authors. I understand the impulse to explore a concept throughout the series – I'm just not interested in the grafting on of deep philosophical and political subtexts that the writers probably never intended.
"What Have You Done with Spock’s Brain?!?" by Don DeBrandt talks about how stupid it is for Vulcans to try to be emotionless, with attempts at humor. See below, re: "trying to be funny". Mr. DeBrandt, if you're so clever, why don't you go create a completely unique, consistent, and interesting alien race? Oh, sorry – you're too busy writing CSI novels. No – CSI Miami novels. Never mind. It irritates me deeply when someone takes a moment from the series, excises it from context, and runs with it, solely to make their point. To wit: "So how did Kirk react to seeing his best friend finally happy and in love? 'All right, you mutinous, computerized, disloyal half-breed— we’ll see about you deserting my ship!'" Uh, no. That's how Kirk reacted to seeing his friend under the control of spores which rendered him incapable of making independent decisions or of accomplishing more than looking for shapes in clouds.
"Lost Secrets of Pre-War Human Technology: Seat Belts, Circuit Breakers and Memory Allocation" by Lawrence Watt-Evans – Something I find far too often to be true in "humorous" books is that there's a ... difference between "trying to be funny" and "being funny". There's a vast gulf there. This article was slightly amusing, but pushed the joke too far. For one thing, the writer might be clever enough in 2016 (or 2006) to know that computers since the fifties were capable of memory allocation which would have prevented half the computer explosions Kirk caused over the years – but seriously, in 1966, when the vast majority of the population had never touched a computer and manuals were probably abstruse and hard to obtain, could all the writers of Trek reasonably have been expected to know about something like memory allocation? As to seat belts – sure, given the amount of knocking about the crew took, seat belts might have been a good idea. But, looked at from a production point of view, a) they would have cost more, and b) would viewers really want to watch every week as crewmembers buckled themselves in, and then had to pause to unfasten themselves before they went rushing off to emergencies?
"Exaggerate with Extreme Prejudice" by Robert A. Metzger actually achieved humor, if somewhat heavy-handed humor. It's a possible explanation for how exactly Scotty achieved his miracles, based on the author's reality, and it's pretty clever. As with so many other articles in this book, I hesitate about the use of 21st century knowledge when discussing 23rd century technology – that's two full centuries in which untold discoveries can be made which will render everything in this article irrelevant. But it's pretty clever.
"To Boldly Teach What No One Has Taught Before" by David DeGraff brought back the spirit I had hoped for in the book, discussing how DeGraff, as a teacher, uses Star Trek and science fiction in general to put his lessons across for his students. Very nice. If the whole book had been examples of "I'm [fill in occupation here] because of Star Trek, and here's my story", I'd read the heck out of it.
"Who Killed the Space Race?" by Adam Roberts – Spoiler alert: according to this guy, Star Trek killed the space race. He has some points, but I think it's a shallow analysis, and – yet again – inappropriate to the theme of the book, at least as I thought it was going to be.
"Alexander for the Modern Age: How Star Trek’s Female Fans Reinvented Romance and Heroic Myth in Their Own Image" by Melissa Dickinson – Really? You want to celebrate a milestone anniversary of this show by telling me about slash fiction? I'm appalled. Not as appalled as I was when I first learned of what were called the "K/S ladies", but pretty damned appalled. For me, it's an extreme violation of what the characters are about, positing that in order to feel strong emotions about each other they must be more than friends. That's puerile, shallow, and moronic, and the only way you're going to rouse more anger is if you bring Frodo and Sam into the discussion. Don't.
"How Star Trek Liberated Television" by Paul Levinson – ok; interesting: Star Trek changed things by being a success in syndication. Problem is, this was already discussed earlier.
"Being Better" by Howard Weinstein talks about the Message of Star Trek, and how it faded in later series, which may well be part of why they were less successful. "The original Star Trek often reiterated simple verities about human aspirations. So did the original-series movies, and (in more subtle undertones) The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine. But I think Voyager and Enterprise muted the message; Star Trek’s audience no longer heard the call that first brought them into the tent, and drifted away." Feels right to me. (ETA: Not anymore it doesn't: Enterprise feels more "TOS Trek" than any of the others, in a lot of ways. And Voyager's good.)
