Reviews for Nasa/Trek

The average rating for Nasa/Trek based on 2 reviews is 3.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2016-04-03 00:00:00 Anuj Sharma THIS BOOK THOUGH. The first half is a kind of public history analysis of NASA and its public perception. Penley names it "popular science," which I link to public history in both form and function -- and I deeply appreciate her emphasis on the public's half of the equation. Popular science (and public history) are not just the academy transmitting facts to the public, but also the public's pre-existing knowledge, opinions, and their interpretation OF the interpretation they receive. "Popular science is ordinary people's extraordinary will to engage with the world of science and technology." "NASA/Trek" is Penley's term for a conceptual blending of the two in the public's mind as a semi-utopian vision of science and space travel. The first half isn't just science history, but is also largely structured around gender and how it has played into both NASA's behavior and the public's opinion of that behavior. Treatment of female astronauts, how they acted themselves, and public working through of the gender tensions created. All this affects the whole, and illustrates how real life hasn't achieved Star Trek's imagined utopia. The second half focuses on the "Trek" half of the "NASA/Trek" hybrid, specifically on how fan culture interprets Trek to work through futurist anxiety, again interacting with that utopian idea. Penley narrows it down even further to K/S writers, and the significance of homosexual fan interpretations. She does all this is a fan of NASA and a friend of the K/S community, making her criticisms that much more realistic and pointed, since she can celebrate both at the same time. The book is totally layperson-appropriate, but has the analytical chops of a journal article. It's also inclusive of gender, race, sexuality, and disability, in some areas more than others, but including everything if only by comment of presence or absence. (The best way I can explain this is that even if "no women are involved," if everyone in a group is male, gender is still massively important and should be mentioned because it is clearly at play. Same for race etc. Many other writers look at a group of straight white men and think that gives them a license to never mention marginalized groups, and that only makes the problem worse). And while I'm on my soapbox, I love that she uses film, fiction, and fanfiction to interpret public opinions and anxieties. Maybe this is typical of other disciplines, and she IS a film & media studies professor, but it's not at all typical in history and it should be used. If I have a complaint, it's that the two halves don't quite blend. I can see the connection, but I think the fanfiction discussion of the second half is a little deep into the fandom, and it would've combined better if the Trek half was more wide-reaching (surrounding the fanfic discussion, not instead of it). The book is also almost twenty years old, so it barely touches on internet fandom/fanfic, and I can only imagine what else has happened on the NASA front since then. Mars One would come into it, I'm sure. But the thematic connections are enough for me, and it doesn't feel dated at all. The information and analysis are still gold.

Review # 2 was written on 2020-03-03 00:00:00 Michael Jamison three stars for divisiveness the first half I found brilliant, if a little batshit (not a bad thing!) and all over the place. the way it both conveyed history and engaged with it in various productive ways was interesting on even just a formal level, and while it seemed to lose threads every so often (eg popular science, the concept of NASA/TREK, both of which surprised me when they popped back up in the little conclusion chapter), the overall argument is generative if nothing else. the second, I mean, eh. it was probably just that it felt like a lot of summarizing to get to the good stuff (which, I get it, but felt uneven given how the first half was very good at covering the basics while getting into more nuance and detail) and carries the same assertions that I have always felt are insane premises in fan studies, even early on, which is the characterization (& binarism) of transformational (vs affirmational, and again, ik, predates the terms specifically but does v much frame things in that light) fans as uniformly women.* towards the end when it introduced more specifics (eg the section on literary homosocial mythos) it got better, but even then they seemed here and gone in a minute. I think it's an issue of balance, mainly; the amount of depth and specificity in the /NASA half set an expectation that /TREK didn't quite meet. obviously just looking at it, the first part is MUCH longer than the second, and there were many points where I was expecting more. (the redefinition of technology in fiction was SO interesting & something I could see many more offshoots of. how does it actually compare to commercial SF, etc.) and sure, there were parts that dropped off suddenly, or reverted on earlier ambivalences (the sudden turn at the end to say slashers have "eliminated its racism" and "avoided the misogyny"** etc really threw me lmao), or were just wildly opinionated in a way that presented itself as fact, but it was fun, it was engaging, it was informative and well-grounded in criticism while also broadening horizons. (THAT BEING SAID: if you find it hard to slash TNG that is on YOU. like, at the very least, Q is RIGHT there.) *especially when it gets into bodies and gender ' trans people existed in the 60s and certainly in the 90s, when this was written. come on, guys. **another thing that very much bugged me: penley states a number of times that slash writers generally don't bother with women characters, for a variety of given reasons ("future men", especially 126) but mostly in response to the sexism inherent in their canonical representations but like... one, I hear this all the time still, and even if you're so concerned with canonicity you're already rewriting things, recontextualize/expand/whatever'there are other options. two, avoiding women entirely isn't avoiding misogyny.