Reading For Treasure: Hope from Star Trek and Science Fiction

Reading for Treasure is my list of articles that are worth your attention. Click here for an introduction!

There is a new science fiction sub-genre called hopepunk. According to Wikipedia, hopepunk stories “are about characters fighting for positive change, radical kindness, and communal responses to challenges.” Coined by author Alexandra Rowland as the opposite of grimdark, “The aesthetic of hopepunk is generally agreed to incorporate a mood of gentleness or softness and a sense of self-awareness of weaponized optimism, with a worldview that fighting for positive social systems is a worthwhile fight. There is an emphasis on cooperation as opposed to conflict. There is an awareness within hopepunk works that happy endings are not guaranteed and that nothing is permanent.” Here is the Vox article from which that quotes come: “Hopepunk, the latest storytelling trend, is all about weaponized optimism.” 

Some Star Trek stories could certainly be hopepunk. Emmet Asher-Perrin writing on Tor.com explores the way that the latest incarnation of this franchise, Strange New Worlds, takes the Hero’s Journey and turns it into something far more important and optimistic than the way it shows up in superhero and other traditionally portrayals: “How Star Trek: Strange New Worlds Reimagines the “Hero’s Journey” for the Better.” Be aware there are spoilers in this article. 

CNN also recognized the power of Star Trek’s hopeful outlook: “The New ‘Star Trek' series couldn’t come at a better time.” This article does not have spoilers and is safe for those who have not yet watched Strange New Worlds – and you should! 

Star Trek has improved the real world in many ways: one of the most powerful and hopeful is the work of Nichelle Nichols, who played Lieutenant Uhura in the original series. The article, “From Star Trek to the White House, The World Remembers Nichelle Nichols” from TrekMovie.com is much more than a list of tributes from important voices. It also includes several wonderful video tributes, so scroll to the end. The documentary about Ms. Nichol’s work on the space program, Woman in Motion, it is also well worth viewing. Like all of Star Trek, it is on Paramount+. 

During the worst of the early pandemic and the years that preceded it, I found solace and hope in a quirky half-hour situation comedy called The Good Place. This lovely expert from a book by its creator,  Michael Schur, explores some of the powerful and optimistic philosophic questions that made the series such a delight. The Literary Hub published the excerpt, “Good Place Creator Michael Schur Wonders: What Makes Someone Good or Bad?” If you haven’t seen this series, it is worth a watch! 

Star Trek and several other on-screen science fiction franchises have been working hard to be inclusive. The first of the “Nu Trek” series, Star Trek: Discovery,  features a Black woman in the leading role (and now, finally, as a captain) and all five of the new series have gone where no science fiction show has gone before with representation. Nonetheless, there are fans that were shocked to see that Star Trek (and some other famous series) are so left-leaning. I don’t how they missed the message in earlier incarnations of Trek. So we’ll finish with a little laughter at their expense from Carolos Greaves in McSweeny’s, “This Fictional Universe is Getting Way Too Diverse.” 

I am currently reading A Master of Djinn by P. Djèlí Clark. 

Star Wars: Into Darkness

As I sat in the movie theater waiting for Star Wars: The Force Awakens to begin, I noticed all the children arriving. I was distressed when a family with two children under the age of three sat not far from me. Another child had some kind of light up toy and was spinning it so it cast a green light throughout the theater.

One of the ads before the movie started was selling Star Wars pet toys. The pets were complaining that they didn’t get to go to the movie with their owners. I have seen Star Wars branded products from toys to oranges. It made me wonder if I had paid to see a movie-length commercial. SPOILER ALERT: I am now going to discuss the film assuming you have either seen it or don’t mind reading about details of the plot.

The movie was fun. I enjoyed it. I was surprised to see a storm trooper who is unwilling to kill people. I wanted to know more about how that happened. I loved that the primary protagonist was a woman who doesn't need others to rescue her. I was delighted that no one commented on her appearance. The variety and diversity in the casting are important and appropriate. This film even passes the Bechdel-Wallace test!

The Force Awakens reminded me of the three original Star Wars movies more than the three prequels, but it had shades of those, too. In fact, it reminded me of the prior movies too much. We started on a sand planet with scavengers. We had an orphaned character who adopts a droid. A short wise alien gave advice. The force was used to escape. A man battled with his father. Planets were destroyed by a horrible weapon and then the weapon was destroyed. It felt like returning to an old home that had been updated and redecorated by new owners, but was still essentially the same place. Although the film received initial praise, more recent reviews have been more critical of its derivative nature.

