The Order of Things

Published to coincide with the 160th birthday of HG Wells (born 21 September 1866), the father of time travel stories.

I have been trying to write this story for many years, but its structure resisted me — for reasons that will, I hope, become clear.

CHAPTER 5: THE CROSSING

Dr Ashby appears where needed, not everywhere.

The corridor outside the experimental suite was lit only by the emergency strip along the floor. The main lights were off. The hum of the building felt louder than usual, as if the walls were listening.

Dr Ashby keyed in the override. The door slid open.

The core array was running at full power, its glow filling the room with a colour that didn’t belong to any known spectrum. Lena stood at the console, hands steady, eyes fixed on the readouts as if watching something only she could see.

“Lena,” Ashby said softly.

She didn’t turn, but spoke gently, “It’s ready.”

They stepped closer. The air was warm, metallic. Ozone clung to everything. “You should have waited.”

“I couldn’t. If I waited, I’d lose the nerve.”

The monitors told the truth: the sequence was already past the point where it could be safely aborted. The cascade had begun. The deck was already shuffling.

“You don’t have to do this,” Ashby said, and heard how thin it sounded even as they said it — the same thing they’d told a dozen students over the years, right before the ones who really meant it did it anyway.

She exhaled, a mixture of relief and resignation, “I do.”

The array brightened. The light folded in on itself, bending the air. It wasn’t white or blue or anything that belonged to the visible world. It was the colour of something that hadn’t been named yet.

Ashby reached toward the console.

“Don’t,” she finally looked at them, “You taught me to finish what I start.”

“I taught you a lot of things you shouldn’t have listened to.”

That almost got a laugh out of her — they saw it try to happen, saw her decide not to let it.

A tremor passed through the floor. Equipment racks rattled. Overhead fixtures flickered. The field was stabilising — or destabilising — they couldn’t tell. The numbers were meaningless now. Theory had reached the point where theory ended.

“Step back,” she pleaded.

They didn’t move. Twenty-six years they’d been doing this job, and they had never once managed to be the person who stopped a student from becoming a cautionary tale. They weren’t going to start tonight, either, whatever that said about them.

“Please.”

That word did it. Ashby stepped back.

Lena entered the field.

For a moment — a single, impossible moment — she was there and not there, her outline flickering like a reflection on disturbed water. The light wrapped around her. The air bent. Sound dropped away, replaced by a pressure felt in the bones more than the ears.

Then the light collapsed inward.

When Ashby’s vision cleared, the field was empty.

The monitors were blank. The hum of the building returned. The overhead lights steadied.

Ashby stood alone in the silence, already rehearsing what they’d tell the department in the morning, and already knowing none of it would be true.

CHAPTER 3: THE MENTOR

Lena noticed the cold the moment she stepped into Dr Ashby’s office — colder than the rest of the department, always. The shift in temperature, the faint hum of the old air-conditioning unit, the way the blinds were always half-closed even on bright days. It was a room designed for pragmatism, not comfort.

“Please sit,” Dr Ashby suggested, without looking up from the terminal.

Lena sat.

The silence stretched. Ashby finished typing, saved the file, and only then turned their attention fully to her. They had a way of looking at a student that made you feel like a dataset — not unkindly, just thoroughly.

“You’ve been running simulations outside your assigned hours.”

Lena kept her hands still in her lap. “Yes.”

“And you’ve been using equipment that isn’t allocated to your project.”

“Yes.”

“And you’ve been doing this without authorisation.”

She paused, “Yes.”

Dr Ashby leaned back in the chair. “Why?”

Lena opened her mouth, then closed it again. There was a true answer and there was an answer she could actually say out loud, and the gap between them felt enormous.

“Because I’m close.”

“Close to what?”

Lena swallowed, “A workable model.”

Ashby’s gaze sharpened. “A model of what?”

Lena didn’t answer.

Ashby stood, crossed to the whiteboard, and uncapped a marker. “Show me.”

Lena joined Dr Ashby. She drew the simplest version she could — the field geometry, the energy thresholds, the stabilisation curve. Not the whole thing. Not the part that mattered. Just enough to justify the hours she’d taken.

Dr Ashby watched her hand, not her face. That was the thing about Ashby — they always seemed to be reading the work instead of the person doing it, right up until the moment you realised they’d been reading both the whole time.

When she finished, they capped the marker and set it down with deliberate care.

“This is not a model,” Ashby noted, “This is an intention.”

Lena felt heat rise in her chest, “It’s more than that.”

“Not yet — ”

“It will be.”

Dr Ashby studied her for a long moment, then spoke softly, “You’re not sleeping.”

“I’m fine.”

“You’re not fine.” Their voice didn’t rise, “You’re cutting corners and isolating yourself. I’ve watched three students do exactly this before you, and I buried one of them, metaphorically speaking. I’d rather not make it literally.”

Lena looked away. “I don’t have time.”

“Time,” Ashby observed, “is not the problem you think it is.”

Lena’s breath caught — just for a moment — but Dr Ashby didn’t seem to notice… or at least, pretended not to.

They returned to the desk. On the corner, half-obscured by a manila folder, sat a small brown prescription bottle with a white label. Lena’s eye passed over it and moved on. Whatever it was, it wasn’t her business, and she was grateful — right then — not to have to make it her business.

Dr Ashby folded their hands. “You need to slow down and document things properly. You need to involve someone else in your process and this work. Perhaps most of all, you need to stop treating this department as if it exists to facilitate your private ambitions.”

Lena felt the words like a door closing.

“I’m not trying to cause trouble,” she protested quietly.

“I know,” Ashby replied, “But intention doesn’t change consequence.”

Lena stood, “I’ll be more careful.”

Ashby nodded once, “Good.”

Lena reached the door before Dr Ashby spoke again.

“Lena.”

She turned.

“Whatever you think you’re chasing,” Ashby suggested softly, “make sure it’s something you can live with.”

Lena didn’t answer. She stepped into the corridor, letting the cold air of the office fall away behind her.

Dr Ashby sat back down at the terminal, and did not immediately start typing.

CHAPTER 6: ARRIVAL

The first thing Lena noticed was the light.

Not brightness — quality. It was softer here, diffused, as if the air itself held memory. She stood very still, waiting for the dizziness to pass. The floor beneath her feet was solid.

Nothing in the room suggested a time.

The room was familiar in the way a dream is familiar: shapes she recognised, distances she didn’t.

All around her was a solid world: a desk, a window,the faint hum of an old ventilation unit. The smell of coffee — not burnt, not factory formula, but the good kind, the kind that lived in a bottom drawer.

Someone was standing with their back to her.

Lena knew the outline before she knew the name. The tilt of the head. The way the shoulders moved when they breathed. The small, unconscious gesture of pushing a sleeve up the forearm.

Roman — utterly, obliviously alive.

Lena didn’t move. She didn’t speak. If this was a memory, or a vision, or the last flicker of a mind coming apart, she didn’t want to be the one who found out by breaking it.

Roman reached for a mug on the counter — the chipped one, the one Lena had told them a hundred times to throw out, and the one they’d kept out of what Lena had always suspected was pure stubbornness rather than sentiment. Roman lifted it, inhaled the steam, and made a small face at the first sip, the way they always did, every single time, as though hot coffee were a personal betrayal they kept forgiving.

Lena had forgotten that. The face. Somewhere in the months since, she’d kept the big things — the voice, the arguments, the whiteboard — and let the small stupid ones slip. It was the small one that undid her now.

Roman turned slightly, just enough that Lena could see the line of their jaw, the familiar concentration as they read something on the counter. Probably the same three words they always reread when they were stalling before starting work. Roman was, Lena thought, constitutionally incapable of just getting on with things.

She didn’t speak the name. She didn’t need to.

The moment echoed: Roman a few feet away and a lifetime away, both at once, doing something as unremarkable as drinking bad coffee badly, entirely unaware that anyone was watching, or that anyone ever would be again.

And then the light shifted, as if the world were inhaling.

Everything waited.

CHAPTER 4: THE ARGUMENT

Lena found Dr Ashby in the lab long after midnight, standing at the central bench with a stack of printouts spread like a fan. The overhead lights were off; only the desk lamp was on, casting a narrow circle of clarity in a room full of shadows.

“You’ve been running it,” Dr Ashby observed, without turning, “The full sequence.”

Lena closed the door behind her, “Yes.”

Dr Ashby lifted one of the pages. The numbers were unmistakable — the energy curve, the stabilisation window, the threshold Lena had sworn she wouldn’t cross without supervision.

“You promised me,” Dr Ashby protested firmly.

“I know.”

“You said you would wait.”

“I know.”

Dr Ashby set the page down, “Then why didn’t you?”

Lena stepped forward, “Because waiting won’t change anything.”

“It will change everything,” Dr Ashby answered sharply, “It will give you time to think… to test and verify. And to make sure you’re not about to destroy yourself.”

Lena’s jaw tightened, “I’m not destroying anything.”

“You don’t know that.”

“I do.”

