The Great European Roadtrip

On this large portion of my trip, where I've been in Italy for over a month, I've had time to consider two points: one, that driving long distances here in Italy is actually not too unpleasant, and two, that there doesn't seem to be enough travel literature that looks into that.

Listen, I'm just as obsessed with trains as the next travel nerd. I've reread Paul Theroux's Great Railway Bazaar more times than I can remember, and I've reread most of his other travel books too. Same with Bill Bryson and any number of travel writers. One year I treated myself to the Eurostar and the TGV as a way to get from London to Turin, and it remains one of my favorite travel experiences ever.

At the same time, I've recently become disillusioned with all the urbanists that I come across on social media and YouTube. This is a source of deep cognitive dissonance for me: I live in the Bay Area, where you have to drive pretty much everywhere and where it's unpleasant to do so. If Caltrain ran more regularly from my nearest station than once per hour, it'd make it more fun to go out drinking in San Francisco or San Jose - but at the same time, having a car means I can go to either city whenever I want, and can also go to a bunch of places that aren't covered by public transportation.

When I lived in London, I found it difficult to get out of the bounds of the city, in part because it meant getting on a train and figuring out the schedule and all of that. But not having my own set of wheels meant that certain parts of the country just weren't available to me: I'm sure you can visit the Lake District without a car, but it might be a lot more of a faff, or more expensive, if you're taking taxis everywhere.

I've also come around to this way of thinking in the last couple of years because I've finally felt financially secure enough to start renting cars when I'm in Italy. My family house is out in the countryside, away from rail networks and up a big hill (with a dirt road to get up to it, no less), so even buses aren't a great option - and those only come around once per hour, if you're lucky.

My dad's tried to get me to learn to drive manual transmission, which I can broadly do, but I'm way more comfortable driving automatic. This is mostly because the roads are narrow and winding and I'd rather focus on getting around than on being in the right gear. Renting cars with automatic transmissions  means I can trade off driving duties with my dad for long drives up to the mountains, or just take off on my own for an afternoon.

Coming back to my earlier point about driving in Italy, I've now had the chance to drive the autostrade, and I find that it's harder and harder to go back to freeway driving in California. The main thing is that European freeways only allow passing in the left lanes, which means you get way fewer of these cases where some jerk goes almost all the way to the left and then cruises along at 50mph. I know that if I get in the left lane, I should step on it and pass whoever I'm passing, because otherwise I'll end up with a Mercedes riding my exhaust and flashing his lights from here to Taranto.

But then there's the more actively pleasant part, which is the rest areas. Not every rest stop on the Italian autostrade is like this, but the vast majority are owned by the Autogrill chain, which means a certain consistency in architecture, facilities and food service. Stopping for lunch on our drive down to Pisa last week, I had the fried chicken sandwich with fries: instead of a soggy chicken burger and a plate of chips that had just come from under a heat lamp, the man behind the counter assembled a fresh bun, condiments and fixings on top, then lovingly placed a freshly cooked fried chicken escalope on it. He then provided a perfectly crispy portion of fries that outdid anything from McDonald's.

While it's important not to over-romanticize a meal at a highway rest stop, it's notable that in Italy, you can get decent quality food that isn't just from a large fast-food chain (at this same lunch my dad got a plate of chicken curry with rice and fresh roasted vegetables).

It's worth noting that you don't really get this quality of food on European trains anymore. I still remember a train trip with my dad in 1990, from Padua to Turin, where there was still a dining car with tablecloths and silverware on the tables. I was super impressed to be fed a cotoletta milanese and a Coke by a waiter in a white jacket, and my dad still reminds me of this wide-eyed wonderment. But if you think you're eating like this on the TGV or the ICE or the Frecciarossa, I'm sorry to report it ain't necessarily so (although business and first class on the Eurostar do feature some excellent dining).

Are trains better for the environment than a million cars on the road? Of course they are. And it's one of life's great pleasures to sit on a train and either read your book or listen to a podcast, enjoying the changing scenery and the knowledge that someone else is doing the driving. Bonus points if the scenery is great, as it frequently is when you're crossing the Alps.

