Most of you probably know already: Star Trek is my first science-fiction love. Before Stargate, before Buffy, before even Supergirl, I grew up in the nineties watching the bright primary colours of TOS on a 13-inch CRT TV. I eschewed for a long time the muted, overly polished sequel series—the simplicity of the 1960s original made more sense to my kid brain. Yet I eventually succumbed (DS9 is my favourite, though TNG is an easier rewatch), and I was hooked. My first online community when I joined the internet at fourteen was a Star Trek roleplaying community. So any time I get to read an academic book about Trek, I will do so. Late Star Trek is such a book: a work of primary criticism, grounded in reference to primary and secondary sources, that explores the era of “Nu Trek,” starting with the connective tissue of Enterprise and going all the way through the Kelvinverse movies into Discovery, Strange New Worlds, Picard, Lower Decks, and Prodigy. It’s forthright and honest and insightful, and it’s exactly the kind of analysis I love reading about science fiction. I received an eARC from NetGalley and the University of Minnesota Press in exchange for a review.

Adam Kotsko is—and I say this as the utmost compliment—a huge nerd. Like, he spends time in the introduction explaining how he rose to the rank of Commander in r/DaystromInstitute because of how much time he has spent in the trenches there. Respect. It’s not a competition, but because it is relevant I want to highlight how Kotsko has clearly spent more time in the world of tie-in media—especially the novels and comics—than I have. (Though, nary a mention of any of the tie-in video games except for Star Trek: Online. Hath thou no respect for Star Trek Voyager: Elite Force or Star Trek: Deep Space Nine: The Fallen, Adam???) Indeed, one of the tensions Kotsko explores here is how the revival of Star Trek’s Prime timeline beginning with DISCO but felt more deeply with PIC overwrote the “Beta canon” of the novelverse and how the novelverse itself reacted to that by trying to deal with this in-universe (god, I love science fiction writers so much).

More broadly, however, Late Star Trek encapsulates, as its subtitle implies, the ways in which the weight of the franchise has changed how people write and produce Trek in this era. Although canon and continuity are one dimension Kotsko analyzes, they aren’t his primary focus. Instead, he examines how cultural shifts—in values but also in more mundane things like the nature of the television industry and capitalism—have placed different constraints on modern Trek producers. While TOS might have suffered from increasingly constrictive budgets and flagging support from its network, it was unburdened by the expectations of fifty years of franchise. In this way, Kotsko argues that what he calls “late Star Trek” can measure its successes and failures not only by how its stories are received by fans (new and old alike) but by how well its multiplicity of series has weathered the ups and downs of a streaming era marked as much by corporate cynicism as by corporate greed.

Early on, Kotsko makes an interesting claim that gave me pause (emphasis mine):

… let us imagine the perspective of fans for whom Enterprise has served as their entry to Star Trek…. What would such fans think Star Trek is all about? I think the answer would be that Star Trek is about terrorism.

At first I was like, “Nah,” but then I pondered, nay, I ruminated, upon this proposition and eventually had to concede Kotsko has a point. As he argues, pretty much every installment of the franchise post-ENT has, in one way or another, foregrounded our twenty-first-century obsession with terrorism. And I think this observation is as fascinating as it is true simply because it’s not one that I have really seen before in my perusal of Trek commentary.

Late Star Trek goes on to analyze each aspect of the modern franchise. It begins with a post mortem of the much-panned ENT. Kotsko is more sympathetic to this series than I am—I always have at least once Trek series rewatch on the go, and it has never been ENT! Nevertheless, I see his point. From there, he examines the novelverse that took off during the dark times between ENT and DISCO, and he also devotes a chapter to the Kelvinverse movies. Then he gives DISCO and PIC their own chapters, respectively, before a single chapter looking at the “minor triumphs” of Lower Decks, Prodigy, and Strange New Worlds. The book is pretty much up to date on all new Trek stories, though Kotsko notes his coverage of season 5 of DISCO is lighter because the book went to press just as this final season was airing. I’m glad for this, particularly given how the reveal about Crewman Daniels from ENT in the finale of DISCO corroborates Kotsko’s argument that one of DISCO’s primary legacies will be the way it cemented ENT into the Trek canon in a way that ENT itself could not have achieved were it still the final Trek television property. The only thing it really can’t comment on is the critical and commercial failure of Section 31, though given Kotsko’s critique of the over-reliance on this shadowy organization in the book (I concur, btw), I can guess what he might have to say about it.

