Roddenberry bios - which is best?

[HaplessCrewman]

Picked up Joel Engel's Gene Roddenberry: The Myth and the Man Behind Star Trek from Amazon.com for 10 cents. Seem to remember David Gerrold (and others?) had severe problems with this book, Engel's ethics, etc. I'm not a member of the Saint Roddenberry club but how trustworthy is this book?

I also have a paperback of Star Trek Creator: The Authorized Biography of Gene Roddenberry by David Alexander - which I occasionally flip through.

Also have Susan Sackett's book which, for my money, was a little too detailed in describing Roddenberry's demons.

What's the consensus?

 

[Steve Roby]

Picked up Joel Engel's Gene Roddenberry: The Myth and the Man Behind Star Trek from Amazon.com for 10 cents. Seem to remember David Gerrold (and others?) had severe problems with this book, Engel's ethics, etc. ... I also have a paperback of Star Trek Creator: The Authorized Biography of Gene Roddenberry by David Alexander - which I occasionally flip through.

You're misremembering. Gerrold was one of the sources for Engel's book and had serious issues with Alexander's book. Among other things, Alexander reportedly violated the terms of the WGA legal agreement reached between Gerrold and Roddenberry, leaving Gerrold unable to respond because confidentiality was one of the terms of the agreement.

The Engel and Alexander books both appeared in 1994. Alexander was the officially designated biographer of Gene Roddenberry, with a lot of input from Majel. His book propagates some myths and whitewashes other events, though for sheer mass of detail it's bound to have some historical worth.

Engel had written a popular biography of Rod Serling and said at the time that he thought Roddenberry would be a much easier and more pleasant job, but his sources led him to write what could be considered muckraking. Those sources, including Gerrold and D.C. Fontana, could be said to have a bot of an axe to grind, but I don't recall anyone reporting any serious factual errors in Engel's book.

Also have Susan Sackett's book which, for my money, was a little too detailed in describing Roddenberry's demons.

Yes, there were a few things I could have lived without knowing there.

I don't think any one book gives you the whole picture. If you really want to know about Roddenberry, you need to read Engel, Alexander, and Sackett. Some might suggest Yvonne Fern's Gene Roddenberry: The Last Conversation, but its reliability has been questioned.

 

[TrekkieJeff2000]

The only one that I read was Gene Roddenberry: The Last Conversation and I thought that it was pretty solid work. I didn't know its reliability had been questions, I'm curious as to what about it was questioned.

 

[Steve Roby]

The only one that I read was Gene Roddenberry: The Last Conversation and I thought that it was pretty solid work. I didn't know its reliability had been questions, I'm curious as to what about it was questioned.

For a start, Fern acknowledges in the introduction to the Pocket edition (the first edition was published by University of California Press) that Roddenberry had made some claims she later found out weren't exactly true -- taking credit for the work of others, for example.

Beyond that, though, I remember reading someone who knew Roddenberry saying that Roddenberry simply wasn't coherent enough to have the conversations presented in Fern's book at the time she says they happened. Could be she happened to be there on the good days and the other person happened to be there on the bad, but it's something that stuck with me. Can't find the exact quote right now, though.

 

[Dayton3]

The Alexander book is probably the best and Majel Barrett Roddenberry said it was as well.

But for what it is worth, even Alexanders book shows Roddenberry to be a complete jerk by any standard.

The incident the night before his son with Majel was born says all you ever need to know about Eugene Wesley Roddenberry.

There is a saying though:

"Everyone who knew Roddenberry personally had at least one good thing to say about him.

Everyone who worked with Roddenberry had at least one bad thing to say about him".

 

[JoeP]

The incident the night before his son with Majel was born says all you ever need to know about Eugene Wesley Roddenberry.

What's the story there?

 

[KRAD]

Oddly, I found the Alexander book, despite being the official whitewashed version, painted a much uglier picture of Roddenberry than Engels' hatchet job. Go fig'.

 

[Dayton3]

The incident the night before his son with Majel was born says all you ever need to know about Eugene Wesley Roddenberry.

What's the story there?

Majel had a difficult pregnancy. She was schedule for an induced labor.

G.R. was supposed to drive her to the hospital and be there with her when she had their baby. A baby they had been hoping for a long time.

G.R. got flat out drunk the night before and couldn't wake up the next morning.

Majel had to drive herself to the hospital.

G.R. didn't even know which hospital was the right one.

KRAD is right though.

Alexander's official biography actually paints a darker picture of Roddenberry than the supposed hatchet job does.

 

[JoeP]

The incident the night before his son with Majel was born says all you ever need to know about Eugene Wesley Roddenberry.

What's the story there?

Majel had a difficult pregnancy. She was schedule for an induced labor.

G.R. was supposed to drive her to the hospital and be there with her when she had their baby. A baby they had been hoping for a long time.

G.R. got flat out drunk the night before and couldn't wake up the next morning.

Majel had to drive herself to the hospital.

G.R. didn't even know which hospital was the right one.

KRAD is right though.

Alexander's official biography actually paints a darker picture of Roddenberry than the supposed hatchet job does.

Dag, that's cold.