But the pleasures of tooling along in your own car, listening to your own music or podcasts or chatting with your passenger in peace, are not to be discounted either. You can stop for a snack or a bathroom break whenever you want, without losing your seat or worrying about someone stealing your stuff, and when you arrive at your destination, you're right there (although you do have to find some parking, of course). And again, the car lets you get to places that the trains don't go - not only places off the beaten path or in the countryside, but you can also stop off somewhere on a whim. When you're on the train, you can see some unexpected spots from the window, but most of the time you can't get off and explore without losing your reserved seat or missing your onward connection.

Again, I'm not saying everyone should stop using the trains to get around. I'd love to see a robust public transit network in the Bay Area, if not the whole of California. If California could finally get around to building a train network that takes you from downtown SF to downtown LA, I'd adore that - and it wouldn't even need to be high-speed (although, you know, yes please to doing it in three hours rather than eight).

But also again, sometimes the car lets you have experiences that the train doesn't. Just because we're over invested in car infrastructure doesn't mean we should correct that by over-investing in rail. We should have multiple ways to get around that don't excessively prioritize dangerous and dirty modes of transportation.

If anything, what I'd really like to see is a good-quality equivalent to the Autogrill, but along American highways. Imagine stopping off for a good, not too expensive meal with access to clean bathrooms while driving down the 5 from SF to LA - it may not be as good as a three-hour high-speed train, but it sounds pretty great to me.

Unexpected Fecundity on Vacation

Given that this is my second time being between jobs, I've tried to improve on the previous bout, which was back in 2018. I had a lot more freelance work, then - scratch that, I had freelance work, full stop - but in between jobs I found it harder to maintain focus on bringing in business and taking care of other stuff I wanted to do. The main thing that I remember wishing I'd done more of was writing.

So this time, I decided to do things a little more intelligently. I built myself a weekly schedule, which broke each day into four parts similar to how I organized my time after I started working from home during and after the pandemic. While almost each day had to feature one block of time for job-hunting, I also built in a block for writing, and I've generally managed to stick to both, plus other important stuff like learning and going to the gym.

When I decided to take an extended trip to Europe I continued with my weekly scheduling, which was easier to do when I was in London and mostly on my own. It was a little more difficult in Oslo, but I gave myself a break for being officially on vacation... and I still managed to do a little job-hunt related stuff and a fair amount of writing-related stuff.

One thing that's helped keep me on track with writing has been the sequence of TV writing classes I've been taking through the UCLA Extension since last fall. I lost my job just as the first class in the sequence ended, and I've since continued plugging away at it, because I figured that at least I'd have something to show people once I finished (I'm now in possession of a Star Trek: Strange New Worlds spec script, if anyone out there wants to get me on that writing team before the show ends).

Now that I've moved on in the sequence to the part where I write my own TV pilot, I find the ideas flowing even more freely. In addition to the outline and script I'm writing for class, I'm developing a couple of ideas that have been percolating in my head for the last couple of years, as well as looking at revising a novel I was working on a year or two ago and writing novel versions of my TV pilot ideas.

It's actually been quite exciting to have so many things to keep me occupied during this time. Also, the class allows me to break up tasks in a way that deeply appeals to my methodical nature, which means that whenever I finish one component of a given project, I can just move on to the next project, knowing that I'll return to the first one the following week. Work for the TV class takes precedence, obviously, but the structure also gives me a way to break down my other stuff and devote time to work on it when I'm up to date on my homework.

The other thing that's allowed me to do so much writing is simply time. Of course I have the same 24 hours each day here in Italy that I have in California, but I also have fewer demands on my time. I'm way out in the country, so mobile internet is spotty, even with my roaming pass from T-Mobile; not only that, but the Wi-Fi in the house only reaches a couple of rooms, so I'm not doomscrolling from every horizontal surface I can lie on.

I also don't have a car, so I can't go out and do other stuff that I'd do in Palo Alto. The most obvious thing is going to the gym - though back home that got its own block of time on Tuesdays and Thursdays, so it didn't interfere with the writing. The main thing that should take time away from the writing is doing DIY work on the house, but even with that in mind I manage to carve out a couple of hours for writing and job-hunting and even some learning on Khan Academy.

Of course, I'm super fortunate. I have a pretty big emergency fund, plus I'm spending the month of August in a pretty cheap part of the world, and I'm not even paying for a hotel for the privilege. I had the wherewithal to depart for London, Oslo and Turin for two months in the first place, which not everyone in my position could have done.