I learned a few things, or re-learned them – that Lee Cronin was actually Gene L. Coon (a near-anagram), and Walter Koenig (of all people) didn't participate in the animated series (wonder why). I learned that after the second TOS season science fiction writers were not sought to write for any of the shows – far from it. I learned (or re-learned) that "the word 'quasar' comes from 'QuasiStellar Radio Source'". And there was an happy moment of connection on reading about the "marmalade rocks and tangerine skies" of Mars.
There were moments of what I wanted in this book, but they were badly diluted. Honestly, this is a time to celebrate the series that has meant so much to so many for five decades. I wanted more of this:
"We may not be quite sure how to get there from here, but as Edith Keeler said in Harlan Ellison’s episode 'The City on the Edge of Forever' (1–28), Star Trek taught us that the days and the years ahead are worth living for. More than anything else, the series was about hope." … "Long before Star Trek, poet Emily Dickinson wrote: 'Hope is the thing with feathers that perches in the soul.' For us, hope was the thing with warp-drive nacelles and we wanted to beam aboard for the ride."
That's what it's all about, Charlie Brown.
I knocked off a star for trying to pass a retread over on the fandom; another star came off for the near-misery of some of the essays. Another half-star off for the slash article and a complete lack of Vulcan death grips – 2.5 stars, where allowed. In the spirit of the half-century, and for that last line about hope, three where there are no half stars.
The usual disclaimer: I received this book via Netgalley for review.
October 7, 2025
'Star Trek' changed the world.
In this collection of essays, let some of the world's greatest science fiction writers and scientific experts explain how.
In this collection of essays, let some of the world's greatest science fiction writers and scientific experts explain how.
August 4, 2016
Since this year marks the 50th anniversary of Star Trek, there have been and will be plenty of attempts to define its legacy. I've already read Time's sober thoughts in a collectible magazine format (you'll see several such releases in stores), but I think Boarding the Enterprise, first published a decade ago and presented again with a couple new introductory thoughts from its editors, does a better job at observing the full scope of its cultural impact, even if the results could be better.
The more ponderous essays somewhat unquestioningly repeat the familiar sentiments about Star Trek's moral legacy while failing to analyze how this unique phenomenon embraced and reflected the emerging culture wars that are still with us today. One contributor, Eric Greene, in the longest piece of the collection, expounds on various episodes that reflected the Vietnam War. It's not uncommon, and in fact remains hugely common, to merely repeat what people have been saying about the Vietnam War since it was still unfolding, and so on that score Greene shouldn't feel too embarrassed to be making the same comments now.
Where Boarding truly shines are in the essays that let the air out of the bag, as when Don DeBrandt talks about how illogical Spock is, or Lawrence Watt-Evans providing an analysis of the strange lack of safety measures, and especially Robert A. Metzger's hilarious (and frightening!) explanation of the engineering principals of Montgomery Scott.
Others help define what Star Trek was and is and the impact it had on them, on the culture, where science fiction was before and after it, but really, it's in those essays where the truly timeless qualities of Gene Roddenberry's enduring creation get to breathe a little. This is coming from someone who's been a fan for most of his life, and can tell you exactly how nutty people can be about Star Trek, without a trace of the irony present in those three essays.
Star Trek is a big important thing...Well, mostly. A lot of what people say about it, as with anything people make a big deal out of, is clearly exaggerated. The most important stuff tends to be ignored in the race to ensure everyone knows why Star Trek was always better than the nasty NBC executives who so cruelly cancelled it could possibly imagine. Reading this book, you can get a pretty good sense of what it's all about, whatever that ultimately means.
The more ponderous essays somewhat unquestioningly repeat the familiar sentiments about Star Trek's moral legacy while failing to analyze how this unique phenomenon embraced and reflected the emerging culture wars that are still with us today. One contributor, Eric Greene, in the longest piece of the collection, expounds on various episodes that reflected the Vietnam War. It's not uncommon, and in fact remains hugely common, to merely repeat what people have been saying about the Vietnam War since it was still unfolding, and so on that score Greene shouldn't feel too embarrassed to be making the same comments now.