 

[Christopher]

To be fair, alcoholism is not a character flaw, but a disease. He didn't do it out of negligence or nastiness, but due to a neurochemical imbalance that compromised his judgment and impulse control.

 

[Dayton3]

To be fair, alcoholism is not a character flaw, but a disease. He didn't do it out of negligence or nastiness, but due to a neurochemical imbalance that compromised his judgment and impulse control.

Oh please..............

 

[KRAD]

To be fair, alcoholism is not a character flaw, but a disease.

It's an addiction, but I've never bought the propaganda that states that it's a disease. That gets the drunk off the hook way too easily, to my mind. Too many voluntary actions are required by the alcoholic (buying the drink, drinking the drink) for me to accept it as a disease.

 

[HaplessCrewman]

Wow, thanks for setting me straight on which book is which. So, Engels' book is considered a "hatchet job"? I'll read it with that in mind.

I'm up to the part where he debunks Roddenberry's mischaracterization of the Networks' responses to The Cage.

Not to stray too far from the discussion of alcoholism, but has anyone ever seen an episode of The Lieutenant? I've always been curious about pre (and post) Trek Roddenberry.

 

[Rosalind]

sorry to quote you, HaplessCrewman, it's just too convenient.

Not to stray too far from the discussion of alcoholism,

except a discussion of alcoholism really doesn't belong to this forum, so let's all leave the topic alone, please. thanks.

 

[HaplessCrewman]

Sorry! I ruined the fun for everyone!

Personally, I thought the discussion was pertinent but I will defer to the judgement of the mod.

Can I ask this though? Do you think Roddenberry's demons inform the creation Trek? Or, how about - how much of Roddenberry is in Trek? It is said he didn't live the ideals the show espoused - but is that always necessary?

By way of comparison, I think Rod Serling was The Twilight Zone but even in the beginning, Trek was always more than Roddenberry - e.g. Samuel Peoples, D.C. Fontana, etc.

 

[Christopher]

To be fair, alcoholism is not a character flaw, but a disease.

It's an addiction, but I've never bought the propaganda that states that it's a disease. That gets the drunk off the hook way too easily, to my mind. Too many voluntary actions are required by the alcoholic (buying the drink, drinking the drink) for me to accept it as a disease.

"Voluntary" actions can be performed in a state of compromised judgment or under the influence of a physical compulsion -- for instance, the way the action of suicide can be brought on by the mental illness of clinical depression. Addiction is recognized as a mental disorder by the medical community, just as depression is. It's not "propaganda," it's the accepted scientific understanding of the condition.

One thing that's pretty clear about Roddenberry is that he was addicted to just about everything -- alcohol, drugs, sex, fame, control, you name it. And he ruined a lot of things for himself and others in the process. That doesn't seem "voluntary" to me. It suggests a pretty deep-rooted neurological condition that he couldn't entirely control.

And given that Majel Barrett stood by him despite everything, I think she probably saw it the same way. I think it would be arrogant for any of us to think we knew better.

Can I ask this though? Do you think Roddenberry's demons inform the creation Trek? Or, how about - how much of Roddenberry is in Trek? It is said he didn't live the ideals the show espoused - but is that always necessary?

Maybe those of us who are most screwed up have the greatest need to believe in a better world. And just because we don't always live up to our ideals doesn't mean we don't wish we could. I think Roddenberry believed a lot of things in principle that his appetites made it hard for him to live up to in practice -- like respect for women, for one thing.

Anyway, there's a grand tradition of great creators being screwed-up personalities, neurotics, depressives, addicts, libertines, etc. The most abnormal minds are often the most creative ones. So there's no shortage of people who have created visions of great beauty and wonder and shown us the heights of human potential, but who have been tragic or disturbed or just unpleasant in their own lives.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Alcoholism is a behavioral disorder, an addiction, and a lot of other things - it does fit at least some definitions of "disease."

Probably whether we "buy" the disease model of alcoholism is of little importance unless we're involved in alcoholism research and/or treatment. Some people buy into the notion of "global warming" and some don't, but most who have strong opinions in eitehr direction seem to think they understand the science better than they probably do.

I don't think most sober alcoholics, many of whom recover in programs which assume the "disease model" as a given, lose much sleep over whether non-alcoholics think the model "lets them off the hook." They're too busy living amended lives on the premise that while their judgment may have been impaired they're responsible for what they did.

Of course, people contract any number of diseases as a result of "volitional activities" - including smoking and overeating - but this doesn't make their diseases any more or less real.

 

[Steve Roby]

Oddly, I found the Alexander book, despite being the official whitewashed version, painted a much uglier picture of Roddenberry than Engels' hatchet job. Go fig'.

The thing is, I'm not sure Alexander realizes that.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

*snip*

sorry to quote you, HaplessCrewman, it's just too convenient.

Not to stray too far from the discussion of alcoholism,

except a discussion of alcoholism really doesn't belong to this forum, so let's all leave the topic alone, please. thanks.

Just a friendly reminder.

 

[KRAD]

Oddly, I found the Alexander book, despite being the official whitewashed version, painted a much uglier picture of Roddenberry than Engels' hatchet job. Go fig'.

The thing is, I'm not sure Alexander realizes that.

Oh, I'm completely sure that Alexander doesn't realize that.