Close Search Close

 

  • Comics
  • Theatre
  • Site News

Star Trek: Voyager, aggressive watchability, lack of vision, and performative empathy

A great example of what Bad TV used to look like.

Look, Star Trek: Voyager sucked. But the way it sucked are fascinating, because they reflect the ways the TV landscape has changed since the show’s original conception. Voyager came onto the scene once Star Trek: The Next Generation finished up, and famously, one of the many, many, many issues this created in its production was creative differences between the cast, crew, and executives; the executives in charge wanted a show replicating the success of TNG, which to them meant replicating that show’s episodic storytelling in stark defiance of the increasing popularity of serialized storytelling pioneered by Voyager’s predecessors Babylon 5 and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.

It was also in stark defiance of both the wishes of the cast, crew, and fans – all of whom expected the show to have the ambitions of the franchise – as well as, you know, the basic premise of the show. The plot basis of the show is that the title ship is investigating a Maquis ship – that is to say, a group rebelling against the Federation, who frequently came up in DS9 – only for both groups to be flung across the galaxy deep into unexplored space known as the Delta Quadrant. Being 75 years from home and losing much of both crews, they agree to merge and work together to get home.

It’s a compelling idea that sparks the imagination, wondering how the two crews will evolve alongside each other, how the ship will change (physically and otherwise) in response to the needs of being so far away from home, and what sacrifices will be made to achieve a big, nearly impossible goal. Any illusions that the show will explore these ideas will fall away for any viewer within five episodes; even by the standards set by decades of reputation, the show is aggressively mediocre at best.

But it does end up watchable in ways specific to its era of television, and is even kind of revealing about storytelling. I have complained in the past about the 2004 version of Battlestar Galactica having too much vision, and here we have a show with the exact opposite problem*. There is no unifying reason this show has to exist beyond that there must always be a Star Trek. Now, I’ve brought up this kind of complaint before, and there are always people who say “But Tristan, does art need a specific reason to exist? Can’t something just be?” To which I would answer no, and I would point to Voyager as a reason why. 

(*How amusing that each show has the exact same premise and the exact opposite problem.)

Almost everything wrong with Voyager can be traced back to the fact that it didn’t pick a star to follow. Captain Janeway is famously inconsistent in her characterisation, something even actress Kate Mulgrew joked made her seem mentally ill at points; plot points are picked up and dropped essentially at random; tonal and structural inconsistencies; even main characters cast aside for long times (there’s about a season and a half where every episode is about either the Doctor (Robert Picardo) or Seven of Nine (Jeri Ryan)).

One strength of visionary writing I pointed to in my BSG essay was that knowing where you’re going means knowing where you’re not going. Voyager shows why this is a good thing because of how often one wonders why the hell we’re watching what we’re watching; this show actually has fewer holodeck episodes than its fellow entries in the franchise, but they’ve gained notoriety specifically because it’s harder to justify them being here at all. 

On the other hand, any strengths the show has can also be tied into its preoccupation with keeping the Star Trek tradition alive – specifically, it relies on the old systems of writing a Star Trek episode. I notice the show’s defenders tend to point to the fact that, unlike many modern shows, individual episodes have stories that begin, develop, and end in forty-five minutes (ninety in a two-parter). Even in the context of restoring the status quo, the sense of closure that comes with an episode is energizing.

Further, any time it actually engages with Star Trek ideas, it tends to work a lot better. This show has me fully believing that Vulcans, not Klingons, are the true coolest Star Trek race because they’re fundamentally the most dramatic, which makes them so easy to write that any idiot can do it. Any time that Tuvok (Tim Russ) takes our attention, the show improves enormously – he’s driven by logic, which means he only does things he wants to and he deduces the most effective way to achieve them (apparently, helped enormously by Russ being a huge Trek nerd who would advocate for his character when he felt Tuvok was written incorrectly).

One also sees this with the Borg; with this, the writers have the advantages of a) the Borg being deeply developed by this point whilst still having enough mystery to play with and more importantly b) the Borg being really cool, allowing them to seize a gap in the franchise and create a sympathetic Borg character in Seven of Nine, pulling out not just the ways Borg technology can create stories but Borg philosophy, as Seven consistently argues for efficiency over humanity.

Although this points to the show’s premise being an albatross around its neck; protagonists being stranded in the unexplored cracks of the galaxy demands the creation of new and interesting aliens, and they never quite manage to find something as compelling as the Klingons, Cardassians, Bajorans, Ferengi, or even Changelings. In fact, it’s quite satisfying to learn that even most of the writers thought the Kazon were lousy Klingon knockoffs. One could imagine an alternate universe where the creative teams of DS9 and Voyager were swapped, and the latter would have functioned much better.

It also points to an element where the badness and goodness collide into something genuinely compelling, even troubling me to the point of forcing me to assess my own behaviour. Janeway has something of a reputation in the fandom that’s split in half; both halves see her as a bloodthirsty tyrant, and one half celebrates her for it while the other thinks she’s insane. Both are oversimplifying somewhat, but they’re responding to something real, to wit: Janeway professes the values of Starfleet and the Federation, but will often default back onto violence and anger.

This (probably unintentionally) (definitely unintentionally) hits onto a fundamental aspect of human nature, and in fact one more relevant than ever. When left to her own devices, Janeway happily extolls the necessity and virtue of empathy and compassion, but when she’s hit with even a single obstacle, she’ll become viciously violent and seek revenge and punishment. For Janeway, this is mainly a result of lazy writing (the Doctor is one of the show’s golden children and not only never falls into this, he angrily sticks to his principles even at their most personally inconvenient); for most people, it’s because it’s easy to voice our principles and even easier to hit and berate people.

I know this because I’ve both been on the receiving end of it, and, embarrassingly, done it myself; more than once, I’ve seen people who know fully well what it’s like to be a neurodivergent person in [waves hands] all this, to have symptoms and breaking points, to know how exasperating it is to be told by a healthier person that maybe you should just not have symptoms, only for that same person to say the exact same things to a less healthy person than they, or to get mad when they, you know, show symptoms of a mental illness.

And at the same time, I’ve advocated for empathy and compassion with as much enthusiasm as Janeway and, just as often, ended up yelling at people. Watching Janeway break her values so often made me wonder how often I’d been doing the exact same thing; the people it’s most tough to extend empathy to aren’t people suffering, but people who refuse to extend empathy to others; it took some thought to recognise how often this comes from suffering itself. The thing about berating people is that it makes you feel tough and in control, even when that couldn’t be further from the truth.

Watching Voyager forced me to ask myself – what’s more important? My values or feeling tough? The consequences to my actions or vindication? Granted, that says more about me than Voyager, but it did spark the thoughts. All franchises are essentially a core idea explored from different angles, and Star Trek, more than any other popular franchise, has a core set of philosophical ideas – Western liberal politics and aspirations to post-scarcity and mutual improvement – that any entry must engage with, even if they reject it. Voyager shows that even when you write one without something to say, you’ll end up saying something.