What do you think?
Rate this book
Gene Roddenberry: The Myth and the Man Behind "Star Trek"
A no-holds-barred look at the complex and driven visionary who created Star Trek gives a backstage portrait based on inside sources that reveals the whole man, alcoholic, self-promoting, womanizing, yet intensely creative.
283 pages, Hardcover
First published June 1, 1994
5 people are currently reading
90 people want to read
About the author
Joel Engel
29 books3 followersJoel Engel authored or co-authored more than 15 books (including a New York Times bestseller)—narrative nonfiction, essays, sports, satire, pop culture, biography, and autobiography. As a journalist for the New York Times and Los Angeles Times, among other papers and periodicals, Engel reported on everything from politics to hot-air ballooning, pregnancy to cancer research, pop culture to business. Engle has also sold several feature-film scripts to Hollywood and produced about 60 hours of (cable) television.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
March 24, 2017
The other day someone literally dumped this at our public library so I brought it home and read it. I'm so glad I did!
This is the true story of STAR TREK creator Gene Roddenberry, and it's brutal. Not only was he a drunken lecher who exploited and demeaned women, (both in his imaginary worlds and in real life) but he was a mediocre writer who tended to steal ideas from comrades and pass them off as his own. In Star Trek terms, he was like a trailer park version of James T. Kirk, liberally mixed with large doses of Harry Mudd.
None of this made me enjoy Star Trek less, however. I think it's fascinating that a man with so many ghastly personality flaws could write about the future with such optimism and faith. The one thing that left me frustrated is that this book isn't really a biography. Engel is a brilliant writer but all his contacts are TV and movie people, and there's very little info on Gene Roddenberry's childhood and adolescence. The root causes of his alcoholism and sexual dysfunction are never explored, and there is also no explanation of how and why he was able to outgrow the ingrained racial prejudice of his brutal father, a Texan from a time when lynchings and racial violence in the Lone Star state were routine.
Gene Roddenberry could have become just another racist cop on the LAPD. Instead he became a visionary who changed the world -- and who then drank himself to death while groping women half his age and sneering at the very talented group of actors and writers who spread his message throughout the world, often at considerable personal sacrifice. Gene truly seems to have embodied the best and the worst of the human species.
Fascinating!
One final thought: The best part of the book was where Engel contrasts Rod Serling and Gene Roddenberry, not as men but as professional writers. It was intriguing how Serling was a writer first and foremost. He wrote virtually all the Twilight Zone classics by himself, and was truly a "writer's writer," while Roddenberry was more of an idea man who came up with a startling premise or a broad outline and generally left the nuts and bolts to others. Fascinating!
This is the true story of STAR TREK creator Gene Roddenberry, and it's brutal. Not only was he a drunken lecher who exploited and demeaned women, (both in his imaginary worlds and in real life) but he was a mediocre writer who tended to steal ideas from comrades and pass them off as his own. In Star Trek terms, he was like a trailer park version of James T. Kirk, liberally mixed with large doses of Harry Mudd.
None of this made me enjoy Star Trek less, however. I think it's fascinating that a man with so many ghastly personality flaws could write about the future with such optimism and faith. The one thing that left me frustrated is that this book isn't really a biography. Engel is a brilliant writer but all his contacts are TV and movie people, and there's very little info on Gene Roddenberry's childhood and adolescence. The root causes of his alcoholism and sexual dysfunction are never explored, and there is also no explanation of how and why he was able to outgrow the ingrained racial prejudice of his brutal father, a Texan from a time when lynchings and racial violence in the Lone Star state were routine.
Gene Roddenberry could have become just another racist cop on the LAPD. Instead he became a visionary who changed the world -- and who then drank himself to death while groping women half his age and sneering at the very talented group of actors and writers who spread his message throughout the world, often at considerable personal sacrifice. Gene truly seems to have embodied the best and the worst of the human species.
Fascinating!