This method of organization works great, and Kotsko’s writing is similarly fluent and easy to follow. Though academic and well-supported by references to various scholars, fan writers, and the primary texts themselves, Late Star Trek reads more like fan commentary than a dense academic text, and that’s all to the good. Basically, if you like reading hot takes on clickbait-heavy pop culture sites, Late Star Trek is exactly that—just much longer and with fewer ads.

I was pleased by how much I agreed with Kotsko despite notable points of disagreement too. For example, his critique of DISCO writing itself out of Trek canon (almost) with its constant, insecure need to reinvent itself culminating its flight into the timeline’s far future matches a lot of my feelings about this series. On the other hand, he is far more forgiving of the first season than I am—I famously disowned the show back when it premiered, though my stance softened over the years and culminated in a more philosophical outlook on the series. Similarly, Kotsko echoes some of my feelings about the first season of PIC, and though I did not write about it, I seem to be in the minority of fans who share Kotsko’s view that the third season’s fan service was, shall we say, cringey, and might be one of the weakest Trek seasons of this entire era.

All of this is to say, there is plenty in this book to think about, agree with, or disagree with. This is a book written by an avid fan for avid fans. It is a labour of love that pulls no punches when it dissects the quality of various series’ storytelling even as, overall, it clearly stakes a position that the current era of Trek is a good thing. Indeed, as I have said before, it blows my mind we live in a world where there is more new Trek broadcasting these days than at any other point in the franchise’s history. However, too often the criticism of newer Trek has been simplistic: this or that series is garbage; this or that series if for “real fans” versus the “new fans” or “fake fans” or whatever gatekeeping nonsense has seized a small yet vocal minority of the fandom. In reality, criticism needs nuance. No series—not even ENT!—is without its redemptive qualities. Similarly, being a fan of the franchise does not mean one must hold one’s tongue in criticizing any or all of the new series. Late Star Trek boldly goes forward with this mindset, and the result is a rewarding read for any Star Trek fan.

It's insightful stuff, and I was pleased to see the author writing some direct academic analysis of tie-in fiction and its place in the franchise.
I always find with these kind of analytical works there's some content I concur with and other elements I don't. But those nitpicks aside, the book makes for some interesting reading.

What is "late" Star Trek? A rather unfortunate label for an epoch in the Star Trek saga at a meta level.

Kotsko is a superfan and an active member of not only the academic community but also various Star Trek fandoms, online and off. As a Trekkie myself, I was impressed by the sheer breadth of knowledge the author draws on here. Going over the series requires knowing the series at all levels: the shows and movies and how they were made and by who; the fandom; the expanded universe; the world-building and characters; the timeline, in and outside of the diegesis. The only thing missing here is the video game representation, I think.

What escaped me was the motivation for this work. Star Trek has waxed and waned since its inception, and the recent past is no exception. I did learn a bit more about why this was the case and how the latest resurgence has continued to have its ups and downs, somewhat. We don't really get direct access to the creators' perspectives ... just Kotsko's best reading of the situation. I will say that I experienced several waves of nostalgia and a keen desire to subscribe to watch the latest series on Apple+, heh.

On the writing, it was largely excellent but I was put off by the endless sentences and paragraphs. Find a period, already!

This is absolutely brilliant.

