Note: Thank you to NetGalley, University of Minnesota Press, and author Adam Kotsko for the advanced reader copy of this book. This review will also be posted on NetGalley. What follows is my unbiased review of the book.
I’ve been a Star Trek fan since The Original Series. I grew up in New York in the 1970s, where the first three seasons were frequently shown on reruns on local independent stations. I am a legacy fan of sorts. To be honest, I haven’t watched much of what Adam Kotsko calls “Late Star Trek.” I tried a few times to get into it, but other than the series Star Trek: Picard, it didn’t really interest me. After reading this book, though, I might go back and give these series’ another shot.
I was put off a bit by the first few chapters, which read more like an introduction to a term paper or thesis, rather than an actual book. I try my best to push through with ARC reads to give them a fair shake. Once I read to the point where he actually started discussing the different series and films, rather than just telling me what he was going to do, it became much more interesting to read.
Who is Adam Kitsko that he qualifies to write this analysis? He’s one of the leading contributors on the Reddit forum titled r/DaystromInstitute, which is a collection of more thoughtful, intelligent fans than we usually find on web forums where the only qualifications seem to be an ability to type (and sometimes that’s questionable). This particular forum is very carefully cultivated. At times, it felt like he was bragging a bit in the vein of “I’m the biggest fan,” but I really think he was just trying to establish his qualifications. Really, his opinion is no more valid than any of ours, but he’s got a strong background to justify why he has come to those opinions about the series.
Giving his opinion isn’t a problem for Kotsko. He also knows how to back it up by citing various moments in different series to support how he feels. There are times he will detail that decisions are made for the wrong reason and how it hurts a particular show. He debates the start of the “Kelvin timeline” in the films and J.J. Abrams’ treatment of it. At the same time, he shows where the series’ impacts other series and where some of the history is drawn from in the earlier series. Sound confusing? It can be, particularly with the way Paramount has played around with the various timelines.
What I found most interesting was how the stories the various Star Trek series were telling over the years changed, and the reasoning behind it. Perhaps the reason I couldn’t get into the series that Kotsko includes in the “Late Star Trek” timeline is due to the fact that it’s very different than the stories told by earlier series. Kotsko shows how, after 9/11, the stories veered away from exploration and discovery to terrorism, espionage, and war. I never thought about that before reading this, and he makes a very good observation that many fans might not have noticed. There are a few moments like that, which helped me understand why I hadn’t been able to get into those series. Perhaps it’s more appealing to the generation that grew up after 9/11, and this is how the series is finding new fans. After all, we originalists won’t be around forever.
There’s room to disagree, which is nice. Kotsko doesn’t approach the topics as if you don’t agree with him, then you’re an idiot. I liked Star Trek: Picard much more than he did, although he makes valid points about problems with the series, some of which I noticed as well. That didn’t mean I didn’t enjoy the series; it’s just that some parts of the stories were problematic to people for various reasons. That’s pretty much his approach to all of the series. You can like something and still point out problems with it. New concept to many, I know.
Late Star Trek is not a quick read by any stretch of the imagination. It didn’t grab me, but it required me to read a bit and think about the points Kotsko was making. With some of the points he’s made, I’ll be giving these later streaming series another shot and see where it goes from there. Lower Decks and Strange New Worlds sound particularly appealing after finishing this book.
Share this:
Categories: Book Reviews, Star Trek Books, Star Trek Universe
One of the first things I learned when I started paying attention to “Star Trek” (even when I was in college back in the 1980s) is that Roddenberry wasn’t really trying to imagine what humanity could be like in the 23rd Century. Back then, the show was about 1960s America and its socio-cultural issues. That was one of the insights in David Gerrold’s “The World of Star Trek,” my favorite book about “The Original Series” and its first three theatrical film adventures.
Nicholas Meyer reinforces that theme in his director’s commentary on the “Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country,” where he explains that the final movie starring the entire original cast was more about the Cold War’s end than it was about Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the rest of the crew’s adventures in the late 23rd Century.
This book, based on your review, reinforces the idea that as America and its society have become more affected by foreign war, terrorism, and societal change, the Star Trek franchise reflects that.
My problem with some of the newer series (aside from the fact that I can’t watch them unless I buy physical media) isn’t how dark they have turned in their tone; it’s the unevenness of the writing.