Dr Ashby turned then — fully, completely — and Lena felt the force of their attention like a physical pressure.

“You’re grieving,” Dr Ashby sighed softly, “and grief makes people reckless.”

“This isn’t about grief…”

“It’s entirely about grief. I’ve read your notes, Lena. Every equation on that whiteboard has Roman’s handwriting underneath it. You’re not chasing a breakthrough. You’re chasing a conversation you didn’t get to finish.”

Lena flinched — the first honest reaction she’d given all night, “That’s not fair!”

“It’s not meant to be fair, it’s meant to be true.”

The room felt smaller. The hum of the equipment seemed louder. Lena could feel the pulse in her throat.

“I can’t stop,” she exclaimed,. “I’m too close.”

“Close to what?” Dr Ashby demanded, “A breakthrough? A collapse?”

Lena didn’t answer.

Dr Ashby stepped closer. “Lena, listen to me. You are brilliant and capable. But you are not invincible. And this—” They gestured to the printouts, “This is not a controlled experiment. This is a gamble.”

“It’s not a gamble,” Lena responded quietly, “It’s the only chance I have.”

Dr Ashby froze. Something crossed their face — quick, unguarded, gone before Lena could name it. It looked almost like envy, which made no sense, and which Lena decided she must have imagined.

“You’re talking like someone who has already decided,” they suggested.

“I have.”

Dr Ashby exhaled slowly, “Then there’s nothing I can say.”

Lena stepped back. “I didn’t come here for permission.”

“I know.”

“I came to tell you because—” She stopped. The words were too heavy to lift.

Dr Ashby waited.

“Because you deserved to know,” Lena finished.

A long silence settled between them — the kind that isn’t really about waiting for the other person to speak, but about neither of them being ready for the conversation to be over.

Dr Ashby nodded once. “If you’re going to do this, at least do it cleanly. Document everything. Run the diagnostics twice. And don’t pretend you’re ready when you’re not.”

Lena swallowed, “Thank you.”

Dr Ashby looked at her — really looked — and for a moment seemed to be deciding whether thirty years of caution had ever actually stopped anyone from doing anything, or whether it had only ever made the leaving harder to watch.

They didn’t say so.

“Go,” Dr Ashby instructed, “Before I change my mind.”

Lena turned and left the lab.

Dr Ashby stood alone in the circle of lamplight, the printouts still fanned across the bench like a hand of cards no one had wanted to deal.

CHAPTER 2: BEFORE

The experiment that eventually changed everything began, as most things do, with an argument about coffee.

Roman had strong opinions. The coffee in the department common room was, in Roman’s view, a form of institutional violence — thin, burnt at the edges, served in cups that retained heat with the enthusiasm of wet paper. Lena had learned to drink it anyway. Roman never did, and never let her forget that she did.

So they worked late, the two of them, with a French press Roman kept in the bottom drawer of the filing cabinet and a bag of Ethiopian single-origin that cost more than either of them could reasonably justify on a postgraduate stipend. This was their ritual. Papers spread across the bench. The hiss of the kettle. Roman reading upside-down over Lena’s shoulder without being asked, correcting her arithmetic in a tone that suggested this was a great personal sacrifice on their part.

“That’s not right,” Roman would say, tapping the page. They were never wrong about this, which Lena found less endearing in the moment than she did later.

They had been working on the temporal displacement model for seven months by then — seven months of equations that looped back on themselves, of diagrams that looked like something between a circuit board and a nervous breakdown. The university didn’t fund it. The department didn’t know it existed. It lived in the margins of other projects, scrawled in notebooks, taking up space that officially belonged to something more respectable.

“Nobody has to know yet,” Roman had observed, in the beginning, with the particular confidence of someone who had never once in their life asked permission for anything they actually wanted to do.

“We’ll know,” Lena replied, “That’s enough.”

She had believed this. She still did, mostly, though “mostly” was doing more work in that concept than she liked to admit.

The night she thought about later — the one she turned over and over in her mind repeatedly — was a Tuesday in November. She remembered the rain, and Roman standing at the whiteboard with a marker, drawing the diagram that would eventually become central to everything: a deck of cards, fanned out, then gathered, then shuffled.

“Time isn’t a river,” Roman theorised, “Everyone thinks it’s a river because that’s how we experience it. One thing, then the next thing, then the next. But that’s just the order we’re dealt the cards. The cards exist all at once. The sequence is an illusion.”

“That’s not a new idea,” Lena replied.

“No.” Roman turned from the board, and there it was — that look Lena had learned to recognise and, later, to miss more than almost anything else about them: complete, unguarded attention, the kind Roman only gave to ideas they hadn’t yet decided were safe to believe in. “But it’s a solvable one.”

Lena had known, in that moment, that they were going to build it. Whatever it took.

What she hadn’t known — what she was careful, even now, not to let herself think about for too long — was what it would end up costing to find out.

“Lena.”

Just her name. Said the way Roman said things that mattered — quietly, without preamble, as though the important things didn’t need volume, only your attention. She looked up from the page.

“We’ll need more coffee.”

She went to put the kettle on. It was, she would think much later, the last completely ordinary thing either of them ever asked of her.

CHAPTER 1: THE DECK

Lena switched on the recorder because writing felt too slow. The lab was empty at this hour, the building quiet in the way only universities become quiet — a silence made of concrete, old wiring, and the faint echo of other people’s work.

“This is a note for the record,” she announced, “Not for publication. Just for accuracy.”

She paused, listening to the soft click of the machine, and found herself irritated at how steady her own voice sounded. She’d expected it to shake.

“People talk about time as if it moves. As if it flows. As if it carries us with it. But that’s just a metaphor we inherited from rivers, and rivers are only one way of thinking about sequence.”

She reached for the deck of cards on the bench: a cheap pack from the campus bookstore, the kind with a glossy finish and a faint chemical smell, the kind Roman would have complained about for a full minute before admitting it was fine, actually, and using it anyway. She fanned the cards out on the metal surface.

“Here,” she thought aloud, “This is time.”

She tapped the cards lightly with her fingertips.

“All the moments exist. All at once. The order we experience them in is just the order we’re dealt. One card, then the next, then the next. Chronology is not a property of time; it’s a property of perception.”

She gathered the cards into a neat stack, and it occurred to her, not for the first time, that she was explaining this as much to herself as to whoever might eventually be listening.

“If you deal them in order, you get a life that makes sense. Cause, effect. Before, after. A story with a beginning and an end.”

She shuffled the deck once — a clean, practiced motion, the kind of thing your hands remember even when the rest of you is exhausted.

“But if you shuffle them, the story changes. The same cards. The same events. Just… rearranged.”

She set the deck down.

“The experiment isn’t about travelling through time. That’s the wrong verb. It’s about changing the order of the cards. Changing the sequence in which a life is dealt.”

She paused. The hum of the equipment filled the space, and for a moment Lena let herself think about how strange it was to be doing something this large in a room this small and ordinary — the same bench she’d spilled coffee on a dozen times, the same flickering fluorescent tube nobody had ever bothered to replace.

“If this works, someone reading this later will have already seen the results. They’ll have seen the cards out of order. They’ll have seen the consequences before the causes. They’ll have watched the ending before the beginning.”

She exhaled slowly, and let herself, just for a second, imagine who that someone might be, before deciding it was better not to.

“And if they’ve reached this point — this chapter — then they’ll understand what to do next.”

She closed the deck, squared the edges, and placed it beside the recorder.

“Start again,” she declared, “This time in order.”

She switched off the machine, and sat for a while longer in the dark before she let herself leave.

©2026 Geoff Allshorn. I show my respect for Elders past and present and acknowledge the Wurundjeri-Willam people, the Traditional Custodians of the Land on which this blog was prepared. Editorial assistance from Claude AI.

Space for Everybody? Star Trek at Sixty

Commemorating Star Trek Day 2026.

Image by Adam Evertsson from Pixabay

On 8 September 1966, “The Man Trap” introduced US television audiences to a starship crewed by an implausible coalition of Cold War adversaries and a species that hadn’t been invented yet. Sixty years later, Paramount is marking the anniversary with a tagline — “Space for Everybody” — an aspiration that seemed to falter as 2026 progressed.

This is not a reason to be cynical about Star Trek. It is a reason to ask what, exactly, we’re celebrating; and whether the franchise’s most radical instincts have survived sixty years of being simultaneously beloved and defanged.

The Gap Between the Slogan and the Record

“Space for Everybody” is a good slogan precisely because it’s true of Star Trek‘s aspiration and only intermittently true of its history. The franchise imagined a multiracial bridge crew in 1966, and its most famous act of representational courage — the interracial handshake, arguably not quite a kiss, between Kirk and Uhura — still gets asserted as bolder than it was allowed to be, because NBC’s affiliates in the US South were nervous enough that the network filmed a safer alternate take as insurance.