Where Boarding truly shines are in the essays that let the air out of the bag, as when Don DeBrandt talks about how illogical Spock is, or Lawrence Watt-Evans providing an analysis of the strange lack of safety measures, and especially Robert A. Metzger's hilarious (and frightening!) explanation of the engineering principals of Montgomery Scott.
Others help define what Star Trek was and is and the impact it had on them, on the culture, where science fiction was before and after it, but really, it's in those essays where the truly timeless qualities of Gene Roddenberry's enduring creation get to breathe a little. This is coming from someone who's been a fan for most of his life, and can tell you exactly how nutty people can be about Star Trek, without a trace of the irony present in those three essays.
Star Trek is a big important thing...Well, mostly. A lot of what people say about it, as with anything people make a big deal out of, is clearly exaggerated. The most important stuff tends to be ignored in the race to ensure everyone knows why Star Trek was always better than the nasty NBC executives who so cruelly cancelled it could possibly imagine. Reading this book, you can get a pretty good sense of what it's all about, whatever that ultimately means.
March 17, 2021
Seems to be propaganda to get fans to ask for furtherance of the franchise.
The constant referral to episodes by title only bewilders me, as I've not seen them enough times to know them that way. So, you'd think it would be aimed at fans who do know the series that well. But at the same time it seems to me that those fans would know all the other stuff that's being shared. For example, yes, we all know that Theodore Sturgeon and Harlan Ellison wrote for the show.
Otoh, I did not realize that SF writers didn't write for Next Gen, which explains its different appeal, and the fact that so much of it is mocked by so many fans.
I'm reading because 1. my local library owns a copy and so why not, and 2. I'm in the process of setting myself up to cover as much as possible of the ToS novelizations and novels and possible. Maybe even at some point watching the episodes and early movies again. And so I'm hoping this book will be a bit of a supplementary study guide, so to speak. So far it doesn't seem likely.
David Gerrold says something interesting (of course he does). "Star Trek has its literary antecedents in science fiction. Science fiction is the bastard child of philosophy and religion; it is a literature of speculation. It is a literature of inquiry."
Gerrold adds that usually the ultimate question is supposed to be "What does it mean to be a human being?" But that's the wrong question. The right question is not what, but *why* are we searching. Gerrold suggests that we're searching because that's what we are... that is what we do, and tautologically but [T]ruthfully, curiosity and a nature that encourages us to search is simply What it means to be human.
Gerrold also reminds us of one more thing. SF is "a literature of possibility." And that's what I think I liked most about Star Trek when I was young, and why I want to revisit it now as I age.
Eric Greene's thorough analysis of the political commentaries (Cold War, Vietnam, empire...) of so many of the original episodes would be a lot more interesting if I were more familiar with the episodes he highlights. Atm, I'm convinced his argument is sound in his essay "The Prime Question." But he does notice that James Kirk and John Kennedy share initials....
Lawrence Watt-Evans has a fun 'theory' about why the Enterprise doesn't have seatbelts & other safety measures... he also likens the Federation to a street gang....
Robert A. Metzger looks at the show from an engineer's pov, and reveals the truth behind the transporters' pattern buffer, as well as Scotty's bluster.
And now I have a better understanding of why I like works by Robert J. Sawyer: he's a fan, too. I'll have to make more of an effort to read all of his stuff, including Starplex (re' the anomalous green star), thanks to physics prof. David DeGraff.
Some of the rest of the essays were mildly interesting, but didn't have quotable bits.
I am sure there are better ways for you to spend your time than with this book, but I don't particularly not recommend it if it's already on your to-read list, either.
The constant referral to episodes by title only bewilders me, as I've not seen them enough times to know them that way. So, you'd think it would be aimed at fans who do know the series that well. But at the same time it seems to me that those fans would know all the other stuff that's being shared. For example, yes, we all know that Theodore Sturgeon and Harlan Ellison wrote for the show.
Otoh, I did not realize that SF writers didn't write for Next Gen, which explains its different appeal, and the fact that so much of it is mocked by so many fans.
I'm reading because 1. my local library owns a copy and so why not, and 2. I'm in the process of setting myself up to cover as much as possible of the ToS novelizations and novels and possible. Maybe even at some point watching the episodes and early movies again. And so I'm hoping this book will be a bit of a supplementary study guide, so to speak. So far it doesn't seem likely.
