The primary reason that the story of The Making of Star Trek - from the genesis of the series, to its creator's struggle to fit his optimistic vision of the future into the constrained format of a weekly television series, and the battle to keep the show on the air - is so very well known to even the most passing fan of the science-fiction genre is due in very large part to Stephen E. Whitfield's almost hagiographic history of the original series creation and its production.
To this very day the original Star Trek remains one of the most beloved of high water marks for televised science-fiction, and The Making of Star Trek, first published in 1968, makes it very easy to understand why that is so.
Series creator Gene Roddenberry used a "Wagon Train to the Stars" style action-adventure series format sales pitch to sell a science-fiction series that would be unlike any other on television, at the time. Roddenbery wanted to create a science-fiction series that was not only firmly rooted in believability, but that was also optimistic. A vision that inferred that "we" (the entire human race) would eventually overcome our various tribal differences, unify, and reach out into the stars to meet and interact with new lifeforms and new civilizations.
Roddenberry wanted a series that explored and examined the nuances of the human condition with the honesty and insight that only a science-fiction series seemed capable of doing, once again, at the time. To put it another way, and to paraphrase a comment that Rod Serling made about the social commentary that he managed to put into The Twilight Zone, "I could have a Martian say something on television that no human being would ever have been allowed to."
A wonderful idea, to be sure, but how does one create whole new worlds, entire civilizations and/or species within the constraints of a weekly television series production time and budget? How do you deal with writers (science-fiction or not) that think they can write whatever they want, just because it is a genre show? How do you populate a starship in the completely unified 23rd while producing the series in the racially segregated and blatantly sexist 20th century?
Hell, what is a 23rd century starship even supposed to look like?
Whitfield's book - despite a bit too many declarations of a certain individual's brilliance, and that certain individual is not just limited to "co-author" and Star Trek series creator Gene Roddenberry - answers each and every one of those questions (and many more a reader or fan might not even think of asking) in this copious-to-the-point-of-almost-becoming-boring detailing of every single level of Star Trek's production.
Although there were quite a few sections that tried my patience, such as the detailing of every last costume, set, and prop design, or (to this 21st century reader) the biographical information of all the series characters and the actors that portrayed them, nonetheless the book was an excellent and fascinating study of all the painstaking and back breaking work that went into making the show.
There is not a Star Trek fan out there that needs to be told that this book is required reading for a fan of the show. But if you aren't a fan and want to have some understanding of the whats and the whys that made (and continue to make) Star Trek so addictive to entire generations of fans, then this book is worth reading.

Recent Comments