As has been well documented, the plot didn’t make sense. I kept asking questions that the film didn’t answer. It was a good versus evil parable, but it didn’t say much more than evil is like the Nazis and good must fight evil. The real title should have been Star Wars 3 7: The Search for Luke. However, how and where we found him was also baffling.

I imagined a script meeting for the 2013 Star Trek film, Into Darkness, where J.J. Abrams says to the Star Trek screenwriters, “Just take your favorite moments from earlier episodes and films and rework them. That’s what I am doing with Star Wars.” The prior Star Trek picture, also helmed by J.J. Abrams had some of the same issues as this one: too much rehash and a plot that didn’t make sense. Into Darkness lacked all of The Force Awakens’ positive traits, and is a far less faithful shadow of the original.

And unfortunately, that is what these two recent revivals of old beloved “Star” series have in common: they are nostalgic copies. They are action-adventure rollercoaster rides that dazzle our eyes, leave our hearts pounding, our heads spinning, but take us nowhere except back where we started. They are products designed to sell toys, merchandise, DVDs, and movie tickets. They exploit our fondness for Stars past by copying the shell but neglecting the substance. The recent Star Wars picture does much to modernize the franchise and bring it into the twenty-first century. It even feels more like the original trilogy. But it should have been so much more. 

What Follows the Race to Nowhere?

My first thought after watching the documentary, Race to Nowhere was that none of the criticisms of our stressed out educational system are new. Kids do get too much homework and much of it does not have educational value. Our children are not resilient and find mistakes and failures devastating. Cheating and unhealthy competition and pressure are clear results of an overcharged desire for entry into the most elite colleges. It is easier to have our children’s lives programmed to the nanosecond than allow them unstructured time to find their own ways. As a nation, we see education as merely a stepping-stone to financial gain. It has no real purpose beyond making us wealthy.

And that may be the heart of the problem. One of the unstated themes of Race to Nowhere is our highly simplistic and numerically based desire to measure educational success. We use grades, test scores, college entrance exams, and other statistics as the primary way to determine educational accomplishment. We want proof of our children’s achievements in cold hard statistics. That system isn’t working.

We want an easy answer. We don’t want to deal with the fact that education is complex and messy. We cling to the simplistic success formula: Good grades in high school lead to admission in a “good” college. An education at a “good college” will eventually land a child a “good” job. A “good” job means a “good income” which will bring happiness. How many people do we know who do not fit this formula? Our economic crisis was caused by the college-educated people who recklessly and selfishly pursued financial gain and created a worldwide catastrophe. This formula is more than faulty, it is dangerous.

And it is stealing our kids’ childhoods. The film clearly shows how we are asking our kids to grow up too quickly. How many times has someone noted, when looking at a child’s homework, “I didn’t do that until I got to high school, college, or graduate school”? Our simplistic thinking says that, if we make our children do more and do it earlier, they will be smarter. What idiot came up with that?

The film notes two pieces of governmental action that fueled this fire: the Nation At Risk report in 1983 and more recently the No Child Left Behind Act. Both of these declared that the sky was falling and that the solution was to measure the fall and punish anything that fell. What the film does not point out is that, in the almost three decades since Nation at Risk, we have subjected students to more and more high stakes testing and put more and more “teacher accountability” measures in place. Has it made things better? Has it improved our system? Is all this testing working? Even the aforementioned idiot could answer that question.

Which leads to my primary criticism of the film: it does not spend enough time on solutions. Solutions to this issue cannot be simple numeric testing, additional homework, or tutoring third graders in calculus. We need to truly reimagine our educational system. We need to, as the film states, “invest up front” and put more money, time, skill, and talent into education. This will not only help prevent many of the costly social ills created when students are chewed up and spit out of the system, but may help bring back the joy of learning.

The brief suggestions for students, parents, teachers, medical professionals and administrators are not enough. And where were the suggestions for lawmakers, by the way? This film is calling for an educational revolution: a complete and total restructuring of our current system. It will be a messy and difficult process. The simplistic formulas have failed and at a great price. Race to Nowhere challenges us to get dirty and go beyond the superficial attempts at educational reform of the past.

What does this educational reform revolution look like? The film doesn’t say. Stay tuned.