David Gerrold says something interesting (of course he does). "Star Trek has its literary antecedents in science fiction. Science fiction is the bastard child of philosophy and religion; it is a literature of speculation. It is a literature of inquiry."
Gerrold adds that usually the ultimate question is supposed to be "What does it mean to be a human being?" But that's the wrong question. The right question is not what, but *why* are we searching. Gerrold suggests that we're searching because that's what we are... that is what we do, and tautologically but [T]ruthfully, curiosity and a nature that encourages us to search is simply What it means to be human.
Gerrold also reminds us of one more thing. SF is "a literature of possibility." And that's what I think I liked most about Star Trek when I was young, and why I want to revisit it now as I age.
Eric Greene's thorough analysis of the political commentaries (Cold War, Vietnam, empire...) of so many of the original episodes would be a lot more interesting if I were more familiar with the episodes he highlights. Atm, I'm convinced his argument is sound in his essay "The Prime Question." But he does notice that James Kirk and John Kennedy share initials....
Lawrence Watt-Evans has a fun 'theory' about why the Enterprise doesn't have seatbelts & other safety measures... he also likens the Federation to a street gang....
Robert A. Metzger looks at the show from an engineer's pov, and reveals the truth behind the transporters' pattern buffer, as well as Scotty's bluster.
And now I have a better understanding of why I like works by Robert J. Sawyer: he's a fan, too. I'll have to make more of an effort to read all of his stuff, including Starplex (re' the anomalous green star), thanks to physics prof. David DeGraff.
Some of the rest of the essays were mildly interesting, but didn't have quotable bits.
I am sure there are better ways for you to spend your time than with this book, but I don't particularly not recommend it if it's already on your to-read list, either.
October 7, 2018
What was the appeal of “Star Trek?” How and why did it become so influential? Why does it endure?
Offering an eclectic mix of essays pertaining to the original series, scriptwriters from the show join science fiction writers and academics to examine the series in some detail, providing readers with insight into the groundbreaking television show.
A must for fans of the series as well as for anyone interested in the impact of television on society.
Highly recommended.
Offering an eclectic mix of essays pertaining to the original series, scriptwriters from the show join science fiction writers and academics to examine the series in some detail, providing readers with insight into the groundbreaking television show.
A must for fans of the series as well as for anyone interested in the impact of television on society.
Highly recommended.
September 29, 2022
A collection of quasi-academic analyses of Star Trek's place in history. Written in 2006, many of the articles are somewhat dated, and some are repetitive. Still, as a fan, it was worth reading, and for once it is nice to read intellectual analysis of the social impact of ST rather than fanboy reviews.
August 11, 2021
I rather liked the majority of the essays contained within this collection, especially the ones made by writers of the show. Some helped me sleep though. Definitely a nice overall look into the original series.
July 23, 2022
More a 3.5 than a 4.0 but I'll round up as the essays are more labors of love than work for hire, including, I'm sure the editors, esteemed science fiction authors and major Star Trek fans Robert J. Sawyer and David Gerrrold.
September 3, 2024
This is quite uneven but Howard Weinstein’s essay, which closes the book, is worth reading.
September 16, 2025
Good in parts, stultifying in others. Skipped huge sections
September 5, 2016
A few months ago I read a book about Star Wars that was a retread trotted out because of the new movie. Now with the 50th anniversary of Star Trek the same thing is done here, with a book written ten years ago for the 40th anniversary.
Basically this is a collection of articles, much like a fanzine in the early days. There’s a piece on some classic sci-fi stories that were adapted to Star Trek, and I agree with the author when he wondered how great it would have been had others been done, especially Sir Arthur C. Clarke’s The Star. But then you get another chapter that was simply author bios. C’mon.
One chapter that started out interesting was a discussion about how the Prime Directive, while a good idea, probably wasn’t, but even that succumbed to overthinking. Possibly the best entry was a funny one that reminded me of an Asimov short story, a report on Earth done by an alien. I love this part: “crew members being flung from their seats by various impacts on several occasions, and the resources to install improvised seat belts were clearly available; we must conclude that either seat belts were unknown, or there were reasons not to install them that outweighed the obvious benefits.” The conclusions are hilarious.