There's also the fact that the freelance stuff has been singularly thin on the ground this year. When you don't have the option of doing that to earn a crust of bread, then you fill your hours with other stuff. I've just been lucky enough that I could fill my hours with writing a Star Trek script and plot out novel revisions. 

But the main point that's worth considering here is, how easy it is to get distracted from writing, or whatever else it is you think you "should" be doing. Even when you're not employed full time, your house can hold a lot of distractions, and the ability to deal with them. There must be some way to neutralize those distractions, and when I get home I hope to continue this streak of getting shit done.

In any case, the upshot is that, whatever else I remember and/or regret about this particular period of funemployment, when I look back on it at least I'll be able to say that I took the time to get serious about the writing. And hopefully that leads to something, somewhere down the line.

Oslo 2025

With the loss of my job came a lot of time to think about next steps and so forth, and not long after I had the idea to go traveling. My initial thought was a little out there: months and months away, in which I'd be soliciting freelance work and stuff. In consultation with my family and my bank account, I cut that down to two months, in which I'd spend some time in my usual spots of London and Turin. But I also wanted to take advantage of the free time that I had to do something that I don't get to do that often. 

When looking at Europe, the problem is whittling down the enormous array of stuff to see. I knew I wanted to go somewhere I hadn't been before, but the glamor of a long train trip down through France was also attractive. In the end, I decided that as much as I love the Eurostar and Paris, and that a few days in Lyon would have been nice, I'd rather go to a completely new country. Eliminating anywhere too far out of my way (like Iceland), or too small (like Luxembourg or Malta), left me with the Nordics, and so I decided on Oslo.

I'm really glad I did that.

The Radhuss, from the National Museum

I found a decently priced hotel, which turned out to be right in the center of town. The hotel itself was nothing special: the room was so tiny that in the evenings I had to move my suitcase against the front door, so that I wouldn't trip over it if I got up to pee in the middle of the night. The bathroom sink was so tiny that shaving or washing my face meant getting water everywhere. And worst of all, this being a, normally, particularly cold part of Northern Europe, there was no air conditioning - which is forgivable except that the window barely let in any air from outside, even at night.

Did I mention that this was in the middle of an epochal heatwave? I based my activities in the three full days I had in Oslo around where I could find air conditioning.

Luckily, that wasn't too difficult - major sights like the National Museum and the Munch Museum were air-conditioned (and required me to put my bag in a locker, so I got to dry out even further), and the day I went up to the ski jump at Holmenkollen it was high enough in the hills that there was some breeze, especially in among the trees. Also, walking along the harbor was a delight, because any wind coming off the water did a nice job of cooling me down.

The harbor, from the National Museum

The location of the hotel, despite my objections above, was perfect: the only time I needed public transportation was to get to Holmenkollen, but everything else was within a 20-30 minute walk. I had the royal palace just five minutes away, which I didn't catch because I was busy with other sights, and the National Museum was about ten minutes away. There was also food and drink aplenty, about which I'll speak in a moment.

The National Museum was a particular highlight for me. The first floor had a lot of Nordic design and some plaster copies of classical statuary, but the best was on the second floor, where it offered a survey of painting from the 1500s through to now, with a special focus on Norwegian painters. Among those there were a lot of good landscape paintings by Johan Christian Dahl, as well as a room devoted to Edvard Munch. In fact, the National Museum is a better place to see Munch's most famous painting, the Scream, than the Munch Museum itself (both have copies, but the one in the National isn't mobbed and is visible at all times).

The Munch Museum was also pretty great, even if I wasn't initially sure I wanted to spend a morning just with Munch's paintings. The building itself is beautiful, a 13-story tower overlooking the harbor and with views of the whole city. I could even see the Holmenkollen ski jump from the Munch's upper floors. The assortment of Munch's works was also great, though I feel like I might have appreciated a more biographical approach, seeing how his work evolved as he battled depression and drink over the course of his life.

The Munch Museum seen from the Opera House

The very first day, I went up to Holmenkollen, which was a trek because the T-Bane up there was out of service, so I got to enjoy a sweaty, crowded replacement bus service for half an hour; as an aside, I find it notable that rail replacement buses, the bane of my existence when I lived in Britain, are just as grim in Norway. As you can imagine, I took an Uber back into town at the end of the day.