One final thought: The best part of the book was where Engel contrasts Rod Serling and Gene Roddenberry, not as men but as professional writers. It was intriguing how Serling was a writer first and foremost. He wrote virtually all the Twilight Zone classics by himself, and was truly a "writer's writer," while Roddenberry was more of an idea man who came up with a startling premise or a broad outline and generally left the nuts and bolts to others. Fascinating!
December 14, 2020
When I was real young and Star Trek TNG was the greatest show on television, I have to admit, I believed all the hype about the man. Roddenberry was the one and only person who changed television history by solely creating the greatest television franchise of all time; as a Star Trek fan in the '90s, this was fact. But I've been around the block a bit in the past 30 years, and know that there is a certain type of personality--almost Trump-like--that exists at the apex of successful businesses. Gene Roddenberry is just that type of personality.
I first heard about his shadiness years ago when I found out that there were lyrics to the original Trek theme music. Lyrics to the theme music that I haven't heard? And written by the Great Bird of the Galaxy? Awesome, right? No. The lyrics blew. So why is this important to mention? Roddenberry wrote them to split the paycheque with the composer, claiming he 'had to make money from this show somehow'.
The book is full of dirty little tidbits like that. I didn't realize the extent of what he did to swindle the creatives who surrounded him. He was an expert self-promoter and manipulator who was able to rest comfortably on a massive bed of fluff pieces woven mostly by himself.
When I first started reading this book, I felt like it was overly negative, and I was fairly certain Joel Engel probably had a rejected TNG script in his desk that he was still bitter about. However, by the end of the book, and after recollecting interviews I had seen over the years with the major Star Trek players (there are some awkward moments in 'Trek Nation' when GR's son interviews some writers)--who never really wanted to get into the minutia of their unpleasant experiences, I've decided this break down of the man might actually be the one truth that exists outside of internet tidbits.
If you are a Star Trek fan who is interested in television production, this is right up your alley. It might shake your beliefs if you still think of him as the Great Bird of the Galaxy, though.
I first heard about his shadiness years ago when I found out that there were lyrics to the original Trek theme music. Lyrics to the theme music that I haven't heard? And written by the Great Bird of the Galaxy? Awesome, right? No. The lyrics blew. So why is this important to mention? Roddenberry wrote them to split the paycheque with the composer, claiming he 'had to make money from this show somehow'.
The book is full of dirty little tidbits like that. I didn't realize the extent of what he did to swindle the creatives who surrounded him. He was an expert self-promoter and manipulator who was able to rest comfortably on a massive bed of fluff pieces woven mostly by himself.
When I first started reading this book, I felt like it was overly negative, and I was fairly certain Joel Engel probably had a rejected TNG script in his desk that he was still bitter about. However, by the end of the book, and after recollecting interviews I had seen over the years with the major Star Trek players (there are some awkward moments in 'Trek Nation' when GR's son interviews some writers)--who never really wanted to get into the minutia of their unpleasant experiences, I've decided this break down of the man might actually be the one truth that exists outside of internet tidbits.
If you are a Star Trek fan who is interested in television production, this is right up your alley. It might shake your beliefs if you still think of him as the Great Bird of the Galaxy, though.
June 6, 2017
Yeah, G-rod was an asshole. After reading the oral histories earlier this year this was quite evident; reading this so soon afterwards was about as redundant as reading two books that at least partially focused on Warren Beatty after getting the gist of the story from Easy Riders, Raging Bulls. Was hoping for more quotables like Tracy Torme's "waves and waves" anecdote on pages 245-246 to disillusion fellow adult trekkies with, but considering how toxic working with roddenberry almost universally was it wasn't surprising to see this filled with mostly unfunny tales of exceptional hubris, rampant self-mythologizing, and fast and loose credit taking. Had been unaware of the experience involving "The Nine" described in chapter 8, which is a great example of Hollywood truth often being stranger than fiction (ah, the heyday of metaphysical acid cults...). If he wasn't such a blatant asshole you'd feel bad for him at the end of his life, clearly suffering from dementia and strung along by his shady lawyer into utter angry incoherence. Despite his obsession with female flesh, he was awful towards most of the women in his life. It definitely seems that Majel was his sexual soul mate if nothing else, and Luxwana Troi may have actually understated her cougar credentials.
Did trek succeed despite him? Watch G-Rod's beloved "The Omega Glory" sometime and decide for yourself, but for your own sake don't forget the drugs.
Random note: only the second book in my readings from this year to have been absorbed entirely from a printed-on-paper source.
Did trek succeed despite him? Watch G-Rod's beloved "The Omega Glory" sometime and decide for yourself, but for your own sake don't forget the drugs.
Random note: only the second book in my readings from this year to have been absorbed entirely from a printed-on-paper source.
June 22, 2018
If I recall, I learned about this book on memory-alpha.wikia.com, the Star Dreck geeks' vanity library; and I eventually determined to read it. It provided a plethora of evidence and support for the conclusions I (an ex-Star Dreck fan who left fandom eighteen years ago) had already started to draw in the last few years about Gene Roddenberry: that several key parts of the mythology promulgated by Roddenberry surrounding his creation of the original Star Dreck are untrue or heavily distorted; and that, in general, Roddenberry was not a nice man and not a figure to be admired.
Things I learned that I didn't know (or at least didn't know fully):
The problem with this book is not that it comes off as tabloid trash--not at all. Having D.C. Fontana's foreword means she tacitly approved the book; David Gerrold also cooperated fully with the author, as many other Star Trek contributors. (The interesting limitation on that is: none of the major actors at all have anything to say in the book, with the exception of Leonard Nimoy, another person who got financially low-balled for years by Roddenberry.) It's just that the book is poorly edited (although I have seen worse), with typos appearing semi-regularly.
Things I learned that I didn't know (or at least didn't know fully):
From day one of attempting to secure scripts for Star Dreck, Roddenberry was notorious for rewriting every script no matter how good it already was or how well-established and well-known the scriptwriter was. The feud between Roddenberry and Harlan Ellison over Ellison's "The City on the Edge of Forever" (whose original script was substantially different from the broadcast version people know and love) is merely the most (in)famous example. The new versions would not necessarily be superior, to put it mildly.
Roddenberry was also notorious for taking credit for ideas, and even entire scripts, that were not his. Most of Star Dreck's contributors didn't seem to mind unless it led to their being denied official credit (and payment) for a script. But because of this irrepressible habit of Roddenberry's, most fans do not know that key concepts and characters from Star Dreck (especially The Next Generation) originated with people other than Roddenberry. For instance, someone else whose name I am trying to remember (or possibly two people, I forget) is directly responsible for inventing the characters of Data and Worf. (Roddenberry later sent a memo about the android character as though it were his idea. There is a special reason he did something that obnoxious.)
Captain Picard's first name was originally going to be "Julien"; the person who suggested
"Jean-Luc" instead was D.C. Fontana. The concept of "away teams" led by the second-in-command also came entirely from one of the contributors. So did the concept of the "captain's log" voice-over that began in the original series: it was someone's solution to the practical need for a narrative explanation of what would happen.
During the gestation and first season of Star Dreck: The Next Generation, Roddenberry alienated legendary original series writers D.C. Fontana (Journey to Babel) and David Gerrold (The Trouble With Tribbles), mostly over issues of monetary compensation. I won't try to describe this issue in detail, because it's much more complicated than the older and more constant issue of Roddenberry's dictatorial control; but it boils down to money for Gerrold--Roddenberry insisted on low-balling Gerrold for his script contributions and Gerrold wouldn't have it--and, for Fontana, more that Roddenberry mistreated her professionally (but, on his end, for personal reasons) until she got fed up, referred their disputes to the Guild, and left.