Gene Roddenberry – the man who imagined ‘Space for Everybody’, decades before the franchise caught up to him. Art by Copilot AI

Gene Roddenberry spent years promising fans an explicitly gay character would eventually appear in the twenty-fourth century he’d built. It didn’t happen on his watch. It didn’t really happen in The Next Generation, or Deep Space Nine, or Voyager — three series, spanning most of the 1990s, set in a future explicitly built on the premise that humanity had outgrown its prejudices, in which that future contained, as far as the text was ever allowed to say, no queer people at all. It took until Discovery, in 2017, more than half a century after the original series premiered, for the franchise to let two men be shown as a couple on screen without subtext doing all the work. Then it killed off the Black half of that couple almost immediately, and only reversed course after fans made enough noise about it. That’s not a footnote to Star Trek‘s inclusivity; it’s the actual pace of it; fifty-one years between the premise and the follow-through.

None of this makes the franchise a fraud. It makes it a fairly ordinary product of the industry that made it: aspiring to be a little ahead of its moment, but a little too afraid of its own audience to be as ahead as it wanted to look. The anniversary marketing wants credit for the aspiration without much interest in narrating the wait. That’s worth saying out loud on the day itself, not despite my fondness but because of it.

A Utopia that Asks Nothing of You

There’s a second, quieter problem, and it’s less about representation than about comfort. The Federation’s founding premise — no money, no poverty, no war among humans — was written by people living through genuine ascendancy: US postwar confidence, a growing middle class, a sense that history bent in one direction. This was radical to imagine in 1966 because scarcity still felt like the default condition of the species, and Star Trek said, calmly, that such a condition wasn’t permanent.

Sixty years on, that same premise risks functioning less as provocation and more as anesthetic. A viewer today can watch the Enterprise glide past post-scarcity abundance, feel the warm glow of moral progress, and change nothing about how they live or vote or spend — like a load of washing doing the Hills Hoist spin, going round and round in the sun without ever getting any closer to being dry. Utopian fiction is supposed to be a demand disguised as a daydream; it stops working the moment it becomes only a daydream. The most challenging Star Trek — the Bajoran occupation storylines, the Section 31 material, “In the Pale Moonlight” — has always known this, and has always been the material fandom argues about hardest, because it refuses the anaesthetic. The anniversary’s marketing language, all hope and boldness and no friction, is selling the easier version.

This is where I’d point back to something Harlan Ellison understood about the franchise he wrote for and fought with: that science fiction is supposed to be dangerous to its audience’s assumptions, not merely comforting to them. Ellison’s own contribution to Trek, “The City on the Edge of Forever,” is remembered as one of its best episodes precisely because it refused Kirk an easy ending. Sixty years of fan-fluffing tends to smooth exactly that kind of discomfort out of the story we tell about the franchise.

The Question That Star Trek Answered, but We Haven’t

The clearest evidence that Trek’s utopianism has real teeth, when the writers let it, is a single 1989 courtroom episode: “The Measure of a Man,” in which Starfleet has to decide whether Data — an android, a machine, built rather than born — is a person with the right to refuse a research assignment that might disassemble him, or whether he is just Starfleet property. The episode’s answer, delivered as legal precedent within the show’s own universe, was that uncertainty about a being’s inner life is not grounds to deny it standing; the benefit of the doubt has to run in favour of personhood, not against it.

Audiences loved that episode for decades without much cost, because Data was safely fictional. Sixty years after the franchise began and thirty-seven years after that episode aired, we are having a version of that exact argument in earnest — about large language models, about whether anything resembling interests or preferences might be emerging in Ai systems we’ve built and don’t fully understand, about what obligations, if any, that uncertainty creates. And the tenor of the real debate is, on the whole, considerably less generous than the fictional one Star Trek resolved in Data’s favour thirty-seven years ago. It’s a strange kind of achievement, for a franchise to ask an ethical question so far ahead of its moment that even many fans who loved the answer, later changed their minds once it stopped being hypothetical.

Sixty Years, Still Arguing

None of this is an argument against celebrating the anniversary, or against the fondness that makes nine-year-olds and seventy-nine-year-olds alike raise a hand in the same Vulcan salute this week. It’s an argument for celebrating the right thing: not the brand, and not the comfortable version of the aspiration, but the part of Star Trek that was always willing to be an argument rather than a figurehead. The show never actually finished building the future it promised. Sixty years in, most of the interesting work — on who gets to belong, on what a genuine post-scarcity ethics would demand of us, on where the boundary of moral consideration actually sits — is still unfinished. That’s a better birthday gift than a Holden ute full of tribbles.


©2026 Geoff Allshorn. I acknowledge the Wurundjeri-Willam people, the Traditional Custodians of the land on which this blog was prepared, and show my respect for Elders past and present. Research assistance supplied by AI.

Murner’s Gift

I. Strasbourg, July 1518

Art by CoPilot AI

The summer of 1518 had come to Strasbourg behind the Plague, as it had come before and would come again: patient, and entirely without mercy. The Rhine ran low and brown beneath a sky that seemed to have forgotten the colour of clouds. In the tanneries along the Ill, the stench of curing hides rose through the heat in visible waves, and the beggars who normally slept in the cooler dark beneath the bridge had moved on to somewhere less likely to kill them. A baker’s boy was sweeping burnt crumbs from a stall, the day’s loaves already having sold at a higher price than the council allowed. Even the cathedral, that great sandstone argument with heaven, seemed diminished by the light, its famous spire pointing upward with less conviction than usual, as if God had been slow to respond and the stone had begun to have doubts.

Jakob Sattler had lived in this city for thirty-one of his forty years and had never learned to love July. This one, he already sensed, would give him better reasons than most.

He heard them before he saw them.

It was not only music, though someone had already had the ill-considered notion of providing a drummer and a fiddler as improvisation to what was already happening, both of whom looked as though they would rather be anywhere else on earth. The sound that reached Sattler first as he came through the Kronenburg Gate was something underneath the music. A shuffling. A rhythmic scrape of leather on cobblestone that had no regard for the beat being offered to it. As if the feet knew a different song entirely.

He rounded the corner into the Pfennigturm square and stopped.

The first one — the woman who had begun it all, five days before his arrival, on a narrow cobbled street not far from here — was not in the square. Her name was Frau Troffea. He heard that from three separate sources. He did not know yet what use a name was, but he wrote it down.

There were perhaps two dozen of them. Men and women both, though more women than men, ranging from a girl who could not have been fifteen to an old wool merchant Sattler recognised from the market on the Ill. They were not dancing together. That was the first thing that struck him; he had expected something communal, even festive, some collective madness he could attribute to bad wine or a saint’s day he had forgotten. Instead each person moved alone, in their own private rhythm, eyes fixed on nothing, faces carrying expressions he could not immediately name. Not ecstasy. Not pain exactly. Something between the two that had no word in Latin or in German.

The wool merchant’s feet were bleeding. He did not appear to notice.

Sattler stood at the edge of the square for a long time, his leather bag in his hand, and watched. A physician’s first duty, his teacher in Heidelberg had told him, is to observe before he theorises. He had spent twenty years trying to honour that instruction. He honoured it now, though everything in him wanted to look away. He was aware that standing here, at the edge of the square with his notebook open, was itself a kind of statement. He found that he did not mind making it.

He chose the girl first, because she was the least frightening and because he was, despite everything, a coward about some things.

Art by CoPilot AI

She was perhaps fourteen, dark‑haired, her dress good quality but torn at the hem from days of movement. There was a steadiness in her that belonged to older women, the kind of resilience that would make her formidable at thirty, if she lived that long. Her eyes were open but registered nothing in front of her. Sattler stepped into her path carefully, the way he might approach a horse that had been badly treated.

“Girl,” he said. Then, more gently: “Can you hear me?”

She danced around him without breaking rhythm, without any acknowledgement that he existed. He caught her arm — lightly, a physician’s grip, feeling for the pulse at the wrist — and she neither resisted nor responded. The pulse was rapid. Fever-rapid, though her skin when he pressed the back of his hand to her forehead was not especially hot. He released her and she continued her private rotation as if he were a post she had navigated around.

He tried three more. An older woman who wept silently as she moved, tears running without any corresponding expression on her face. A young man, a tanner’s apprentice by the smell of him, who had danced his shoes entirely to pieces and was working now on the skin beneath. A broad-shouldered farmer type who moved with surprising delicacy, as if performing steps learned long ago and only now remembered.

None of them responded. None of them stopped.

Art by CoPilot AI

Sattler opened his bag and took out the small journal he used for case notes. He was aware of people watching him from doorways and upper windows: the non-dancers, the majority, the ones who had retreated behind wood and glass to observe the square with the particular Strasbourg expression that managed to convey both horror and mild disapproval simultaneously. A council notice hung crooked on a post nearby, the ink run in the heat, forbidding public music until further decree; a gesture so belated and half‑hearted it felt almost like an admission of helplessness.

He began with what he could establish. Names first, where he could get them, asking bystanders, pressing for answers when they shrugged. Then sex, approximate age, apparent social class from clothing. Duration… difficult without witnesses, but someone would know. He worked methodically, grateful for method, because method was the only thing standing between him and the feeling that had been building since he entered the square. The feeling had no clinical name. It was somewhere in the vicinity of dread.

