Okay content, but terrible choice of reader

The essays in this volume are a mixed bag, but generally worth reading. Of course, an anthology of essays on Star Trek contains some rehashes of popular ideas like 'Gene's vision' or the 'revolutionary impact' of communicators and PADDS. But there are also real gems in this volume, especially those with a sociological focus. For those who have read the similarly-titled books 'Star Trek Psychology', 'Trekonomics' or 'The Physics of Star Trek', I'd say it most closely resembles Star Trek Psychology; not as brilliant as The Physics of Star Trek, but still generally interesting and ocasionally thought-provoking.

The chapters on Native Americans, Uhura, Cardassia and gender roles, in particular, included interesting perspectives that I had not previously considered. While I don't agree with all of those perspectives and more conservative readers may strongly disagree with them, they were well argued and avoided the one-sided glorification or condemnation that so many essays on Star Trek outside of this volume seem to be. For instance, one essay argues that Janeway was not just the first female Captain, but also a sad reminder that women in authority are expected to be celibate. At first, counter-examples like 'Workforce' came to mind - but then I realised that, empirically, she has fewer romantic interests than even Picard and that that is probably a result of trying to make a female leader believable or acceptable to 20th century viewers. Thus, the book really changed my mind on some topics.

However, the reader made it very hard for me to take the book seriously. I was constantly distracted and irritated by her pronunciation.

Firstly, she consistently mispronounces alien names. I would be okay with the occasional mistake, but Star Trek mainstays like 'Bajor' and 'Kahless' are inexcusable. I realise that there may not have been an ardent trekker available to read this book, but at least give the poor lady a pronunciation sheet for recurring names! The most jarring example is Uhura: her name is variously pronounced as Uhura (correct, but rare), Uhara (how did that even happen?) and U-hora (rather offensive). I find it very hard to follow an essay on Uhura read by someone who has clearly never heard of her before and pronounces her name U-hora (that, by the way, is the more 'safe for work' spelling of what the reader says).

More importantly, her pronunciation of the English language is very unclear. The only positive thing I have to say about her voice is that she reads at pleasantly slow and consistent pace. Both, consonants and vowels, are often replaced by other letters. Examples:
- Experiment sounds like expierment
- Mirror sounds like mere
- Atoms sound like Adams

I suppose this may be some genuine Californian accent with an extremely rhotic r and I do not wish to degrade anyone for their background or accent. But, in my opinion, this way of speaking is very distracting in serious non-fiction.

Even ignoring her accent, it is still a rather uninspired reading. When quoting directly from the films, she just doesn't find appropriate voices for the characters the way the reader of Trekonomics does. There is no understanding of those characters or their emotions. When not quoting from the films, she constantly over-emphasises to the point where it becomes monotonous again.

In conclusion, please listen to the excerpt! The excerpt is representative of her reading style. If you can live with that style, the book's text is fairly good, though not exceptional.

Sie haben diese Rezension bewertet.

Wir haben Ihre Meldung erhalten und werden die Rezension prüfen.