Peter David complains about a piece that Orson Scott Card wrote in the LA Times, in which he “heaped some abuse” on Star Trek. (Don’t have the link. I may look it up later)

Oddly, while I love the Star Trek universe, I kind of agree with Card’s point, as I understand it (purely from excerpts and commentary on PAD’s site; I haven’t read the article itself yet). Their complaint seems to be that Card considers the only “good” science fiction to be what I would consider “Idea” science fiction — science fiction that uses the “unreal” aspects of the setting to allow a story to explore a concept in a way that can’t really be explored in a more realistic setting. “Idea” science fiction, in my opinion, is the only kind of science fiction that can’t easily be told in other, non-sci-fi settings. Considering that, I can see why Card would consider it “good” Science Fiction.

Using that definition, Star Trek as a whole isn’t good science fiction. There are a few episodes (and novels) here and there that are, of course, but mostly, the good Star Trek episodes (and novels) aren’t good because of the ideas that they explore are intriguing, but because they’re simply engaging fiction. The Best of Both Worlds isn’t some of the best television that I remember because it used Science Fiction to explore some grand concept. The drama of having the beloved Captain held hostage on a ship that is on its way to wreak havoc, while his crewmembers have to make the hard decision to destroy the ship (and, thus, kill him) is an engaging story that could be told in nearly any setting without losing what made the story so special.

What makes these stories good isn’t the science fiction. Most of the time, when I enjoy a Star Trek novel (or an episode), it’s not the science fiction, it’s the character drama. Reading Star Trek: New Frontier is a wonderful way to pass the time, and you’ll be hard pressed to find a better story anywhere, but is it good Science Fiction? I don’t know that I can call it that — it’s good fiction.

During a conversation with my boss a few weeks ago, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy came up. Her response was, simply, that she didn’t like science fiction. After hearing a little more about the books and the movies, however, she came to a different conclusion. She liked the sound of the books (I’ve loaned her my copy, which has all the books collected, but haven’t heard her final verdict), because, from my description, they “weren’t science fiction.”

I was taken aback. I’d mentioned alien races, space ships, and the destruction of earth — how could that not be science fiction? A co-worker who had read the books previously agreed with my boss. They weren’t science fiction; they were comedy in a sci-fi setting.

After considering that, and reading the discussion on Card’s piece, I have to cede the point to them. I think there’s a distinction between science fiction and a science fiction setting. Star Trek is one example of (sometimes) good fiction in a science fiction setting, but it’s not good science fiction. The same could be said of (some) superhero comics, or Orson Scott Card’s “Shadow” novels. OSC‘s “Ender” novels, on the other hand, set in the same “universe” as the “Shadow” series, is what I would consider Science Fiction, because the setting is necessary to tell the story he wants to tell.

Of course, PAD and OSC can hold whatever opinions they like about the definition of science fiction, and whether there is a distinction between science fiction and the science fiction setting. Just like with their political views, I may agree or disagree (more often than not, politically, it’s the former with OSC and the latter with PAD), but that doesn’t change the fact that I enjoy their work, and that I will, therefore, continue buying everything that I can get my hands on with either of their names on the cover.