Darth Wong wrote:Publius wrote:One might argue, however, that the particular format in which the preface was written was done so as to explain why the original series should not be taken as quite-accurate, without having to admit that he had changed his mind about how the sort of story he wanted Star Trek to be. It could have been simply a face-saving tactic.
As usual, though, it is a matter of how one wishes to interpret what the preface says and what it means. In any event, it is clear that Mr Roddenberry was responsible for the production of an inaccurate portrayal of the Enterprise's five-year mission. Given that we are only aware of one such portrayal, it is logical to assume that the preface is referring to that one -- but it is only that: An assumption.
The burden of proof is upon someone who would try to show that the original show is no longer canon, since there is no higher source. If this quote can be interpreted either way, then this burden of proof has not been met.
If one pursues the interpretation that both prefaces refer to the original series, it does not follow necessarily that the original series is non-canonical, but rather that they are simply exaggerated, to an unknown degree.
However, as you say, it is impossible to prove outright that the prefaces
do in fact refer to the original series. It is implicit, but that implication is open to interpretation. If, as you say, that fails to meet the burden of proof, then the point must be conceded.
It is wholly possible that it is not the original series to which the prefaces refer; it is difficult -- if not impossible -- to say with any degree of certainty, and it becomes a matter of personal preference. A strong case can be made for either conclusion.
You're missing the point, which is that there is no reason whatsoever to believe that it must refer to the original series at all. No explicit reference is given, and Roddenberry is speaking in-character, not as himself.
Agreed. Mr Roddenberry did not explicitly refer to the original series itself as such. It is a matter of what one believes he was referring to, which, as you say, is not necessarily the original series, even if it is implied.
At any rate, make what you like of James T. Kirk's sexuality. It's a fairly inconsequential issue, and a curiosity or a factoid, at best.
Again, an ambiguity is not enough to make a conclusion other than the one we can derive from direct observation of the man in action. Besides, if Roddenberry is saying that depictions of the events in the ST universe are not necessarily accurate, then it becomes
impossible to figure out what the "truth" is for the show. We might as well decide that there is no truth at all; either there is an "omniscient observer" or not. If not, then this applies to both books and movies: it's all hearsay.
Based on what has been
shown, it seems inarguable that James Kirk is either heterosexual, or heavily favours women if he is bisexual, that much can be agreed.
As to the accuracy of the shows and films, it is only implied that the original series is exaggerated; nothing whatever is said of the films following the first (those still within the canon as defined by Mr Roddenberry), and even if there is reason to suspect the original series, there is none whatsoever for suspecting those films. Also, the prefaces to the novelisation essentially state that it is completely accurate (technically, though, one must take that at face value -- the novelisation is only completely accurate if one accepts it as being completely accurate).
As for interpreting the original series if it is indeed inaccurate, you have certainly made a valid point: It becomes quite difficult, much as interpretation of the
Star Wars expanded universe has become much more difficult in many respects with Mr Cerasi's "foggy window." All that can be said is that the original series would be basically correct, but that some details would have been exaggerated to make the events seem more dramatic. It is, admittedly, a fairly lame answer.
It is probably preferable that the original series be taken as-is, without Mr Roddenberry's implied doubts as to its accuracy. Regardless of whether or not your position is logically superior (which it may well be), it is most likely the better option, in any event. If one can legitimately take your position, it is probably better to do so, if only for the sake of a coherent argument.
(As a curious sidenote: Mr Roddenberry's preface has the side-effect of placing himself, Gene Roddenberry, into the canon as a character within the story. This same character is credited on the commissioning plaques of most starships, which, if one wishes to be strict about the matter, means that a single elderly man is amongst the most prolific and productive engineers in the Starfleet.)
I would point out that those plaques are not clearly visible in the shows and movies; one must invoke backstage pictures of the set in order to know this.
Quite so; but given that the plaques do appear on screen and are canonical, is that necessarily disqualifying? So long as those backstage pictures are accurate, is there any real issue with the plaques?
It seems, Mr Wong, that we have reached the point that, having already made our cases, we begin to repeat ourselves -- which is usually the first sign that a debate has run its course. If you will agree, perhaps we ought to close this debate, and allow the audience to make its own conclusions. The matter is left to your decision, of course.
Publius