Roddenberry was an alcoholic and, from at least the mid-1970s, a very heavy recreational drug user. Reliable sources in the book repeatedly recall that he regularly smoked pot and snorted cocaine. Although his death is not directly attributable to an alcohol- or drug-related reason, it is difficult not to think he, to a certain extent, drank himself and drugged himself to death.
Almost certainly helped along by the drugs and alcohol, his health failed from the mid-1980s onward. The book makes it clear that the entire time of the gestation of TNG through its first few seasons, Roddenberry was dying (if slowly). Moreover, he was senile by halfway through the first season, and this is why his compulsive practice of rewriting all scripts finally ended: he just couldn't do it any longer. (It's also why he sent the memo sketching the character Data as though an android character were a new idea he had just thought of: he couldn't remember it coming from someone else.)
This is partly (but not entirely) why he infamously used his lawyer, the widely loathed Leonard Maizlish, as his proxy at the studio. Maizlish looked after Roddenberry's financial interests, and more generally enforced Roddenberry's desires. Maizlish also, since Roddenberry was eventually too ill to handle script editing, edited scripts himself on Roddenberry's behalf despite that being a direct violation of writers' guild rules (only writers and producers could do scriptwriting). Maizlish was heavily involved in the final alienation of Fontana, mainly over trying to coerce Fontana to testify against David Gerrold in an ongoing script-related financial lawsuit.
Roddenberry had an intense personal antipathy toward women, due to a failed marriage with and bitter divorce from first wife Eileen (the woman before Majel Barrett, whom he had taken up with well before the divorce finalized). Colleagues recall that Roddenberry's remarks toward women were highly misogynistic, to put it mildly. Colleagues also, on visits to the Roddenberry home, witnessed Roddenberry and Majel Barrett fighting viciously (mostly verbally, the accounts indicate) at home. Why Roddenberry and Barrett remained married is not obvious unless it were about money.
Roddenberry was also an inveterate sexual fantasist who constantly inserted sexual material into the original series and The Next Generation even if it embarrassed and offended writers. One example given is: the scene in "The Naked Now" in which Tasha Yar (intoxicated by the "polywater" contamination) seduces Data (after passing the condition on to him) was created entirely by Roddenberry, and inserted over the scriptwriter's objection. (If you always questioned the plausibility of an android getting infected with this contaminant and instantly losing his judgment, now you know who insisted on the scene.) The character who eventually became Deanna Troi was originally conceived by Roddenberry as a four-breasted hermaphrodite, until Fontana pointed out to him that that was (a)offensive, (b)physically rather difficult for an actress to perform. (Fontana, who wrote the book's foreword, very much comes off throughout the book as both level-headed and brave, doing a pretty good job of never allowing her boss Roddenberry to intimidate her.)
The problem with this book is not that it comes off as tabloid trash--not at all. Having D.C. Fontana's foreword means she tacitly approved the book; David Gerrold also cooperated fully with the author, as many other Star Trek contributors. (The interesting limitation on that is: none of the major actors at all have anything to say in the book, with the exception of Leonard Nimoy, another person who got financially low-balled for years by Roddenberry.) It's just that the book is poorly edited (although I have seen worse), with typos appearing semi-regularly.
January 24, 2024
I'm certain the Star Trek dweebs will be upset that their "great man" has been so thoroughly revealed here as a mediocre talent, an unethical credit hog, an incompetent druggie and drunk, and a terrible producer who was a catastrophic producer poor with logistics. But this book needed to be written. Joel Engel does ride a lot of the material found in INSIDE STAR TREK, but he is a lot pithier here than Solow and Justman. He's also managed to include some invaluable testimony from David Gerrold and DC Fontana concerning the absolutely despicable manner in which those two talents were exploited in THE NEXT GENERATION. That horrible story -- which involves the vile controlling attorney Leonard Maizlish -- is the reason to read this book. It reveals the "great humanist" to be little more than a predictable Hollywood mercenary looking to fuck any woman that moves. I should also note that I have arrived at these conclusions about Roddenberry on my own. Engel simply lets the facts speak for themselves.
