Star Trek

I'll admit it. I'm a lapsed Star Trek fan.

I was fairly devout at university - largely because I had a girlfriend who was that rarest of rarities - a 'hot' Trekkie. But as I left the world of academia, I found that 'Trekdom' failed to answer many of life's more complicated questions and went back to my original faith; 'Bondism.'

But Star Trek does kind of get under your skin - and I know that my swagger, elegant coif and pudgy midriff are all personality aspects adopted from the great prophet of Star Trek lore: Captain James T. Kirk.

One of the reasons I lost my faith in Star Trek was because the entire franchise had been driven mercilessly into the ground.

It went from inspired - like the brilliant Star Trek: The Next Generation series and rip-roaring movies like The Wrath of Khan and The Undiscovered Country - to tepid trash like Star Trek: Enterprise and the jumbled jigsaw that was Star Trek: Nemesis.

In many ways, we imagined what the franchise needed was to 'go away' for a little while, until we all forgot its indiscretions (like the final episode of 'Enterprise,' which implied that the entire show was the holodeck fantasy of 'Next Generation' character Commander Riker.)

But instead, legendary producer J.J. Abrams grabbed the Klingon Targ by the horns and decided to make a new movie which took the entire franchise right back to the beginning - distilling six series and ten movies down to the purest, most essential elements that made 'Trek' work.

And, by George, I think he 'got' it!

Star Trek is a bright new vision, boldly going where no producer has gone before in 'rebooting' the entire franchise (much as they did with Batman and Bond, in Batman Begins and Casino Royale.)


The characters we know and love have been recast, the USS Enterprise has been tarted up for the 'Apple Mac' generation and the vigorously protected 'canon' of Star Trek history has been cast aside in favor of plots and concepts bristling with new narrative intensity.


Unsurprisingly, the essential elements of the storyline remain the same - being as they are the adventures of Captain Kirk and First Officer Spock. This movie reveals their first antagonistic encounter, on board the flagship USS Enterprise under it's original commander, Christopher Pike.


Facing off against a vicious enemy from the future, Spock and Kirk are forced to work together to save humanity - with Kirk taking command of the Enterprise and learning to collaborate with his first officer despite their sharply contrasting styles of command.


It's all fast-paced, with big-screen space battles and CGI monsters and everything you'd expect from a summer blockbuster. This makes the story is totally accessible, even if you've never seen an episode of Star Trek before - however, fans are serviced admirably with plenty of tidbits and Easter eggs thrown in to satisfy their obsessive lust for minutia.


And, somewhat cleverly, J. J. Abrams tied a complex plot-twist to the story of Star Trek, in which the established 'future' gets changed by meddling time-travelers (including Leonard Nimoy, in a cameo as 'old Spock.')


This neatly wipes the slate clean and frees the film (and any possible sequels) from being forced to stick to decades of pre-established continuity that's rigorously enforced by the legions of 'Trekkies' across the globe.

What works especially well is how they've kept certain aspects of the original series - like the Enterprise itself. Although the old girl's been tarted up to cinematic standards, everything about her (even down to the noise she makes when you open a communication channel) is close enough to the original TV show to be comparable.

Likewise, the costumes, phasers, tricorders and transporters are all similar to the 60s-era props, merely 'retconned' so they actually look like viable pieces of essential equipment.

All in all, the formula comes together fantastically. Star Trek is space opera at its finest and whatever your preconceptions about the original 'Trek,' you're unlikely to leave the cinema unsatisfied with this re-imagining.

On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft by Stephen King

There's an old maxim: Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

If there's any validity to that statement, it's most obvious regarding writers.

Check on Amazon for 'writing guides' and you'll see literally thousands of books about 'How to Write That Bestseller!' or 'Writing Fiction that Sells!' The irony? The books in question could themselves be classed as 'fiction'.

Most books on writing are written by, at best, moderately successful writers. Certainly, none of them are household names. If these writers failed to sell their bestsellers, what makes them qualified to tell you how to sell yours?