The ski jump at Holmenkollen

Holmenkollen itself was nice, though - I got to walk around the hill where it's located, exploring some of the wooded trails surrounding it, and got to explore a classic Norwegian stave church. Under the ski jump was a little museum dedicated to skiing, which was nice for me to see as a northern Italian who learned cross country skiing at the same time I learned to walk.

The stave church at Holmenkollen

The food was uniformly good, whether I went to restaurants or ate a quick sandwich or focaccia at the museums. I've previously had bad experiences with food in Denmark and Sweden (or at least so unmemorable as to be etched in memory), so it's probably not too surprising that I ended up eating a lot of Asian food while I was in Oslo. But it's a good sign when a city has decent foreign food - it shows that there's a lot of openness to new stuff, which is good to see. And the city itself was pretty diverse: a glance at Oslo's demographics on Wikipedia suggests that immigrants or children of immigrants account for about 30% of the population, compared to 14% nationally.

In terms of other tourists, I was surprised to hear German as the most spoken language at all the tourist sights. There were Italians, Spanish, French and Brits, as well as a healthy smattering of Swedes and probably Danes, but it felt like wherever I went was a German, or at least a German-speaker (there were some Swiss around). The people of Oslo were themselves fairly unobjectionable, apart from their tendency to run red lights on those little electric scooters that were the plague of other big cities a few years ago. There was also the extremely drunk guy who wandered into the place I was having dinner on the second night, whereupon he announced he wanted to have sex with the waitress (I think that's what he said anyway; he was speaking English but slurring heavily).

Overall, I can't recommend the city highly enough. It might be different in other seasons, or even when the summers aren't as blazing hot as July 2025 was, but everybody seemed to be having a great time, whether tourist or local. There were people swimming at the beaches by the Opera House and the Astrup Fearnley Museum (and er, this is a good time to note how good-looking a lot of Norwegians seem to be), and the vibe felt to me like Sydney. If I was going to splurge irresponsibly on travel during this period of funemployment, then I'm glad I did it in Oslo. I can't wait to check it out again.

This good boi travelled with Amundsen, 13/10

James Gunn's Punk as F Superman

I just saw the new Superman movie yesterday, marking the first time in... gosh, years... that I've watched a movie on opening day. Of course, it's easy to do that when you're funemployed and able to hit the 3.30pm show at your local cineplex. I'm gonna write without fear of spoilers below the jump, but just in case you're skimming, my overall verdict is that this is a way better movie than we had any right to expect, and better than any other attempt this century. I'd say the original, 1978 movie with Christopher Reeves is still better, but this absolutely holds its own.

RIP Diogo Jota

Just a quick one, as I didn't know much about Diogo Jota as a person or as a player, but like everyone I was blindsided by the news this week that he'd died in a car crash in Spain. Coming so soon after Liverpool's Premier League victory, and after Jota's wedding to his long-term partner, it all feels like a bad dream.

Given that I'm not a Liverpool fan, and my knowledge of the team is based mostly on its storied history and my own travails choosing Liverpool players for Fantasy Premier League, I don't have much of a sense of him. He was certainly important, though, scoring a number of important goals over his years there. He may not have been one of the most high-profile names in a team that featured Mohamed Salah and Sadio Mane, but he was surely more than a squad player. His Wikipedia page says that he scored 47 goals in 123 appearance for the club, which is an impressive feat.

In his time at Liverpool the club won the Premier League (2024-25), the FA Cup (2021-22) and the League Cup twice (2021-22, 2023-24), while also coming in as runners-up in the League Cup in 2024-25 and the Champions League in 2021-22. At international level, he was part of the Portugal teams that won the Nations League in 2018-19 and 2024-25.

These stats are obviously just numbers and dates, and sadly, his part in the history of Liverpool, Wolverhampton Wanderers and the Portugal men's team is over, carrying with it the question of where his career might have gone. If he hadn't died, one can question if he'd ever have won another trophy (football is after all a cruel old game), but at least he'd be here to savor the ones he did win, as well as getting to see his kids grow up. His death, and the hole it leaves behind in the lives of his loved ones, is a reminder that, in Arrigo Sacchi's words, football is the most important of the least important things in life.