For context of my review here: I was a huge Trek fan in the 90s, but fell off after Voyager, as the franchise moved to events and settings and themes that didn't appeal to me. So when I saw that Kotsko had written a nearly 300-page analytical essay of all the seasons I HAVEN'T seen, I thought it was a great opportunity to familiarize myself beyond the general fan discussion that kept crossing my path.

What Kotsko has done here is not just an incredibly thorough summary and deep-dive of each individual franchise piece (movies, novels, comics, new shows, cartoons, etc), and calling out what each does well and what each does badly, he goes into depth about WHY each franchise seemed to make the choices they did, drawing on their various in-series references as well as out-of-series interviews, discussions, etc. You will walk away from this with a general sense of what the series did, what they were TRYING to do, and Kotsko's opinions on their successes or failures, all stated in a way that leaves room to agree or disagree with him as you like on the elements of success or failure.

On top of that, he manages to keep his tone both academic and engaging. Despite being a full length novel-sized essay, I found it incredibly easy to read and actually difficult to put down; each summary made me want to see his thoughts on what he was describing, and once we got through that I was interested to see what connection he'd make next, moving me cyclically through 25 years of Star Trek without feeling the need to stop reading at any point.

The only part of it I had any quibble with at all is at the end where he suggested that Trek might benefit from a more Columbo-like existence (or biblical, or mythological) where each episode didn't have to square away with the entirety of the rest of Trek canon but simply exist with the characters reoccurring to do things unrelated to a greater sense of canonicity. While he's of course right it's a valid form of storytelling, I think personally (as a writer and as a narrative designer) that ship has sailed away at warp drive for Trek--and maybe the difference in opinion we have here is because he's viewing the choice to make these connections as fan service, which I disagree. I think throwing in references CAN be fan service, as can making connections that don't need to be made. But unlike these other stories mentioned, Trek has always leaned on character relationships and character growth. The praise Kotsko had for the TNG finale wouldn't exist without the emotional throughline of Picard's growing and changing relationship with himself and his crew. But to have character growth, you actually have to have a narrative connective tissue that results in characters changing based on events, which requires a consistent understanding of the events in context to each other. I think a Trek series that existed outside of the bounds of required canonicity could absolutely be created -- but it would have to be made so that it didn't include any reference to any previous events in any of the 70o+ hours of tv or hundreds of franchise fiction, and have no characters reoccur from it. The moment a character from Trek canon is mentioned, you then need to know which version of that character it is, ie, when in their narrative growth arc they come from and thus what events they relate to. I'd definitely love to see a completely isolated Trek story devoid of the "now watch x y and z to engage further with this", but I don't think we'll see a Trek that doesn't mention any of the major characters of the world, and at that point we are immediately engaging with that character's storyline and thus connective tissue, narratively speaking.

But that's an academic debate and not a quibble with the book's academic writing itself, and if anything, that big block of text up there is a sign of how much I loved this book and engaged with it.

5 stars, and thank you to the University of Minnesota Press and to NetGalley for an ARC in exchange for an honest review.

My thanks to NetGalley and University of Minnesota Press for an advance copy of this book that looks at the history of Star Trek in the 21st century, from television, to movies, to books and graphic novels, with commentary about what works, what didn't and what the fans felt about these continuing voyages.

When my parents moved my brother and I up to Connecticut from the Bronx, I assume there was a sacred pact that said that every weekend we would have to return to see our grandparents. I loved this as I got comics, grape soda from Pioneer, a local market, peanut butter cups and other treats. And also there was television. Not that we didn't have tv in Connecticut, but these shows meant more in the Bronx. Mission Impossible on channel five, and Star Trek on channel eleven. Followed by Dance Fever, just to age myself. Star Trek at the time was just Star Trek, not original series or anything. I loved the show. Had the toys based on the cartoon, which I missed during its first showing, but that didn't matter. I enjoyed the Next Generation series, and read the novelizations and Marvel comics that came out, and saw all the movies, to mixed feelings. Deep Space Nine was a my secret obsession, always two, sometimes one on my favorite Star Trek. Voyager never hit with me, neither did Enterprise. I followed the shows, but didn't watch them. The updated movies with a new universe taught me more about lens flare in movies, and how not to use it. The new shows from Discovery to the latest never seemed to interest me. I have learned that things are not for me, and can admit that. I'm not a fan service person, and won't hate things because they aren't what I remember as an eight year old watching television. After reading this book, however I feel I might have to start watching Trek again. For better or worse I am missing some fascinating television. Late Star Trek: The Final Frontier in the Franchise Era by writer and educator Adam Kotsko is a look at Star Trek in the 21st century, where intellectual properties are the new gold-pressed latinum, and are treated as such both by creators, the owners of the property and sometimes by the fans themselves.