Another great line: “It’s not some utopian dream of peaceful cooperation that has prompted the Federation, but the perceived need for defense— the Federation serves the same purpose as a street gang.” There’s a fantastic argument for why the most trustworthy officer on board is Scotty, but this pretty much exemplifies the few good aspects of this book: “It’s easy to find faults, but without Star Trek, I would never have become an astronomer.”
Unfortunately there’s more that doesn’t work than does: it’s much better than the Star Wars one, but that’s not saying much.
2.5/5
Basically this is a collection of articles, much like a fanzine in the early days. There’s a piece on some classic sci-fi stories that were adapted to Star Trek, and I agree with the author when he wondered how great it would have been had others been done, especially Sir Arthur C. Clarke’s The Star. But then you get another chapter that was simply author bios. C’mon.
One chapter that started out interesting was a discussion about how the Prime Directive, while a good idea, probably wasn’t, but even that succumbed to overthinking. Possibly the best entry was a funny one that reminded me of an Asimov short story, a report on Earth done by an alien. I love this part: “crew members being flung from their seats by various impacts on several occasions, and the resources to install improvised seat belts were clearly available; we must conclude that either seat belts were unknown, or there were reasons not to install them that outweighed the obvious benefits.” The conclusions are hilarious.
Another great line: “It’s not some utopian dream of peaceful cooperation that has prompted the Federation, but the perceived need for defense— the Federation serves the same purpose as a street gang.” There’s a fantastic argument for why the most trustworthy officer on board is Scotty, but this pretty much exemplifies the few good aspects of this book: “It’s easy to find faults, but without Star Trek, I would never have become an astronomer.”
Unfortunately there’s more that doesn’t work than does: it’s much better than the Star Wars one, but that’s not saying much.
2.5/5
April 19, 2014
Star Trek writers here remember the show and its influences on our society and lives.
D.C. Fontana profiles Gene Roddenberry and the action on the Star Trek sets.
Robert Metzger somehow proves that Scotty's ability to lie makes him the most valuable crew member aboard the Enterprise!
"So does Star Trek have anything relevant left to say about today's world? Yes, and here it is: Here's how we are today (booo) ... and here's who we might someday be (yaaay!)."
Beam me up now and tomorrow forever!
D.C. Fontana profiles Gene Roddenberry and the action on the Star Trek sets.
Robert Metzger somehow proves that Scotty's ability to lie makes him the most valuable crew member aboard the Enterprise!
"So does Star Trek have anything relevant left to say about today's world? Yes, and here it is: Here's how we are today (booo) ... and here's who we might someday be (yaaay!)."
Beam me up now and tomorrow forever!
July 25, 2016
This newly updated collection of Star Trek essays is sure to please the die hard fans of the original series. Filled with essays by show insiders and writers, sci fi authors, and academics who have found inspiration in the franchise, this book explores the deeper and more philosophical meaning of a modern classic that has now lasted 50 years. From reflections of the Vietnam War to religious connotations to man’s true nature in the universe, this book tackles the larger message of what it means to “go where no man has gone before.”
June 26, 2012
This was a fun and interesting read. Some essays I enjoyed more than others, but it was well worth the whole buck-ninety-nine I spent on it! Having grown up in the 60s and 70s, it was fun to look back on that period.
December 16, 2025
This collection of essays is hit and miss, but most of the content is worth a look. There are a couple of gems. If you haven't read Robert Metzger's "Exaggerate with Extreme Prejudice," you have missed an amazing encomium to engineers.
June 11, 2016
Updated slightly for the 50th anniversary, it is mostly a reprint of the 40th-anniversary book. That's fine. It's loaded with lots of interesting essays, articles, and reflections on the show. A fascinating read for Star Trek fans.
May 24, 2011
Some interesting essays for Trekkies and cultural critics.
May 2, 2013
This is a great collection of stories, essays and personal accounts that any Trekkie will enjoy.
December 15, 2016
Very lackluster collection of essays.
July 3, 2015
Essays mostly focused on original series of 79 episodes
Another fun book by Smart Pop
Another fun book by Smart Pop
October 8, 2016
Fascinating.
did-not-finish
January 16, 2019In process. Too many library books...
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews