Comment Stream

Re: SNW S1: A Quality of Mercy

I just want to clarify something: I am the author of the Dennis Bailey post. Although I've never contributed here, I do read this website and its wonderful comments section from time to time. When I saw someone earlier this afternoon praising Dennis Bailey for composing a comprehensive critique of SNW and new Star Trek more broadly, I was intrigued, because Dennis Bailey is an individual with an established reputation within the Star Trek community -- he wrote at least one TNG episode, and was active on trekbbs when that forum was at its height. I was rather amused (gratified, perhaps) to find that Dennis Bailey's observations were my own, repeated word for word, with only the first line changed slightly. I authored that post several nights ago on the alternate Star Trek site on reddit, in response to a rather detailed, somewhat ambivalent review of SNW's first season: https://www.reddit.com/r/Star_Trek/comments/vui0rm/my_thoughts_on_season_one_of_strange_new_worlds/iffxy3r/?context=3. The post could also be considered an extension of a scathing critique of late Berman-era Star Trek that I offered on the same reddit site around Memorial Day, and can be read here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Star_Trek/comments/uzi2k5/rick_berman_i_loved_star_trek_from_beginning_to/iae86yj/?context=3.

I think that everyone will immediately recognize that both posts, and this one, came from the same pen.

Happily, I am not possessive about anything that I prepare and release for an online discussion; if it's being shown around the Star Trek community, I'm grateful. I also think that professional reviewers such as Darren Mooney and Ed Whitfield, who have been reading from the same hymn sheet as me with regard to SNW, deserve far more attention. I simply don't want there to be any confusion about my identity -- being an ordinary male in his early 30's from New England, with no artistic pretensions, no involvement in the franchise, and no status within the community whatsoever -- or for my insights, such as they are, to be attributed to someone else, given how sensitive people can be today. If you loathed the post, be angry with me, not Dennis Bailey! Unfortunately, the most recent post has now been repeated on that reddit site, credited to Dennis Bailey, creating a rather bizarre circle; it originated there with me, and has returned there belonging to someone else! Most important of all, it would also be unfair to place undue expectations on the actual Dennis Bailey, who wrote at least one episode for TNG and was active on trekbbs at its height. However, if he found something of value in my comment and wanted to set the proverbial cat amongst the pigeons here, then I'm rather flattered; and even if that was not the real Dennis Bailey, I know that there was no harm or ill-intent behind the gesture. I'm glad that the post's audience has been increased -- I only wish that the source had been properly recognized (i.e. 'From Peregrinus Tyss on reddit' as the first line").

To try to return to the topic at hand, it's all rather ironic: one insight that I removed from the original post due to reddit's length requirements was that Star Trek had arrived a stage where it finds it difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between its authentic self and the popular perception, the stereotype of it. There was also a fragment -- somewhat incoherent and unformulated -- regarding the constraints that the franchise's underlying model, which is very much a projection of the future as seen from the 1960's, has imposed on it, and how difficult it is to reconcile that model with the the demands of science fiction, leading to serious confusion about Star Trek's underlying purpose and sense of self. I also wanted to emphasize that the sort of individuals who could do something interesting with the franchise, artists with real inspiration and real desire, are not going to want to be constrained by the legacy of fourteen seasons of Deep Space Nine and VOY, or the combination of DSC, SNW, and TOS: it is far more plausible that they will want to establish their own corner of the Star Trek universe, will want to escape from content that is ten, thirty, or fifty years out of date, and will want to ensure that their Star Trek can reflect on events or issues that Star Trek, as currently constituted, might not be a suitable vehicle for.

In effect, there was supposed to be a second part, but it remains to be written. If I ever do attend to that task, I will certainly post it here as well.

- Sean O'Brien (I did not want to author this under an alias, but felt obligated to, otherwise I would have added yet another layer of confusion to the matter.)