RIP Jim Shooter

I heard about Jim Shooter's death last week, and I've seen obituaries almost every day since from comics professionals who got their start under him in the late 1970s and early 80s. Every obituary talks about what a divisive figure he was, but every obituary also talks about his kindness to them personally. There might be some survivorship bias here, in that the people who really had problems with him are probably keeping their thoughts to themselves, but it's still interesting that so many comics creators have banded together to praise him.

I always knew of him as the guy who got his start, aged 13, writing for the Legion of Superheroes for DC. When I was 13 myself, that was kind of mind-blowing, the thought that someone like me could do something like that. And while I never got to that level, that story is probably buried somewhere in my writing DNA, as one of my influences. Certainly it helped that he was associated with one of my favorite books.

He was also editor-in-chief of Marvel Comics in the 80s, which is where his reputation as a difficult person comes from. On the one hand, Marvel created some of its best comics under his leadership, like the Chris Claremont years of Uncanny X-Men and various sagas in the Spider-Man books. Daredevil got dark and gritty under Frank Miller and the Punisher became one of Marvel's most popular characters (for better or for worse), and big crossovers became a thing, starting with Shooter's own miniseries Secret Wars.

On the other, a lot of that period has been criticized as unadventurous both in terms of plotting and art. I've heard rumors that Shooter insisted on strict 2x3 grids with figures confined to each panel, and while Todd McFarlane has disputed it, it's true that panel layouts grew more adventurous after Tom DeFalco replaced him as editor-in-chief. 

Plotwise, Shooter has been blamed for the lack of LGBTQ representation in Marvel until the 90s - to hear Claremont tell it, Shooter was instrumental in vetoing any same-sex relationships between Kitty Pryde and Rachel Summers or Illyana Rasputina, as well as Claremont's (frankly bonkers, but in the best way) idea for Nightcrawler's parentage: that the shapeshifter Mystique, who'd been implied to be his mother, was actually his father, and that Mystique's long-term lover Destiny had been Nightcrawler's birth mother. This plot point has since become canon in the comics, but you have to wonder where the characters could have gone if the creators had been allowed to tell these stories back then.

On the positive side again, a number of tributes to Shooter have also highlighted how he worked to get royalties and fairer contracts for freelancers at Marvel, and how those contracts were then abandoned after he left. Given how many creators were left out in the cold while the characters they created made millions for Marvel, it certainly adds some nuance to the controversy over Shooter.

In the end, being editor-in-chief of Marvel at that time must have been a pretty thankless job: riding herd on a bunch of fractious creatives who wanted to tell more advanced stories than what superhero comics usually featured, while also fighting his bosses in corporate over spending. There may have been some poor decisions on his part, or they may have seemed heavy-handed to creators who didn't get their way. That said, given how Marvel nearly went out of business in the 90s amid the speculator boom and an attempt to buy the main distributor, Diamond, maybe Shooter wasn't that bad?

Whatever the truth of the matter, it's notable that the stories I've read about him this week have highlighted those same points: Shooter gave a lot of people their breaks in the business, and he made sure various people got the credit they deserved for ideas that made it to print. He wasn't perfect, as so many of these tributes point out, but then, who is?

All of the Star Treks

Last week I finally hit a goal I first set for myself back in 2006, when I watched the final episode of Star Trek: Voyager. That means that I've now watched almost all Trek, with the exception of Short Treks and the Section 31 movie - which I suppose means my title for this post is somewhat misleading, but bear with me.

When I decided that watching every Trek show and movie was a worthwhile goal (yes, I know, I know), we were a couple of years off from the end of Enterprise, which was the last, somewhat labored gasp of what I like to call Trek's imperial phase: that period from 1987 to about 2004 that saw the launch of The Next Generation, Deep Space 9, Voyager and Enterprise, as well as four movies starring the TNG cast. Not only did Trek finally get a measure of critical and ratings recognition, but every one of those shows lasted longer than the Original Series (and Enterprise was the first Trek show to be cancelled since TOS).

When I made that goal, I'd only seen a few episodes of TOS here and there, none of the Animated Series, large parts of TNG but never in any systematic way, seasons 3-6 of DS9, and parts of the first two seasons of Voyager. I'd also seen all 6 of the original cast movies and three of the four TNG movies (Nemesis might not have come out yet). The Kelvin Timeline movies hadn't come out yet, and we were still more than a decade away from new Trek TV shows.

A big part of my decision to try to watch all Trek was that I'd just started a new job after graduating from journalism school, and I'd made a friend at work who was just as into Trek and all the other 90s SF shows that I'd loved. My new friend Paul lent me DVD box sets of Deep Space 9, Babylon 5 and the X-Files (as well as the West Wing), and when I discovered that someone in my building was stealing my mailed-in DVDs of DS9, Paul graciously allowed me to send them to his place and then brought them with him to work.

(No lie: this incident led me to rule out subsequent flatshares if they didn't have a personal letterbox in the front door, for fear of my rental DVDs getting nicked again)

Another coworker helped me catch up with a couple more seasons of TNG and the first two seasons of Voyager, and other shows I caught bit by bit, by renting from Sofa Cinema, which was the UK version of Netflix back then. But I wasn't very focused on my goal in those days: I watched all of TNG and Enterprise, but my attempts to watch TOS, DS9 and Voyager petered out - in part because TOS is quite slow and uneven, and Voyager takes a while to get better, if not ever properly good. I can't remember why I lost the thread of DS9 at that time, but on that attempt I only managed to get to the end of Season 4.

One thing that helped me stay focused on the TOS watch was the Mission Log podcast, which I've spoken about here. I remember seeing their first episode pop up on the Nerdist Podcast Network in 2012, so I listened to it eagerly even though I hadn't watched the Cage (TOS's first pilot). By 2013 I was watching more of season 1 of TOS and dutifully listening to Mission Log after each episode - but I took so long with it that in the interim I moved to the US and had to switch my DVD and streaming queue over to Netflix.

Now, I was a partisan of Netflix's DVD rental service up until the end, but I have to admit that once I was able to stream Netflix on a TV (first through the smart TV itself, then through an Amazon Fire TV and finally through Apple TV), it made it easier to keep up with Trek shows. I also determined that I was taking too long with too many shows - I'd finish a season of something, jump to another show entirely, and then by the time I went back to the first show I'd forgotten what I'd already seen of it.

So with that in mind, I finally decided to polish off DS9, all in one go. I took a few months, but it was the only show I was watching, and it was so good that I didn't feel the need to check out other shows in that time.

(I suspect that Kids These Days might have more trouble conceiving of a world with only one streaming service, Netflix, than of a world where Netflix mailed you DVDs)

With the end of DS9, I decided it was finally time to tackle Voyager, but I didn't do it in a very methodical way. It's so long ago now that I can't remember when I started it, but I must have given it a proper try after 2018, because that's when I worked with another colleague who also loved Trek, and assured me that Voyager picked up after Kes left and Seven of Nine joined the cast.

Getting a girlfriend put a little kibosh on the Voyager watch-through, especially because we were effectively living together during the pandemic and she didn't like Trek (she liked Star Wars, though). The other thing that slowed me down was Voyager's move from Netflix to Paramount Plus, along with the rest of the shows. I subsequently signed up for Paramount, and when I broke up with the GF, I had more time to watch whatever I wanted. I duly resumed Voyager, reserving it for lunch on Sundays.

That all still took years, of course. I finished season 7 of Voyager in June of 2025, and determined that I'd finished season 6 in June of 2024, with a similar amount of time since I finished season 5. It doesn't help that Voyager is still, for me, the weakest of the pre-2017 Trek shows - making it my only show, seven days a week, is probably more than I could handle.

And of course, yes, it took me so long to watch all these shows that Trek underwent a renaissance in the interim (two of them, technically). It's notable that in the time it's taken me to watch all of Voyager, I've also watched all 5 seasons of Discovery, 3 of Picard, 5 of Lower Decks, 2 of Prodigy, and the 2 so far of Strange New Worlds. 

So what does all this Trek amount to? I've watched the good (large chunks of TNG, almost all of DS9, large bits of TOS, Lower Decks and SNW), and I've watched the less entertaining (Voyager, Enterprise, Disco, those other bits of TOS and TNG). I've even watched TAS, which looks pretty abysmal but features the odd grown-up storyline, like a young Spock mercy killing his beloved pet to spare it a painful death, and the Devil telling children that they shouldn't let authority figures tell them who to be friends with. I'm not even joking!

My favorite period of Trek remains the imperial phase, specifically season 3 of TNG to the end of DS9. A lot of modern Trek is very good, but even the best of it sometimes feels too beholden to the past, as if they're worried that viewers won't like shows if they don't call back to every minute detail from the last 60 years of shows. This nostalgia works better on Lower Decks, which subjects every era of Trek to this treatment, and mines all that continuity for good-natured laughs; and while I love SNW, it sometimes feels too beholden to fan service as well. But it's still miles better than Star Trek Into Darkness, the second JJ Abrams-helmed Kelvin Timeline film, which does... not a great job of revisiting The Wrath of Khan.

And unfortunately, even when Trek does try to break free of the past, it feels very self-conscious. Look, Discovery is, hands down, my least favorite Trek, but I applaud it for making a clean break with the past at the end of season 2 and jumping forward over 900 years, so that it's nominally not beholden even to the TNG era. And yet, the show still fails to hold my attention as much as I'd like - its attempts to discuss hot-button social issues feel inorganic and labored, we never learn enough about the non-Michael Burnham characters to really like them, and the plots just don't feel that urgent. Even Prodigy, which grew into a fine show by the end of season 1, sometimes feels like it's laboring under the burden of showing that it's a Trek show.

This isn't to say that 90s Trek is perfect. Seasons 1 and 2 of TNG are absolutely terrible, with only one episode of note (Measure of a Man) to redeem them. DS9 can be slow at the start, and even up to the final season isn't completely immune from subjecting to us to some duff episodes. And for a supposed showcase of futuristic values, 90s Trek can be pretty disappointingly regressive: early TNG episodes like Code of Honor are rightly held up as grossly racist, while Harry Kim, Voyager's Asian cast member (the first since TOS's Sulu), always seems to get belittled and forgotten compared with the boorish white character, Tom Paris.

But the best summation I've heard of Trek (I believe from Mission Log) is that it's "competence porn", i.e. a show about smart people working together to solve problems. This squares with Gene Roddenberry's original vision, and his oft-quoted disparagement of "ancient aliens" hokum: he used to say that of course humans built the pyramids, because they're clever and they work hard. This spirit suffuses the best of Trek, and it's why Lower Decks and SNW and Prodigy have landed the best for me among the most recent entries.

It's worth noting that I've finished Voyager at an odd time for Trek in general. We're only a few weeks off from the premiere of SNW's third season, but Paramount has also announced that the show will be ending with season 5, which will be an abbreviated 6 episodes, rather than SNW's usual 10. Given the long lead times for the show, that could take a while yet, but it means that Trek is going from having 5 series on the air to just one, the Starfleet Academy show that's meant to emerge at some point.

Trek hasn't been immune to the toxic fandom that plagues other nerd-world properties, like the Marvel Cinematic Universe and Star Wars. It's also suffered, in my opinion, from over-production on the TV shows, meaning that Paramount had to cancel them all to save money as it looks for a buyer; that over-production, in turn, has meant that the Trek creative teams relied too much on visual effects and action scenes, and not always enough on the interpersonal relationships among the members of each ensemble cast that made Trek so good (at least in the 80s and 90s).

I want Academy to do well, but I also kind of wonder if it wouldn't be good for Trek to have a little break again for a year or two. It'd be nice to see it come back with something important to say, rather than always trying to recapture the magic of TOS - a quest that goes back all the way to 1995, when Voyager launched. My friend Paul, the one who lent me those DS9 and X-Files and Babylon 5 DVDs almost 20 years ago, hasn't really warmed to the latest generations of Trek, because he'd like to see another time jump like the one between TOS and TNG - one where there are reminders of the past, but where the shows aren't in thrall to it.

I'd like to see that new, third generation myself. And I'd like it to bring the best of both worlds with it: the actual recognition of non-white, non-male, non-hetero characters that New Trek does so well, with the episodic but still interconnected storytelling that Old Trek did nicely.

And if it goes away for another long period, well: today I restarted Enterprise. As long as it's available somewhere on streaming, we'll always have Trek to inspire us.