March 31, 2024
This warts and all look at the myth behind the man behind Star Trek is not for those who want to believe the mythology of Roddenberry. It rings fairly true as far as I’m concerned, if you factor in the people he interviewed, and other source material, which is meticulously documented. Roddenberry was a very flawed individual, as chronicled in the book, but he was the spark behind something that literally changed the world. The story is well told, though it did tend to run from one anecdote to another with sometimes tenuous connective tissue. A few typos, also, are distracting.
June 13, 2023
A sense of physical nausea accompanied my reading of this man’s life for much of the book.
What an idiot….
What an idiot….
January 2, 2025
Learned many new things about Gene from this biography, highly recommended
September 25, 2019
I am between 4 and 4.5. I will start off with stating that this is my 2nd Gene Roddenberry (GR) biography, the first was an authorized one. I wanted to give this information, so that you may understand that I come at this book review with a foundation and might compare previous works with this one.
With this stated, Joel Engel's book was a complete 180 from the other book. "Over the years a lot of people have swallowed the line that GR was the sole creator of Star Trek...GR's real accomplishments were constructing ST's parameters, selling the series, seeking quality writers, and often recognizing brilliance when he saw it (although most of the book depicts that he DID NOT complement people often, but stole their ideas and tagged his name on it). "Every time I sit down at the typewriter, I feel like this is the time that they're going to find out I'm faking it," states GR to Garrold (Engel, 224).
This book showed a dark and gritty side to GR - laced with stealing other people's ideas, being completely about money and fame, and lacking the morals/values he depicts in his shows/movies- one that diehard Trek fans will not want to hear/read. Although, the book did detail that at the end, when he was making ST:TNG, he had serious health issues that were affecting him mentally. Although if you are one to have an open mind, this is an excellent book to get a full picture of GR (I do highly recommending reading an authorized biography, so you may gauge your opinion of the man so many call the "Great Bird"-something like that).
At times the book seemed to be a whole lot of negative, where I was sometimes questioning, "does this man have a vendetta for this man?" I ended with comparing these negative comments to books by Shatner and Nimoy - sorry haven't got to Takei, Nichols, and the others yet- and realized that Engel's might actually be correct in this negative portrayal. To those Trek fans who won't read/hear anything about it's creator, seriously? No one is perfect and besides if you love ST, it doesn't really matter if the creator was a scum bag...let's us just enjoy the show that shows we can overcome negativity through understanding through learning about one another. Overall, great read to add to a Star Trek lovers collection!
With this stated, Joel Engel's book was a complete 180 from the other book. "Over the years a lot of people have swallowed the line that GR was the sole creator of Star Trek...GR's real accomplishments were constructing ST's parameters, selling the series, seeking quality writers, and often recognizing brilliance when he saw it (although most of the book depicts that he DID NOT complement people often, but stole their ideas and tagged his name on it). "Every time I sit down at the typewriter, I feel like this is the time that they're going to find out I'm faking it," states GR to Garrold (Engel, 224).
This book showed a dark and gritty side to GR - laced with stealing other people's ideas, being completely about money and fame, and lacking the morals/values he depicts in his shows/movies- one that diehard Trek fans will not want to hear/read. Although, the book did detail that at the end, when he was making ST:TNG, he had serious health issues that were affecting him mentally. Although if you are one to have an open mind, this is an excellent book to get a full picture of GR (I do highly recommending reading an authorized biography, so you may gauge your opinion of the man so many call the "Great Bird"-something like that).