That's what makes On Writing an entirely different kettle of fish.

On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft is a book about successful fiction writing by one of the most successful fiction writers in recent history. Stephen King has written over fifty novels and sold millions of books. He's probably one of the best known names in populist literature and I vehemently argue that he is the singly most important American writer of the past fifty years.

Critics may scoff, but screw 'em. Stephen King is legendary - so there is nobody better qualified to teach the art of good fiction writing than he is.

That declaration out of the way - does On Writing live up to the hype I've just given it?

The book is split into roughly three sections. The first is biographical, giving an earnest account of Stephen King's formative years and the path he took to become a successful writer. It's as amusing and entertaining as any biography you're apt to read - penned with King's trademark observations of living in lower middle-class Americana, while brutally honest about his shortcomings and successes as a writer, husband and father.

The second part is purely about the art of writing - about the words themselves, and how to craft successful fiction. Stephen King has always had a rather unique vision of writing. He's vehemently opposed to pre-plotting or planning novels in advance - preferring to consider himself the 'first reader' of a preexisting story he's merely channeling onto the paper.

The final part is the most fascinating, yet most disjointed. The manuscript of On Writing was only two-thirds finished when Stephen King was hit and nearly killed by a reckless driver on the side of a remote stretch of Maine blacktop.

He uses the final section of his book to outline his injury and recovery and put it in terms of his writing. It's tangibly creepy. During the middle section of On Writing, Stephen King referenced an unfinished book (From a Buick Eight) which I remember featuring a character dying in a roadside accident (one that eerily mirrored his own experience a few months later.)

Even creepier, a year after hitting and nearly killing him, the man who knocked King down died on Stephen King's birthday.... Creepy little details that prove the old adage 'truth is stranger (and scarier) than fiction.'

So it's a storming read - but is it useful for aspiring writers?

On Writing is certainly filled with helpful tips and advice for budding writers, but I think the major benefit of this brilliantly written book is attitude. Stephen King explains his motivation for writing, which appears to be more of a compulsion than anything else.

Despite being one of the most well-paid writers in America, he freely admits that he'd have kept writing even if he'd never sold a thing, simply because he had to.

That compulsion for storytelling is obvious: On Writing becomes a window into the mind and machinations of the real Stephen King. That in itself is fascinating.

In many ways, after devouring so many of their books, we readers sometimes imagine we understand and 'know' a writer. After reading On Writing, I realize I didn't know Stephen King at all. I still don't, but now I believe I know him a little better.

In On Writing, King's tone hovers between arrogance and self-deprecation. He was more than willing to cut down other writers and their style (naming and shaming quite a few), yet never above putting his own bad writing under an unflattering microscope. He both acknowledged his success, yet also seemed to be slightly embarrassed about it. He scoffed at critics who'd written him off as a 'schlockmeister' or purveyor of populist pap, yet sometimes wore that mantle with a certain amount of disdainful pride.

To me, it just magnified the mystique of Stephen King.

Stephen King's books have always had an important place in my mental bookshelf. His magnum opus, the Dark Tower chronicles, featured a gunslinger called 'Roland' on an inexorable quest which I paralleled with my own determined mission to live within reach of my own 'dark tower' (The Empire State Building.)

'Bag of Bones' was the book I read when I first returned to America in 2006, and King's crisp observations on rural American life strangely mirrored my experiences as I spent a week in the woods and farmland of sub(un)urban New Jersey.

Because of the appreciation I have for Stephen King, I found On Writing to be a fascinating peek into the inner workings of the man who who invented the modern American fairytale.

As a writer, On Writing has certainly given me some solid techniques and tips on improving my writing, but as a Stephen King fan, it's also enriched the experience of reading and enjoying books from this prolific writer's ever-expanding library.

For anybody interested in writing, or Stephen King, On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft is a must-read.

On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft is available from Amazon for $7.99 and up.