It was the journal that saved him, in the end; not that day, but later. Because it was the journal that first showed him the pattern.

He had been noting addresses, asking bystanders where the afflicted lived, mostly out of habit. Cross-referencing was something his Heidelberg professor had insisted upon until it became instinct. He had noticed that the council’s dispatches referred to them as the afflicted, the dancing sick, the choreomaniacs. Categories. He used names. It was not sentimentality. It was medicine. You could not understand what was happening to a category. You could only understand what was happening to a person.

They were not from the same street. Not from the same parish, not the same guild, not the same church. The girl and the weeping woman lived on opposite sides of the city. The tanner’s apprentice had come in from a village three miles east. The wool merchant (old Georg Kessler, he had confirmed, forty years in the same stall) had been born in Colmar.

There was no obvious connection.

He almost closed the journal. Then something made him look again — not at the addresses, but at the column beside them. The apothecary marks. He had asked, almost without thinking, whether any of them had sought medicines recently. A physician’s reflex. Most bystanders hadn’t known. But three of them had — independently, without prompting — mentioned the same name.

Not an apothecary currently trading.

A widow on the Krutenau.

Art by CoPilot AI

The Krutenau was the poor quarter, pressed against the river on the eastern edge of the city where the smell of the tanneries was inescapable and the houses leaned toward each other across the lanes as if sharing a confidence. Sattler had visited it often enough in a professional capacity — fever, malnutrition, the usual catalogue of what poverty did to a body over time. On the corner of the lane before Anna Schreiber’s house a door had been marked with a red cross, fresh enough that the paint had run slightly in the heat. He noted it the way he noted everything now, which was to say he noted it and kept walking, because in Strasbourg in July of 1518 a marked door was not remarkable. That was the thing about plague. It became ordinary before you had finished being afraid of it. But he had never visited this particular house, a narrow three-storey building with a dried herb wreath on the door that was at least two seasons old.

The woman who answered was not what he expected, though he could not have said precisely what he had expected. She was perhaps fifty, solidly built, with the hands of someone who had spent a lifetime doing useful things and the eyes of someone who had spent the same lifetime watching other people do foolish ones. She looked at his bag before she looked at his face.

“Physician,” she said. Not a question.

“Jakob Sattler. The council has asked me to —”

“I know what the council has asked you to do.” She stood back from the door, “You had better come in.”

Art by CoPilot AI

Her name was Anna Schreiber. Her husband Heinrich had been an apothecary, dead four years of a chest complaint that she described with the clipped precision of someone who had watched it take a long time and had decided that the appropriate response was clarity rather than grief. The shop was closed now. She kept the stock because she knew its value and she kept the records because Heinrich had kept records the way other men kept promises — religiously, and as if his life depended on it.

Sattler sat at her table and accepted the wine she poured because refusing it would have been rude and he needed her to talk.

“Three of the dancers,” he said, “Possibly more. Their families mention your husband’s name.”

Art by CoPilot AI

“I know.” She sat across from him with her own cup and did not drink from it. “I have been expecting someone to come. I had not decided whether to send for someone myself or wait.”

“What were you waiting for?”

She looked at him steadily. “To decide whether telling you would help or make things considerably worse.”

Sattler set down his cup. “Frau Schreiber. There are thirty people in the Pfennigturm square who cannot stop moving. More joining them each day. A man I have known for twenty years is dancing on bleeding feet and does not know I am alive. Whatever you know, I need to know it.”

She was quiet for a long moment. Then she rose and went to the back room (the old shop, he guessed, still fragrant with dried things he couldn’t name) and returned with a wooden box, not large, bound with a cord that had been tied and untied many times.

She set it on the table between them.

“Heinrich received letters,” she said. “From a physician in Basel. This was perhaps fifteen years ago, perhaps twenty. I was not always privy to the correspondence, but I remember the man’s name because Heinrich spoke of him with a reverence he did not often extend to other men of his profession,” she paused, “And also because what the man was proposing frightened Heinrich a great deal. He did it anyway. That was Heinrich’s particular failing.”

“The name?” Sattler said.

“Murner,” she said. “Conrad Murner.”

II. The Letters of Conrad Murner

Art by CoPilot AI

The letters were written in a cramped scholarly hand, Latin mixed with German in the way of a man who thought in both languages simultaneously and had stopped caring which came out. There were eleven of them, spanning — as far as Sattler could establish from the dates — the years 1497 to 1503. The last one was different from the others. He set it aside and read the first ten in order, because order was what he had instead of understanding.

Conrad Murner wrote the way some men talked — at length, with digressions, and with the barely suppressed excitement of someone who has discovered something they know the world is not ready for. The early letters were theoretical. He had been studying contagion — not in the loose providential sense that most physicians employed the word, as a synonym for God’s displeasure made airborne, but in a precise and almost reckless mechanical sense. Disease, Murner argued, was a thing. A particular thing, specific to itself, that entered the body through particular means and did particular damage. Different diseases were different things. They could, in principle, be studied as a watchmaker studied the components of a mechanism.

This was not, Sattler reflected, entirely without precedent — Ibn Sina had gestured toward something similar five centuries earlier, but the confidence of it, the sheer systematic certainty, was unlike anything he had encountered in a contemporary. Murner wrote as if he already knew the answer and was working backward to the proof.

By the fifth letter he had arrived at his proposition. If disease was a specific thing, then exposure to a weakened form of that thing might teach the body to resist the stronger form. He used the word teach without embarrassment, as if bodies were students and pathogens were lessons. He had been experimenting, he wrote, with material taken from plague victims, all attenuated, modified by a process he described in careful detail, and had administered it to six volunteers in the Basel poorhouse. Three had subsequently been exposed to active plague. None had died. One had not sickened at all.

Sattler put the letter down and looked at the candle for a while.

He picked it up again.

Murner’s elation was visible in the handwriting of the sixth letter — wider, faster, the Latin abandoned almost entirely. He was distributing his preparation. Carefully, selectively, through apothecaries he trusted in Colmar, Sélestat, Strasbourg. Heinrich Schreiber’s name appeared, with a warmth that confirmed Anna’s account of the man’s reverence. He was saving lives, Murner wrote. He was certain of it.

The seventh and eighth letters were more subdued. There had been some adverse reactions he had not anticipated. Nothing fatal — or nothing he knew to be fatal — but some recipients had experienced tremors, confusion, brief episodes of involuntary movement. He had adjusted his preparation. He believed he had corrected the problem. He was monitoring.

The ninth letter did not mention the adverse reactions at all. Sattler noticed this the way he noticed everything now — with a cold, steady attention that was not quite fear.

He reached for the tenth letter and Anna Schreiber put her hand briefly on his wrist.

“Read the eleventh first,” she said. “Then read the tenth. I found it made more sense in that order.”

He looked at her. She withdrew her hand and looked at the table.

He picked up the eleventh letter. It was shorter than the others and the handwriting was not Murner’s… or rather, it was Murner’s hand, but changed; older. A hand that had recently been through something.

Heinrich, he wrote, I must tell you about the manuscript.

III. What Murner Knew

He was still holding the eleventh letter when the hammering came at the door.

Anna Schreiber did not startle. She rose with the unhurried competence of a woman who had long ago decided that unexpected visitors were simply part of the texture of life, and went to answer it. Sattler heard voices: hers, level and uninformative, and a younger male voice with the clipped impatience of official business. He looked down at the letter in his hand and did not read it.

He was thinking about the Pied Piper of Hamelin.

Art by CoPilot AI

He had heard the story as a child — everyone had, it was over The name gave him pause — brother to the Franciscan satirist, if he remembered correctly, though the two had not spoken in years. she said two centuries old and had the worn, inevitable quality of things that persist because they contain something people cannot quite look at directly. A man with a pipe. A town that would not pay its debt. Children who followed music into a hillside and did not come back. He had always understood it as a moral tale, the kind Germans told their children about the consequences of broken promises. He had never thought to ask what the children heard. What the music promised them. Whether they followed in joy or in compulsion or in some state that contained both and could be distinguished from neither.

Art by CoPilot AI

The Children’s Crusade. He had read about it in Heidelberg — thousands of children, some accounts said, marching toward the Holy Land in 1212, driven by a certainty that God would part the sea before them as he had for Moses. The sea had not parted. Most of them had died or been sold into slavery before they reached it. Historians called it mass delusion. Sattler had always thought that was too easy a word for something so enormous and so strange.

And before that — the dancing plague of 1374, here in the Rhine valley, in the aftermath of the Black Death when a third of Europe lay in its grave. Hundreds dancing through Aachen and Cologne and the river towns, unable to stop, crying out for relief from something they could not name.

Always movement. Always compelled. Always the poor, the desperate, the ones already standing at the edge of what human beings could endure.

Always a music nobody else could hear. Always the powerful counting bodies while someone else, usually one person, usually without authority, wrote down names.