At times the book seemed to be a whole lot of negative, where I was sometimes questioning, "does this man have a vendetta for this man?" I ended with comparing these negative comments to books by Shatner and Nimoy - sorry haven't got to Takei, Nichols, and the others yet- and realized that Engel's might actually be correct in this negative portrayal. To those Trek fans who won't read/hear anything about it's creator, seriously? No one is perfect and besides if you love ST, it doesn't really matter if the creator was a scum bag...let's us just enjoy the show that shows we can overcome negativity through understanding through learning about one another. Overall, great read to add to a Star Trek lovers collection!
Read
August 26, 2014In the 1970s, Star Trek fans were unwilling to see Star Trek as just a television show and Gene Roddenberry as just a writer/producer. Instead, in their eyes, Star Trek was a wondrous template for humanity's future, and Roddenberry was the bold, creative visionary who fought tooth and nail to get his ideas to the screen for the benefit of everyone.
This view persists somewhat today; it's not hard to find material referring to Roddenberry's vision for the future and so forth.
The truth about Roddenberry is more nuanced, to say the least. I was already aware of some aspects of the Roddenberry story that didn't fit with the usual story. For instance, it's often claimed that Roddenberry had to fight NBC to have a black woman in a prominent position on his show... but in reality, NBC had already been encouraging producers to have more black characters on their shows for years. Another thing that's always seemed clear to me is that the Star Trek franchise was usually at its best when Roddenberry was least involved (with some exceptions).
This book was very enlightening in revealing more of the real Gene Roddenberry.
Some miscellaneous remarks:
* I would have liked to have more information on how Roddenberry became "the great Bird of the Galaxy," as he was called. More about exactly when fans began describing him in such exaggerated terms, and so on.
* It's unfortunate that the book really seems to link Roddenberry's many character flaws with his atheism.
* At one point the book quotes a letter by Roddenberry and, as evidence that Roddenberry was not thinking clearly, the author claims that Roddenberry was not making a distinction between the character Captain Kirk and the actor William Shatner. I don't see the quoted passage that way at all.
This view persists somewhat today; it's not hard to find material referring to Roddenberry's vision for the future and so forth.
The truth about Roddenberry is more nuanced, to say the least. I was already aware of some aspects of the Roddenberry story that didn't fit with the usual story. For instance, it's often claimed that Roddenberry had to fight NBC to have a black woman in a prominent position on his show... but in reality, NBC had already been encouraging producers to have more black characters on their shows for years. Another thing that's always seemed clear to me is that the Star Trek franchise was usually at its best when Roddenberry was least involved (with some exceptions).
This book was very enlightening in revealing more of the real Gene Roddenberry.
Some miscellaneous remarks:
* I would have liked to have more information on how Roddenberry became "the great Bird of the Galaxy," as he was called. More about exactly when fans began describing him in such exaggerated terms, and so on.
* It's unfortunate that the book really seems to link Roddenberry's many character flaws with his atheism.
* At one point the book quotes a letter by Roddenberry and, as evidence that Roddenberry was not thinking clearly, the author claims that Roddenberry was not making a distinction between the character Captain Kirk and the actor William Shatner. I don't see the quoted passage that way at all.
May 18, 2025
Just a hit piece on Roddenberry. Gene wasn't perfect, he was an agnostic/atheist, a womanizer, and a heavy drinker. He had a large ego, liked $$, and had rather childish, simple-simon political views. However, compared to many TV/Film producers he was a saint.
The foward by D.C. Fontana gives away the game. Fontana and Gerrold parted from Roddenberry on very bad terms, and this seems to have been their revenge. Bascially Engel twists everything Roddenberry did into a negative is. For example:
1) Roddenberry was a decorated US bomber pilot? Per Engel he was an incompetent pilot who "Only" flew 40 dangerous missions, instead of the 89 he claimed.
2) Roddenberry created Star Trek and TNG? Per Engel someone else was actually responsible.
3) Roddenberry produced some fine TV? Per Engel it was due to other people.
