Porter, E. Jennifer and Darcee L. McLaren, editors; Albany: State University of New York Press. 1999. 315 pp. $21.95 (USD).

[1] Porter and McLaren have compiled articles on the most popular science fiction television show in thirty-five years, Star Trek. These articles cover popular views and philosophy on all four television series and some of the movies. The contributors include Michael Jindra, Anne Mackenzie Pearson, and Gregory Peterson. The articles vary in import and weight. The book is divided into three parts, the first part consisting of the best articles in the book. In the last section, the evaluations on fans seem incomplete and inadequately researched. However, for anyone teaching world views, philosophy, and theology, the book is invaluable.

[2] One of the most compelling articles, written by the editors McLaren and Porter, neatly outlines a list of popular "isms" or world views which may either be, as some of the contributors suggest, preached and created by Star Trek, or as I would maintain, merely are part of the Zeitgeist and portrayed in the original and subsequent series. A quotation from the editors' article "(Re)Covering Sacred Ground" reveals the tone of the entire book: "The similarities found in the concepts of rationality, pluralism, or eclecticism, humanism, and individualism between New Age and Star Trek perspectives provide points of contact for religious ideas within Star Trek stories" (Porter and McLaren, 112).

[3] As seen above, the list of "isms" may provide a clue to the popularity of Gene Roddenberry's own atheistic world view. New Age spirituality is not the only position revealed in these examinations of the Star Trek corpus. The great American dream, or should one say, the Western dream of "rugged individualism" remains a clue to the attractiveness of Kirk, Janeway, and, even, Spock. As McLaren and Porter note, "Individualism is a key component of the American world view," referring to David Hess' book, Science in the New Age: the Paranormal, Its Defenders and Debunkers, and American Culture (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1993). This idea, as expanded by the editors, encompasses not only the individualism of character, work, or progress, but the democratic imposition of individualism onto one's "spiritual path" (McLaren and Porter, 110). This substitution of the individual's quest for meaning rivals the rationalism, or the glorification of reason, as expressed in the articles by Robert Asa, Gregory Peterson and others in the book.

[4] In his article, "Classic Star Trek and the Death of God: A Case Study of "Who Mourns for Adonais?"É Robert Asa writes that:

Classic Star Trek has almost unbounded confidence in the powers of human rationality and science. In this regard, Star Trek reflects the intellectual foundations of the Enlightenment, an eighteenth-century philosophical movement characterized by rationalism (trust in reason), empiricism (trust in the senses), and scepticism (trust in mistrust-refusing to believe in anything without good evidence) (Porter and McLaren, 48).

[5] The Enlightenment faith in progress, science and reason forms only part of the philosophy of Star Trek, however. The main characters in the original series and in The Next Generation, such as Spock and Picard, constantly reveal that, along with dispassionate logic, trust in technological or scientific solutions to problems are preferable to philosophical or religious answers. Asa notes that in "Who Mourns for Adonis", there are no gods, only "pretenders to the throne", who are ultimately unmasked and destroyed. The interesting point in the original series regarding religion is that religion and science are seen as incompatible. Asa refers to the belief of "scientism", "a belief that if something is not knowable by science, it does not exist" (Porter and McLaren, 49). Peterson, in "Religion and Science in Star Trek: The Next Generation: God, Q, and Evolutionary Eschatology on the Final Frontier" examines this religion vs. science theme in more depth. All of the articles in Part I of the book present compelling reading on this basic theme of the modern distrust of myth and religion, and the logical, psychological result, the present fascination of New Age spirituality. That New Age spirituality is found in the Voyager attracts creates notice from several authors, such as McLaren and Porter, and provides interesting reading for the contemporary critic of the newer series.

[6] Part II carries on the examination of myth, including the Christian stories and symbolism in the television shows and in the movies. The most successful of these articles, Ian Maher's "The Outward Voyage and the Inward Search", raises questions on what it means to be truly human in the Star Trek universe, what is the relationship of humanity to the rest of creation, and the existential questions of the meaning of life, death and fidelity to friends. The articles on myth and Christianity seem to push the parallels beyond what I think the creators of the shows and movies intended or, even, conveyed. However, the articles merit attention.

[7] The least convincing section of the book is Part III, "Religion and Ritual in Fandom," which contains three articles that seem contrived. The value of interviewing a few fans, whether Trekkies or Trekkers, seems a doubtfully serious subject for articles, compared to the fine scholarship and thought of the articles in the two previous parts. Also, I sense that at least one author, Michael Jindra, begs the question as to what came first, the chicken (Star Trek) or the egg (modernist philosophy). Jennifer E. Porter's article and Darcee L. McLaren's articles are interesting in their study of the effect of the Star Trek philosophies of the "Prime Directive" and "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination" on fandom, but they apply the same logical fallacy. Modernist philosophy created the series, not the other way around. What is interesting about these articles is the apparent lack of depth among some fans, who would base their life's philosophy on what is only a television show.

[8] The sections on myth and fandom are less successful; the articles involving interviews and polls of fans border on the superficial. However, these articles and the book as a whole are valuable for instructors of philosophy, theology and film/television studies. As an instructor in a course on modern world views, I would definitely use Porter and McLaren's entertaining, as well as thought-provoking, collection.

Marie A. Dean, Instructor, Living Water Arts College, Derwent, Alberta, Canada (marieannedean@hotmail.com).