The book begins with Kotsko discussing how he found himself rewatching Trek, liking what he saw in the classic works and finding new meaning in the show Enterprise, one that seemed to find its footing to late. Plagued by problems in writers, producers and used by Paramount to build a television channel, the show was almost there, when it was canceled, and its finale almost reducing the cast of the show to guest star status. Kotsko discusses the novelizations and graphic novels, stories that kept Trek alive and worked in many ways to fix the numerous mistakes made my writers and creators on the the shows, offering solutions that later shows borrowed. Trek returned to film in the 2009, and Kotsko explains the idea of time travel in the show, offering different storylines for creators to build on. Kotsko discuses the show, up to the Brave New World series, looking at th shows as a fan, as media observer, and as a writer, offering his own take, and the world of other educators, critics, and Internet posters.

A good overview of the Trek legacy, with a bit of gossip, a lot of theory, and breakdowns of strong and weak episodes. This is not an episode guide, there is no breakdown of every show, guest star and mistake like the old Nitpicker's Guide to Trek. This is a balanced view that looks at Trek, and includes a good view of the books, something that even when Trek wasn't that big to me, I still read for enjoyment. Kotsko has his opinions, and does mention a Reddit site quite a lot, but is a good writer and is quite engaging. Most of the problems in reading came from myself trying to puzzle out these shows, wondering how they were made and why they seemed so haphazard. Something Kotsko points out.

A book for fans, and for fans like myself who stepped off the bridge quite a while ago. I do have an interest now in watching some of these. And avoiding others. Though after reading this book, I think I will be giving my Paramount+ account a lot more viewings.

Adam Kotso's Late Star Trek is an interesting look at the current state of the franchise and while I disagree with many of his takes, he wrote a really fascinating one that was at the very least thought provoking and certainly worth any Trek fan taking a lot at.

Special Thanks to University Of Minnesota Press and Netgalley for the digital ARC. This was given to me for an honest review.

This book is a great read and a definite go-to for any new-to-the-canon star trek fan. I didn't get to finish the book before it expired, but I'll definitely be purchasing the title for my nerd shelf!

There is a saying in computing: Garbage In, Garbage out - meaning if you start with bad data you can’t trust the results. That makes sense, right? If your initial principles are wrong or flawed, how can we trust the results?

I really wanted to enjoy this work. I usually like nonfiction about topics I enjoy. But from the very beginning this author showed me he didn’t REALLY know what he was talking about. When he writes in his intro that “Star Trek virtually invented contemporary fan culture, including practices like conventions” he is ignoring the many years of science fiction conventions that predate Trek. Conventions have taken place since at least the 1930s! Worldcons have been held since 1939. So when a book begins which such an obvious falsity in such a basic fact, it is hard to imagine that the author will actually be able to draw any valid conclusions since his research rests on a flawed foundation.

He continues to make bizarre mistakes about basic things. At one point, the author mistakenly defines “retcon” as “retrospective continuity“, not “retroactive continuity.”

So while I very much enjoyed the author’s recapping of the streaming Trek era, and I agreed with all of his takes on Star Trek: Picard, this book really felt a lot like an irritating thread on Reddit (also this author mentions his participation in a particular Trek subreddit way too much!). Also, could the title have been more boring?

Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for an eARC in exchange for an honest review.