4) Roddenberry fought the NBC/Paramount execs? Per Engel they were right and Roddenberry was wrong.
5) Roddenberry Fires DC Gerrold and Fontana? Per Engel it was totally unjustified, and Roddenberry was completely to blame. Only one side to this story.
And despite no evidence that Roddenberry's work was affected, the book has almost 5 pages on Roddenberry's supposed drugging and drinking.
The foward by D.C. Fontana gives away the game. Fontana and Gerrold parted from Roddenberry on very bad terms, and this seems to have been their revenge. Bascially Engel twists everything Roddenberry did into a negative is. For example:
1) Roddenberry was a decorated US bomber pilot? Per Engel he was an incompetent pilot who "Only" flew 40 dangerous missions, instead of the 89 he claimed.
2) Roddenberry created Star Trek and TNG? Per Engel someone else was actually responsible.
3) Roddenberry produced some fine TV? Per Engel it was due to other people.
4) Roddenberry fought the NBC/Paramount execs? Per Engel they were right and Roddenberry was wrong.
5) Roddenberry Fires DC Gerrold and Fontana? Per Engel it was totally unjustified, and Roddenberry was completely to blame. Only one side to this story.
And despite no evidence that Roddenberry's work was affected, the book has almost 5 pages on Roddenberry's supposed drugging and drinking.
July 14, 2008
This book is myth busting. If you are of the mind that Gene Roddenberry was a genius saint who created several fantasic shows and movies, don't read this book. If you want the truth, then read this book with caution. Some things in this book I belive may have been slanted to the authors opinion, but it does not gush either as many fan books might. The facts on how StarTrek made it's way to the airwaves and big screen are all here, with a few bio-facts thrown in. I thought it was a good book, but I felt the end was rushed.
July 29, 2015
I enjoyed the book overall. It gives the impression that Star Trek was never really the sole creation of Gene, but a landscape molded by many hands despite Gene's inept over management.
The author paints a pretty gross picture of Gene, and its difficult to know where sensationalism ends and truth begins. None of us live lives of perfection and I tend to think that Engel's thesis was fairly well conceived before pen hit paper.
The author paints a pretty gross picture of Gene, and its difficult to know where sensationalism ends and truth begins. None of us live lives of perfection and I tend to think that Engel's thesis was fairly well conceived before pen hit paper.
September 10, 2013
Sadly eye opening but it makes me appreciate Leonard Nimoy all the more. It's important to remember that no one is infallible. Considering writers like Moffat and Gatiss who have shows with cult followings, but harsh comments from a group of fans who highlight their shortcomings, I wonder what it would be like if Star Trek had premiered in today's world of the Internet.
February 5, 2015
Horrible, mean-spirited character assassination.
I read it in my youth, because I felt haunted, just haunted by the SOUL of Gene Roddenberry and those episodes which bore his name, particularly.
But o Gene, as I recall all this now writing from Ireland, I cannot help wonder what happened to your Irish forebears. What if … If only … http://corjesusacratissimum.org
I read it in my youth, because I felt haunted, just haunted by the SOUL of Gene Roddenberry and those episodes which bore his name, particularly.
But o Gene, as I recall all this now writing from Ireland, I cannot help wonder what happened to your Irish forebears. What if … If only … http://corjesusacratissimum.org
July 27, 2011
A fun read, though kind of horrifying: Roddenberry comes across as a royal prick. Engel's few efforts to see things from Roddenberry's point of view come across as condescending. Particularly offensive and simplistic was Engel's attribution of Roddenberry's weaknesses to his atheism.
Want to read
August 1, 2012To keep in mind before reading: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/... and David Gerrold's letter about Roddenberry, Engel and Alexander http://startrekdom.blogspot.ca/2007/0...
Read
December 5, 2011I picked this book up on a whim, not being a total die-hard fan. I was surprised most by what it revealed about practices in the television industry, and the unsavory behaviors of Roddenberry.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews