Customer Reviews

Star Trek Creator: The Authorized Biography of Gene Roddenberry

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

1) This is a hagiography written by a friend, not an objective biography. Roddenberry's character flaws (and there were many) are barely touched upon or completely glossed over. (The one-sided, multi-page attempt to discredit detractor David Gerrold is embarrassingly silly, for example.)

2) For a book written by someone who was supposedly Robbenberry's friend, precious little of the story comes from the man himself. Nearly half the book (and almost all of the latter sections) consists of transcripts of memos and letters written by Roddenberry.

3) The editing is sloppy; typos abound, most frequently in people's names. Usually they're just annoying, but when you see uncorrected misspellings such as "Harland Ellison" and "Leslie Nielson," you have to wonder just how well the author knew the details of what he was writing about, and whether he was simply parroting material given to him by others.

I'd recommend sticking with Joel Engel's biography of Roddenberry as an antidote. It too has its slant, but it's nonetheless a far more rounded effort than this volume.

While I agree with one of the previous reviewers, that Roddenberry could have chosen a more experienced chronicler, I understand why he did not. Still, despite its shortcommings, Star Trek Creator should be applauded for going beyond what a "Trekkie" would necessarily want to hear to becomming a book about one man's journey into making a living in Hollywood. DR.

The other reviewer was overly harsh. This book was a wonderful telling of Gene Rodenburry's life. Was it perfect? No, but I do feel that I have a greater appreciation for the man and his life. I have a much better understanding of what motivated him and his ideas. This book is so cheap that you can't lose.

Offers a different treatment of Star Trek. Contains many documents Roddenberry wrote to promote the idea of ST. Gives interesting insight of Gene's early life with the Los Angeles Police Department and his conversion to TV. There are many ups and downs. I know him better due to this book. ST is the biggest thing in TV, the hottest property, an expansive franchise, and it almost didn't happen at all. Not many TV shows reach from 1966 to beyond our lifetimes. Star Trek will.

I very much enjoyed this book. Why?

Lots of detail: the writer unearthed old documents and interviewed aging witnesses to put together a portrait of Roddenberry which starts from before his birth to the moment of his death.

Is it hagiographic? No. Why?

The author clearly, and repeatedly, reveals Roddenberry's tendency to be a womanizer and does not directly excuse him for this. He merely reports it.
The writer also reveals at least one episode of outright gratuitous cruelty on the part of Roddenberry.

Is it fully satisfying? Not quite. Why?

I wish there was more material on Roddenberry's home life with his first wife and their children. I also wish there were more material about Roddenberry's non-professional interests, hobbies, if any, etc. However, I forgive this lack because I know that a larger and longer book might not have been economically viable. And, after all, it is Roddenberry's role as the creator of Star Trek that we care about.

What about the controversies regarding other peoples' contributions to Star Trek?

This book, and indeed every other book I have ever read about Star Trek over the past 30 years including interviews with Roddenberry, make it very clear that MANY people contributed to Star Trek. But, the concept was Roddenberry's and he was the necessary and unique filter through which everybody else's ideas had to pass. This has been obvious to me for decades and I was happy to see that this book touched on this as well. There is really no basis for controversy.

I see Roddenberry as a loving and creative man who allowed himself a great deal af latitude in matters of sex (hardly a capital crime, and hardly unique), did abuse substances to some extent (which probably contributed to his death, but again, hardly unique especially in the culture of Hollywood), and occasionally was involved in wrangles about creative priorities, responsibilities and credit (again, very garden-variety stuff in the business culture he was a part of). It would be nice if he could have risen completely above such things, but I feel he did the best he could while, at the same time, producing something of lasting humanitarian and entertainment value to the world. Only he could have done it in that way with that degree of success.

Without putting him on a pedestal, he is a heroic figure. And one the world sorely needs again.