And most of Shakespeare is similar. The good guys and the bad guys are obvious just like in fables. But it's a hierarchy. It's useful to teach very young children fables even though they're silly. It's an easy way to introduce concepts around how we treat each other fairly. TNG and Shakespeare are the same way. Just a step on the hierarchy. Yes, as a person reaches adulthood, it's obvious that it's simplified. But you've at least seen examples in art of what might be worth aspiring to in life when young. It's why we've been telling each other hero's journey stories since Homer. What are the alternatives? Examples of self-interest and power grabs with no consequences? To a young person that can be rapidly demoralizing.

Totally agree on the 45 minute window limitation though. That's why I've always liked DS9 where they took what could have been one episode about a culture and conflict and made it 7 seasons.

▲

watwut 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Shakespeare is not similar to Start Trek. He has way more nuanced and realistic takes then Star Trek. Most TV shows have more nuance and psychological realism then Star Trek. Even Odyssey which is thousands years old has way more complex morality and takes then Star Trek. It does not have that super simplistic white white good against badly bad evil that will admit mistake and change into good person because Picard said a sentence.

> It's why we've been telling each other hero's journey stories since Homer.

Homer is nothing like Star Trek and its story is not a moralizing adventure.

▲

rhaynes 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Thought about your Shakespeare point a bit more. I was wrong in saying "most". I should have said "well-known" Shakespeare: Good and bad is clear in Lear, Richard III, Othello, Macbeth and they're still worthwhile stories about human nature. It's gray in I Henry IV and Coriolanus. Hamlet is more complex: it's a well-known play and the bad guys are clear, but the good guy struggles with taking action. But the original comment I was countering was that popular entertainment doesn't have anything to tell us about leadership. I think that the fact that Homer and Shakespeare have stayed popular for centuries and that we're here in 2026 ranking them against other popular entertainment/fiction supports that humans in all time periods create stories to explore real concepts and those stories become popular and stay popular when other people see reality reflected in them.

▲

rhaynes 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Homer is ... not a moralizing adventure.

Not from a modern perspective, but wouldn't it be from the perspective of a warrior/honor culture? Agamemnon steals Achilles' property/prize and Achilles has to figure out the morally right response given the expectations of his culture.

> Homer is nothing like Star Trek

Isn't Voyager at least somewhat like the Odyssey? It's the challenge of maintaining one's cultural/self-identity through the long journey home (loyalty to his crew/household in Ithaca : loyalty to Federation ideals, see Equinox). It even included sirens (Prime Factors, Bliss, and literally in Favorite son) and the decision to take on Scylla or Charybdis (travel through Borg space or go the long way around with different unknowns).

> super simplistic white white good against badly bad evil

That's more Star Wars than Star Trek (though I would make the case that's a necessary step on the hierarchy of stories for human cognitive development). It's there in Star Trek but plenty of TNG episodes explore nuance in cultural relativity (Half a Life, The Outcast, Birthright come to mind)

▲

watwut 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> but wouldn't it be from the perspective of a warrior/honor culture

I do not think so. Odyssey is not gung ho adventure book.

> Isn't Voyager at least somewhat like the Odyssey?

Absolutely 100% not. They are completely different kind of fiction. Star Trek in general is not like Odyssey. Star Trek is very schematic, with fairly simple plot with moral outcome, good vs bad who will change into good, and predictable caricature like characters. It works, because it is kind of a canvass where you can project own fantasies and predict what the world will do.

Odyssey has less predictable structure, a lot of dining and talking, more grey, deception, politics. Also, they do not come back to commit a massacre by the end of Voyager.

> That's more Star Wars than Star Trek

Some TNG episodes may explore that, but I was rewatching it few months ago. It is not nuanced at all. Episodes have strong moral lesson, loud and clear, that hits you over the head. You really need to suppress a lot of disbelieve about "how world works" to buy into it. (Btw, Babylon 5 aged a lot better. It is pretty idealistic still, but less simplified.)

	▲	rhaynes 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I had a similar experience rewatching Doctor Who a few years ago. But then I remembered it's written as a children's show. It introduces some genuinely terrifying concepts in a package that's developmentally appropriate. That's why I referenced fables. Your complaint is that Star Trek is too fable-like. I would argue that it's appropriate for a 12-year-old and having culturally relevant and age appropriate material to introduce to developing minds is important. The original article's thesis is that powerful institutions can also be good. If I were a teenager right now, I would feel the opposite based on what I see around me. I might believe the solution is to tear it all down. Stories about duty to higher ideals provide an alternative narrative that can easily be found in actual history (Lincoln's belief in the union, Churchill's belief in democracy). > Odyssey has less predictable structure Yes, the Odyssey is higher up the hierarchy from fables and Star Trek. The core of the story is reclaiming identity when separated from everything you know. Calypso is the height of this. She offers to free Odysseus from his identity as a mortal human. Seven of Nine reclaiming her humanity is probably the closest parallel to Odysseus in a simpler, more predictable package.