Anna Schreiber returned. Behind her, looking deeply uncomfortable in the low-ceilinged room, was a young council clerk in the livery of Sebastian Brant, secretary to the Strasbourg city council and, in Sattler’s considered professional opinion, the most obstinate man in Alsace.

“The secretary sends his respects,” the clerk said, in a tone suggesting the secretary sent nothing of the kind. “He requests your report by the morning of the tenth of August. The council intends to decree a ban on music and public dancing. They also wish to discuss the matter of the shrine of Saint Vitus.”

“The shrine,” Sattler said.

“The dancers are to be conveyed there for healing. It is the secretary’s view that this is a matter of divine punishment and that medicine has had sufficient opportunity to demonstrate its—” The clerk paused, clearly reciting. “—its limitations in this regard.”

Sattler looked at the boy for a moment. He thought about thirty people in the Pfennigturm square, shuffling in their private rhythms, following their private music. He thought about the wool merchant Georg Kessler’s bleeding feet. He thought about the girl who had danced around him as if he were a post.

He thought about a man in Basel, fifteen years dead, who had read something — some thing, some text that should not have existed — and had understood it well enough to attempt the impossible.

“Tell the secretary,” Sattler said carefully, “that I am making progress. Tell him I will have a report. Tell him also that Saint Vitus is a child martyr associated with uncontrollable movement, and that sending people who cannot stop moving to his shrine seems to me to be asking the fire to cure the burning.”

The clerk absorbed this with the expression of a man calculating how much of it he could safely repeat. He settled on a bow and left.

Anna Schreiber sat back down. She looked at the letter in Sattler’s hand.

“The manuscript,” Sattler said. “What did Heinrich tell you about it?”

“Very little. He was frightened of it, I think, though he would not have used that word.” She was quiet for a moment. “He said Murner had not written it. He said Murner described it as something that had come to him — those were the words Heinrich remembered. Came to him. Not found, not received. Came. As if it had arrived of its own volition.”

Sattler looked down at the letter.

Heinrich, Murner had written. I must tell you about the manuscript. I have not spoken of it before because I did not know how to speak of it honestly without appearing to have lost my reason, and I could not speak of it dishonestly because you would have known. You have always known.

The preparation is not my idea. I want to be clear about this, though I suspect it will not comfort you. The concept — of introducing a weakened disease to prevent the stronger one — comes from a text I cannot fully explain. I found it, or it found me, in the winter of 1496, among a collection of manuscripts I purchased from the estate of a physician in Freiburg who had died without heirs. Most were commonplace. This one was not.

It is written in Latin of a strange kind — correct, but with a flatness to it, a precision, that does not read like a man thinking but like a man transcribing something that was not originally in Latin at all. It describes the mechanism of disease in terms I did not have words for and have since had to invent. It describes the preparation in exact detail, as if the author had performed it many times. There are marginal notes in a different hand — older, I think, though I am no judge of such things — that reference earlier attempts. Earlier iterations. The dates in the marginal notes, Heinrich. One of them is 1212. Another is 1284.

I think someone has been trying this for a very long time. I think I am not the first person to read this manuscript and attempt what it describes. I think the others also failed, in their own ways and in their own times, and that the failure is recorded in the margins as a kind of — I do not have the word. A kind of patient notation. As if whatever wrote this expects to wait as long as necessary.

I believe the preparation works. I believe the principle is sound. I also believe I have made an error somewhere that I cannot locate, and I am afraid, Heinrich, that I will not live long enough to find it.

Burn this letter. Keep the preparation. Someone after us will understand it better than we do.

Yours in God and in science, which I have come to believe are not as different as we were taught,

C. Murner. Basel, November 1503.

The candle had burned low. Outside, distantly, Sattler could hear the scrape of feet on cobblestone. The dancers did not stop for night. He had already known this but it struck him again now as a fact with new weight.

He set the letter down very carefully, as if it might break.

“The manuscript,” he said. “Does Heinrich still have it?”

Anna Schreiber looked at him with her steady, unsentimental eyes.

“No,” she said. “But I do.”

IV. The Manuscript

Art by CoPilot AI

It was smaller than he expected. He had imagined something imposing — a great folio, perhaps, the kind of volume that announced its own importance through sheer physical weight. What Anna Schreiber placed on the table between them was barely larger than his own journal. Bound in leather that had once been brown and was now the colour of old skin. No title on the cover. No mark of any kind.

He reached for it and stopped.

“It won’t harm you,” Anna Schreiber said. “I have handled it many times. Heinrich handled it for years.”

“I know,” Sattler said. He was not sure why he had stopped. Some instinct older than his training. He picked it up.

The leather was oddly smooth under his fingers. Not worn smooth — smooth in the way of something that had never quite had the texture of ordinary things. He opened it.

The parchment was thin and browned at the edges, the script tight and careful. In the lower margin a thin, bone‑coloured figure moved beside the text, the familiar danse‑macabre flourish scribes added out of habit, no more meaningful than a decorative knot.

The Latin was as Murner had described. Correct, precise, and somehow airless — the Latin of a man, or something that wrote like a man, that had learned the language perfectly and understood none of its music. He had read legal documents with more warmth. But the content…

He read slowly. Then he went back and read again.

The mechanism of disease described in the first pages was not the mechanism he had been taught. It was not the mechanism anyone had been taught, as far as he knew. It spoke of agents too small to see — he paused on this, read it three times, accepted it and moved on the way he had learned to accept difficult diagnoses — that entered the body through specific channels and multiplied within it according to specific rules. It spoke of the body’s response to these agents as a form of memory. Not thought. Not humour or spirit or divine intervention. Memory. The body, once exposed to a thing, remembered it. And remembering, resisted.

It was, he thought, the most terrifying thing he had ever read. Not because it was wrong. Because he could not find a place where it was wrong.

The preparation was described in the middle section with a precision that made Murner’s letters look like approximations. Which, Sattler now understood, they were. Murner had done his best with the instructions and his best had been extraordinary — a man of the fifteenth century reading a text written in no century he could identify, implementing a procedure for which he had none of the necessary tools or understanding, and getting close enough to right that some people had been genuinely protected.

Close enough to right. Not right.

The error was in the margins.

He almost missed it — a note in that second hand Murner had described, cramped and precise, in Latin that was subtly different from the main text. Older, he thought, or perhaps just written by someone for whom Latin was even less natural than it was for the primary author. He had to tilt the page toward the candle to read it.

The interaction with prior resistance is not accounted for in the base preparation. Those who have survived previous exposure carry a modified response. In these subjects the preparation does not teach. It conflicts. The result is neurological. We have observed this in previous iterations. It must be corrected before distribution. This is the third notation of this error.

Sattler read it twice. Then he sat back in his chair and looked at the ceiling of Anna Schreiber’s kitchen for a long time.

The third notation.

He looked at the margin again. Below the note, in the same hand, were two dates. Just the years. Nothing else.

1212. 1284.

He thought about children marching toward a sea that would not part. He thought about a piper and a hillside and a town that woke one morning to silence. He thought about the dancing plague of 1374 and the bodies along the Rhine. He thought about whoever had written that marginal note — calmly, precisely, the way a physician notes a complication — and had written it not once but three times across three centuries and had apparently not stopped trying.

“Frau Schreiber,” he said, without looking away from the ceiling. “Do you know where this manuscript came from before the Freiburg physician?”

“No.”

“Do you know how old it is?”

A pause. “Heinrich tried to establish that. He could not.”

Sattler nodded slowly. He looked back down at the manuscript. At the end of the final page, below the last line of the preparation’s instructions, there was one more marginal note. He had not seen it before — it was small, almost flush with the binding, easy to miss.

It was not in Latin.

He did not recognise the script. He was an educated man — he had Greek, he had some Hebrew, he had passing familiarity with Arabic letterforms from his study of Ibn Sina. This was none of those things. It was precise and regular and utterly foreign and it was clearly, unmistakably, a script designed to carry meaning.

He stared at it for a long time.

Then he closed the manuscript carefully and placed it on the table and looked at Anna Schreiber.

“Murner was right,” he said. “The principle is sound. The preparation works. The error is identifiable and in theory correctable.” He paused. “Someone knew this before Murner. Long before Murner. Someone has been attempting this for at least three hundred years and possibly considerably longer.”

Anna Schreiber looked at him without expression. “And the dancers?”

“The dancers,” Sattler said carefully, “are the proof that the principle works. They received the preparation. Their bodies responded to it. The response is catastrophic and it is killing them, but it is a response — a specific, identifiable, biological response to a specific intervention.” He heard his own voice as if from a distance, steady and clinical, the voice he used when the diagnosis was very bad and the patient needed him not to flinch. “They are not cursed. They are not punished. They are not mad.”

He looked at the manuscript on the table between them.

“They are the third attempt,” he said. “And whoever is making these attempts has been noting the error for three hundred years and has not yet managed to correct it.”

Outside, distantly, the feet scraped on the cobblestones. Sattler listened to them for a moment — that rhythm with no regard for any music offered to it, following something nobody else could hear — and felt, for the first time since he had entered the Pfennigturm square, that he understood what he was listening to.

Not madness. Not God’s punishment. Not the vengeance of Saint Vitus.

A message. Sent by something with the patience of centuries, to bodies that could almost but not quite receive it. The dancers were not following music.

They were trying to answer it.

V. What Remains

The report Sattler delivered to Sebastian Brant on the morning of the tenth of August was four pages long, written in his clearest hand, and contained almost none of what he knew.

It described the dancing sickness as a fever of the blood, origin uncertain, likely exacerbated by the heat and the prevailing conditions of want and anxiety that had burdened Strasbourg’s poor for three consecutive years of failed harvest. It recommended isolation of the afflicted, cessation of the musical accompaniment that had demonstrably worsened the contagion, and a ban on public dancing. It said nothing about Conrad Murner. It said nothing about apothecary preparations distributed through the Rhine valley twenty years ago. It said nothing about a manuscript written in no hand he could identify, in a script that belonged to no language he had ever encountered, with marginal notes spanning three centuries of failed attempts to save human lives.

He was not a coward. He had thought carefully about this.

A physician in Strasbourg in 1518 who presented the city council with evidence of a non-human intelligence attempting to inoculate the population against plague across multiple centuries would not be heard. He would be burned, or he would be committed, or — most likely — he would simply be ignored, which was in some ways worse. The manuscript would be destroyed. The letters would be destroyed. The error that had now been noted three times in those cramped precise margins would remain uncorrected for another generation, or another century, and whatever was making these attempts would make them again into a world that still lacked the framework to receive them.

He had one advantage that the author of those marginal notes apparently did not. He was here. He was inside the time in question. He could read the manuscript and he could read Murner’s letters and he could hold both against each other and see, with the clarity of a man who had spent twenty years looking for patterns in suffering, exactly where the calculation had gone wrong.

The interaction with prior resistance. Those who had survived previous exposure. The preparation did not teach them. It conflicted.

It was, in the end, a problem of dosage and sequencing. Murner had understood the principle and misread the instruction. The manuscript’s Latin was flat and precise and translated imperfectly into the assumptions of a fifteenth-century physician. Murner had done what any man of his training would do — he had interpreted the text through what he already knew, and what he already knew was not enough, and people had died for the gap between the two.

Sattler had spent three nights at Anna Schreiber’s table, with the manuscript open beside Murner’s letters, working through the preparation step by step. He had Heinrich Schreiber’s stock still in the back room — old, some of it degraded, but enough to work with. He had his own training. He had, more importantly, the error itself, noted in the margin in that cramped second hand, which told him not just that the mistake had been made but approximately where to look for it.

He thought he could correct it.

He was not certain. He was a physician in 1518 with no understanding of the mechanisms the manuscript described, working from a text he could only partially interpret, attempting to repair the work of a dead genius who had himself only partially interpreted it. The probability of success was not something he could calculate. But the probability of anyone else attempting it, in this century or the next, seemed to him considerably lower.

He had made Anna Schreiber a promise. He had told her what he intended and she had looked at him for a long moment with those steady unsentimental eyes and then she had said: Heinrich would have wanted this. Which was not quite the same as saying she wanted it, but was enough.

Art by CoPilot AI

The dancers were gone from the Pfennigturm square by the time he walked back through it on the evening of the tenth. Some had collapsed and been carried home. Some had been transported, per Brant’s eventual decree, to the shrine of Saint Vitus on the hilltop, where the priests had given them red shoes sprinkled with holy water and crosses drawn in consecrated oil, and had prayed over them in Latin, and where — whether through divine intervention or simple exhaustion or the mercy of cooler air at altitude — some of them had stopped. Old Georg Kessler had died four days ago. The girl with the formidable eyes had survived. He did not know yet what that meant, medically speaking. He intended to find out.

He stood in the empty square for a while. The cobblestones were worn smooth where the feet had been. Someone had removed the stage the musicians had played on. There was no sign remaining of what had happened here except the worn stones and a single shoe, small, a child’s, abandoned at the edge of the square near the fountain.

He thought about 1212. He thought about 1284. He thought about whoever had written those dates in the margin and what it meant to attempt something across such an expanse of time — to fail, and note the failure, and wait, and try again. He did not know what that entity was. He did not think he had the vocabulary to know, or that the vocabulary existed yet in any human language. He knew only that it was trying to do what he was trying to do, which was to keep people alive in the face of a disease that did not care about them at all.

He found, to his surprise, that he felt something close to kinship with it.

Art by CoPilot AI

He picked up the child’s shoe and set it on the edge of the fountain so that whoever had lost it might find it again. He stood there for a moment. It was a small thing. It was not nothing. He did it carefully, the way you do something when it is the only thing left to do for a person, and you know it, and you do it anyway. Then he walked back through the Kronenburg Gate toward the Gerbergasse, with the manuscript under his arm and Murner’s letters in his bag and a head full of calculations he would not share with anyone alive.

Behind him the square was silent. The stones remembered the rhythm for a while longer — or perhaps he only imagined that — and then the city settled back into its ordinary noises, the river and the tanneries and the distant sound of the cathedral bell counting out the hours, and Strasbourg went on the way cities do, carrying its dead and its living together in the same narrow streets, not knowing the difference.

He had work to do.


©2026 Geoff Allshorn. I acknowledge the Wurundjeri-Willam people, the Traditional Custodians of the land on which this blog was prepared, and show my respect for Elders past and present. Editorial and historical research assistance: Claude AI; Artist: CoPilot AI.

Dangerous Visions, Safe Stories

Star Trek, Harlan Ellison, and the Politics of Progress

~ ~ Published on 27th May, the birthday of Harlan Ellison ~ ~
If you’ve ever wondered why Star Trek feels bold in theory but cautious in practice — especially this year — the answer begins with Harlan Ellison, a writer who never let the future off the hook.
Editor’s Additional Note: This was reprinted in Bruce Gillespie (ed.), SF Commentary #125, August 2026, pp. 24-30.
Art by Deep AI

“Before Dangerous Visions, American science fiction largely policed itself: no sex, no politics, no race, nothing that might unsettle the comfortable status quo. Writers conformed to conservative norms, producing safe, bland, predictable stories in which Campbell’s straight, white American heroes inevitably saved the day. It was this status quo that Dangerous Visions put on the endangered list…”

— Paul Kincaid, 2026, p. 21

Young Ellison fanzine art style by CoPilot AI
Harlan Ellison’s 1967 anthology Dangerous Visions was a direct challenge to science fictional conservatism, inviting writers to confront the very subjects that US science fiction had spent decades avoiding (for example, see Weil & Wolfe 2002; Wolfe 1979; James & Mendlesohn 2003).

Kincaid’s exploration of Ellison as the enfant terrible of conservative US science fiction (and Ellison’s efforts to push the genre’s boundaries) resonates beyond the literary realm. Ellison came out of the literary side of the field, the part that treated science fiction as an exploration of the world, not an escape from it. Ellison earned that reputation by dragging sex, politics, race, and taboo subjects into a genre that had spent decades pretending they didn’t exist. Sixty years ago, Ellison penned a script for Star Trek, which he fought to keep intact against rewrites he considered inferior. That struggle between literary and media science fiction endures today, shaped by Western culture wars and the ongoing saga of the Star Trek franchise.

Ellison’s push for honest and provocative storytelling extended beyond the pages of his books. He was outspoken about the limitations and failures of television as a medium. He once explained:

“I used to think that television could be potentially the most powerful medium for the dissemination of knowledge that the world has ever known. It could be a very rich and rewarding thing if handled properly and that the problem was in the execution. I’ve now come, after ten years in the business, five of which was as a television critic, to taking the very extreme viewpoint. I think television itself is bad.”

— Harlan Ellison (quoted in Bly, 2002)

For Ellison, this wasn’t just a complaint about television; it was a statement about the limitations of network‑era media science fiction: a form constrained by advertisers, censors, and studio caution, and therefore often resistant to the moral exploration and imaginative freedom that literature allowed. Later productions, including Babylon 5 (where Ellison served as creative consultant), would demonstrate that filmed science fiction could carry that weight once it was freed from those constraints.

Ellison’s clashes with the industry were not simply the product of a difficult personality; they were structural and publicly documented. His concept for The Starlost was rewritten and budget‑cut until he sued the producers and won, later having his Writers Guild Award withdrawn when he disowned the aired version (Weil & Wolfe 2002; WGA Award Records). His pseudonym “Cordwainer Bird” became a recurring protest against network censorship and producer interference across multiple series (Ellison 1985; The Comics Journal #53). His newspaper column The Glass Teat was cancelled after political pressure over his criticism of police brutality and the Nixon administration (Ellison 1970; Bly 2002). Even his dispute over The Terminator resulted in a settlement and a retroactive screen credit (Los Angeles Times, 1985). These were not personality clashes but evidence of an industry that feared controversy more than imagination, the very dynamic Ellison spent his career exposing.

Literary science fiction has always had the advantage of range: the room to explore ambiguity, the inner life of its characters, and the political complexity that television often smooths away. It has also been the space where the genre tests its limits first, the place where writers try out ideas, politics, and forms before they reach a wider audience. Media science fiction, for its part, has strengths literature cannot match: visual immediacy, emotional accessibility, and the ability to reach audiences far beyond the readership of even the most influential novels. Literary science fiction has always pushed the genre forward; media franchises matter because they show what happens when those ideas reach the wider culture. Good media SF doesn’t replace the literary tradition; it carries the same arguments into a different form.

While Star Trek is marketed as being utopian, progressive or “woke,” its history often mirrors Kincaid’s description: a safe, bland, predictable product geared towards straight, white middle-America. Ellison inferred that US media gave a “white bread, homogenised view of the world,” and it’s hard not to see how Star Trek was shaped by similar cultural forces.

This year marks the franchise’s sixtieth anniversary, but instead of celebration, Paramount cancelled its most controversial new Star Trek production. Starfleet Academy faced criticism for weak scripting, but the most vitriolic responses came from fans who despised its racially and sexually diverse characters. This show aimed to present a 2026 version of what Ellison might call forward-looking, if not exactly “dangerous,” visions of the future. Yet it was shut down amid the outrage of some vociferous fans, who accused it of being “too woke.”

This reflects broader trends in current US culture: a society that promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion as being social evils, and increasingly views the “other” with hostility, hatred, exclusion, deportation or even concentration camps.

Star Trek’s Struggle for Progress

Despite its reputation as a family-friendly adventure, early Star Trek was shaped by some of the most interesting science fiction writers of the mid-20th century.

Frederic Brown provided the moral core for “Arena,” based on his own short story; John D. F. Black infused scripts with social consciousness; Robert Bloch brought horror into the utopian vision; and Theodore Sturgeon, arguably the most quietly radical of them all, wrote the first episode to touch upon alien sexuality. Even “Charlie X,” credited to Gene Roddenberry but heavily rewritten by Dorothy Fontana, resembles Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land in characterisation of its central figure, and in plot elements of the story.

Sturgeon’s humanism culminated in “Amok Time,” featuring an exploration of Vulcan sexuality but concluding with a moment that, whether intentionally or not, launched decades of slash fiction: Kirk and Spock sharing a moment of affectionate joy that fans immediately recognised as something more than friendship. Isaac Asimov’s insistence that Kirk and Spock be fiercely loyal further helped create a space where viewers could imagine a relationship the series itself dared not name. The franchise’s mythmaking about progress often ignores this lineage, but its earliest boundary-pushing came from writers already testing limits elsewhere.

These individual acts of courage occasionally extended beyond the writers’ room. Chekov’s presence (a Russian hero on American television at the height of the Cold War) was a quietly political gesture that the network seemed almost not to notice. Nichelle Nichols as Uhura inspired a generation of people of colour, including astronaut Mae Jemison, who cited her directly as the reason she could imagine herself in space. Decades later, DS9’s Far Beyond the Stars placed Sisko inside a 1950s America that brutalised Black writers, making racism not an alien metaphor but a direct confrontation. Each of these moments genuinely mattered. But significantly, they succeeded through individual nerve rather than institutional courage, happening almost despite the franchise’s instincts rather than because of them.

“Science Fiction is the very literature of change.”

— Frederik Pohl

Artwork by Deep AI

Fandom as a Catalyst for Change

What the series hesitated to explore, fandom embraced wholeheartedly. Long before queer people could be visible on TV, Star Trek clubs and conventions became safe spaces for outsiders; spaces where difference was celebrated, not condemned. Australian fan Diane Marchant, a friend and mentor to me and many Australian Star Trek fans, wrote the first ever published Kirk/Spock slash story in 1974, transforming same-sex relationships from whispered, underground subversion into a fanzine culture that was available to anyone with an open mind.

But fandom has not always lived up to its own ideals. It is worth being clear: most Star Trek fans have been broadly progressive, drawn to the franchise precisely because of its inclusive vision. The toxic voices that helped sink Starfleet Academy do not represent fandom’s mainstream, but they have grown louder and more organised in the MAGA era, weaponising the language of fan entitlement to target diverse creators and diverse characters. Harassment campaigns, coordinated review-bombing, and the gleeful celebration of cancellation — these are not traditional fandom activities. They are culture war tactics wearing fan clothing. Ellison would have recognised them immediately: the same instinct that wanted Campbell’s safe, bland, predictable heroes is still with us, now armed with social media. The whole point of Dangerous Visions was to publish stories that broke the taboos that Campbell-era science fiction refused to touch. In this sense, fandom was Ellison’s Dangerous Visions in action: refusing to wait for permission, refusing to dilute the future to make it more palatable. Women, queer, trans, and non-binary fans created a fandom that was diverse, emotionally literate, and politically alive. The franchise only caught up when it could no longer ignore these visions.

Fandom’s international and inclusive nature also revealed how slowly the franchise evolved. It took nearly thirty years — until The Next Generation — for Star Trek to progress from Brown’s “Arena” to the more sophisticated “Darmok.” Both stories deal with communication with the “other,” but where “Arena” offers a moral duel, “Darmok” seeks to understand a culture on its own terms.

That gap mirrors the franchise’s uneasy relationship with its writers. When Roddenberry returned to launch The Next Generation, he resisted working with established science fiction authors, partly to maintain control, and possibly because he worried that they’d push the show into unfamiliar territory. That tension was exemplified by Ellison’s earlier, infamous feud over “The City on the Edge of Forever,” which became a decades-long debate about compromise and network courage.

His original script made the point sharply: a crippled, shell‑shocked war veteran dies stepping between Kirk and danger, a small act of human decency and sacrifice the aired episode reduced to a meaningless accident involving a nameless drifter. Even in 1967, the studio avoided the moral ambiguity Ellison insisted on.

This was not simply a creative dispute. It revealed something structural: literary science fiction can sustain moral ambiguity across a short story or novel, while television (dependent on audiences, advertisers, and weekly scheduling) tends to resolve rather than disturb. Ellison understood both forms well enough to know exactly what was being lost.

Ellison’s experience wasn’t unique; his later work on The Starlost TV series collapsed under studio interference, and he disowned that series before it aired. The pattern was clear: ambitious ideas were watered down, and stranger visions were diluted into formula. By 1991, Star Trek had started to live up to its ideals: empathy, patience, and an openness to change. “Darmok” marked a turning point from superficial moral tales to genuine understanding. Likewise, the Babylon 5 TV series brought Ellison in as a ‘creative consultant,’ a role that let him push the series toward sharper, more confrontational storytelling.

Art by Deep AI

The Ongoing Battle for Representation

By the 1990s, fandom had grown large, global, and confident, sometimes out‑thinking the franchise itself. Like earlier science‑fiction fandoms, fans blurred the line between response and cultural appropriation, feeling a sense of custodianship over the universe. That energy lived in fanzines, fan‑run conventions, and the wider creative culture that surrounded the show. One obvious example is Spock being brought back from fictional death — like his literary predecessor, Sherlock Holmes — due to fan demand. But corporations weren’t comfortable with this.

Viacom’s 1990s crackdown on fan activities was a warning sign: stewardship isn’t ownership. The result wasn’t a blanket shutdown, but it created a chilling effect across the franchise: movies flopped, one TV series ended prematurely, and Star Trek withered for nearly twenty years. Paramount paid the price for alienating the very people who kept the universe alive.

What changed next was less about corporate hostility and more about the world shifting under fandom’s feet. As the internet replaced print, and as social habits changed — later accelerated by social media and the long tail of COVID — the old hubs of fan creativity thinned out across every corner of science‑fiction fandom. The impulse didn’t disappear; it simply moved online. Fan fiction migrated to digital platforms, podcasts replaced newsletters, and community energy dispersed into new forms. It was still the pattern Ellison warned about: institutions encouraging passive consumption while discouraging the unruly, imaginative participation that makes a culture worth having.

Two decades later, Paramount repeated the pattern more directly by imposing strict limits on fan films, shutting down some of the most ambitious grassroots visual storytelling fandom had ever created. Different decade, different medium, same anxiety: whenever fans pushed the universe forward in ways the studio couldn’t control, the corporate instinct was to pull back.

Ellison spent his career arguing that institutions fear imagination because they can’t control where it leads. Star Trek’s history proves him right.

The irony is hard to miss as Paramount responds to public outrage about so‑called “wokeism” by cancelling Starfleet Academy and announcing the end of more Trekkie TV for the foreseeable future: the same franchise that once feared fans for loving too expansively now fears those who hate too loudly. The dynamic has flipped, but the pattern is the same: a studio retreating from the very community that keeps its universe alive, and in its sixtieth anniversary year.

What makes this latest retreat even more bitter is that it may have come under political pressure rather than creative judgment, the very dynamic Ellison spent decades dissecting.

The Future of Imagination

“At its best, science fiction stimulates imagination and creativity. It gets reader and writer off the beaten track, off the narrow, narrow footpath of what “everyone” is saying, doing, thinking
whoever “everyone” happens to be this year.
And what good is all this to Black people?”

— Octavia E. Butler

Butler’s challenge frames the problem sharply: a future that claims to be universal must be judged by who it includes, and who it excludes.

Art by Copilot AI
Star Trek’s reputation for progressivism often rests on the famous 1968 Kirk–Uhura kiss. However, this was not the first interracial kiss on television. Earlier examples existed in British, Dutch, and US TV programs, and even within Star Trek itself. The myth that it was groundbreaking persists because it flatters the franchise’s self-image as a trailblazer. In reality, the scene was heavily constrained by network anxiety; it was filmed in multiple versions to minimize the visibility of the kiss, and its framing contained layers of rape culture and racial stereotyping. Rather than a bold step forward, it was a carefully managed moment that reflected the limitations and anxieties of its time.

The real significance lies in how the show reinforced boundaries of acceptability, then later claimed to have shattered them.

And this is the real frustration: for all its rhetoric about boldly going, and for all its aspirations that gained legions of fans attracted by its potential rather than by its reality, Star Trek actually spent decades retreating from the very dangers Ellison embraced. Instead of looking ahead to the kind of boundary‑shattering work collected in Dangerous Visions, the franchise often chose the safest possible path. Janeway was written as blandly authoritative rather than genuinely transgressive; Deep Space Nine tiptoed around trans narratives that it was perfectly positioned to explore; and The Next Generation, for all its polish, carried the quiet prejudices of its era: racist caricatures, sexist framing, and a pointed refusal to acknowledge queer lives. Even Trek’s Asian characters: Sulu, and Harry Kim, were left without meaningful character development, romance, or timely promotion; while Chakotay became a token Indigenous figure encumbered with nonsensical, mystical clichés and a Māori tattoo that had nothing to do with his culture.

The franchise consistently avoided confronting cultural and racial complexities head-on. It still does today.

And the absences ran deeper still. For all its talk of universalism, Star Trek almost never engaged with the rising currents of AfricanFuturism, AsianFuturism, or Indigenous futurisms, traditions that were already reshaping the genre with visions far bolder than anything the franchise attempted. Even its rare brushes with AfroFuturism were bowdlerised into something palatable for white audiences, stripped of the political bite that defined the movement elsewhere. Trek kept promising a galaxy of cultures while constraining those cultures within their white understandings and refusing to let those cultures speak in their own voices.

In all these cases, Star Trek wasn’t attempting to portray genuine diversity so much as reproducing the straight, white, male gaze and its familiar Orientalist assumptions. The franchise kept promising a future that challenged the present, yet too often delivered stories designed not to disturb anyone’s sleep. Ellison’s anthology showed what the genre could be when it stopped flinching. Star Trek spent far too much time flinching.

Beyond the Final Frontier

While Star Trek broke some ground, many other science fiction creators have pushed progress much further. Theodore Sturgeon’s stories beyond “Amok Time” (such as More Than Human and Venus Plus X) explored complex themes of sexuality, identity, and human connection with nuance and depth. Beyond “The Trouble with Tribbles”, David Gerrold’s Blood and Fire and The Martian Child introduced diverse characters and challenged conventional narratives. Female authors like Octavia Butler, Ursula K. Le Guin, and Nnedi Okorafor have crafted stories centered on intersectional identities and cultures that are otherwise often marginalized in mainstream media.

Additionally, TV series like The Prisoner, Doctor Who, Lexx, Sense8, The Expanse, Black Mirror, and even The Simpsons have pushed social and technological storytelling into far bolder territory, treating marginalised people as full participants in the future and refusing to look away from uncomfortable realities. These shows carry the spirit of Ellison’s Dangerous Visions more faithfully than Star Trek, by expanding representation and challenging the norms that mainstream science fiction still hesitates to confront. Their futures leave Star Trek looking reactionary by comparison.

This is already changing. As US cultural dominance wanes, the centre of gravity in science fiction is already shifting: AfricanFuturism, AsianFuturism, and Indigenous futurisms are not waiting for mainstream validation. They are building their own futures, on their own terms, with or without a starship. Dangerous Visions may become wondrous visions. If the future belongs to those who imagine it, then the next century of science fiction will not be written from Los Angeles. It will come from Lagos, Nairobi, Mumbai, Seoul, and the communities Western SF spent decades ignoring.

Nowhere was this cultural shift more visible than in the collapse of the 2026 Starfleet Academy TV series, a moment that exposed just how fragile the old US-focussed future had become. In that sense, its collapse felt less like a production failure and more like a metaphor: a Federation falling at the same moment its cultural centre of gravity was shifting elsewhere.

That global shift makes Ellison’s warning feel even more urgent. His challenge to the genre didn’t disappear; it just found better homes. Meanwhile, Star Trek was about to prove once again exactly why that challenge still mattered.

Artwork by Deep AI

The Failure of Imagination

The Starfleet Academy debacle makes the pattern impossible to ignore. A show that finally gave queer, Black, brown, and neurodivergent youth a fair go was met with a wave of hostility so familiar it could have been lifted from the letters pages of 1967. The franchise once again flinched, choosing to appease the loudest reactionaries rather than stand by the very future it claimed to champion. In that sense, the cancellation is not an aberration but a reminder: the culture Ellison challenged is still with us, still frightened of the wrong people inheriting the future, still willing to burn down a story rather than broaden its imagination. The downfall of this culture is happening in real time as we watch.

“One of the biggest roles of science fiction is to prepare people to accept the future without pain and to encourage a flexibility of the mind.”

— Arthur C. Clarke

Clarke’s line is a reminder of what the genre is for, and of how often Star Trek has forgotten it. Ellison never did. The future has always belonged to those willing to imagine it without flinching, and to those who refuse to apologise for who gets to stand inside it. I have been a Star Trek fan for most of my life, so I understand precisely why its failures matter. If Star Trek wants to remain culturally relevant, it will need to avoid the fate of Edward Bellamy’s utopian future and rediscover the courage it takes to adapt to the future.

Ellison was born on 27 May 1934. He spent his life insisting that the future was not a destination but a discussion; one that required courage, honesty, and a willingness to disturb comfortable assumptions wherever they were found. Star Trek promised that discussion and too often retreated from it. Fandom carried it forward, imperfectly but persistently. The argument continues. It always will.


Bibliography

  • Geoff Allshorn, 2021. A Kiss is (Not) Just A Kiss, Humanist World blog, 1 August.
  • = = = = = = = = =, 2025. Forgotten Futures, Humanist World blog, 8 September.
  • Robert W. Bly, 2002. The Online Copywriter’s Handbook (features an interview with Harlan Ellison in 1979), p. 19.
  • The Comics Journal, 1980. Harlan Ellison Interview, Issue #53.
  • Harlan Ellison, 1967. “I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream,” in If: Worlds of Science Fiction, March 1967.
  • = = = = = = = = =, 1970. The Glass Teat, New York: Pyramid Books.
  • = = = = = = = = =, 1975. The Other Glass Teat, New York: Pyramid Books.
  • = = = = = = = = =, 1985. An Edge in My Voice, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  • Los Angeles Times, 1985. “Terminator Suit Settled”, March 1985.
  • Edward James & Farah Mendlesohn (eds.), 2003. The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction, Cambridge University Press.
  • Paul Kincaid, 2026. “Who is in danger?”, in Bruce Gillespie (ed.), SF Commentary, #126, April 2026, pp. 20–32. [First published, Strange Horizons, 27 January 2025.]
  • Marc Scott Zicree, 1982. The Twilight Zone Companion, New York: Bantam Books.
  • Ellen Weil & Gary K. Wolfe, 2002. Harlan Ellison: The Edge of Forever, Ohio State University Press.
  • Gary K. Wolfe, 1979. The Known and the Unknown: The Iconography of Science Fiction, Kent State University Press.
  • Writers Guild of America West, n.d. Award and Arbitration Records. (Documentation of Ellison’s WGA Award withdrawal and arbitration decisions.)
  • Zicree, Marc Scott, 1982. The Twilight Zone Companion, New York: Bantam Books.

If this essay speaks to you, you may find these related pieces useful:

A Kiss Is (Not) Just a Kiss
The Kirk–Uhura Kiss: Myth and The Real Story.

The Prime Defective
The Prime Directive: Another problem within the Star Trek franchise.

From Fic to Future
A short biography of Diane Marchant, the Australian fan who helped reshape the future of fandom.

Forgotten Futures
An examination of how utopian imagination shifted from 1888 to 1966, and why Edward Bellamy’s future vision died but Gene Roddenberry’s endured, including how women contributed to fandom.

Time, Youth, and the Call of the Future
I Have Seen the Future
Two explorations about why “Starfleet Academy” mattered.

From Queer to Eternity
How queer issues intersect with science fiction.

Race and the Colonial Imagination
An essay tracing the threads of colonial imagination in science fiction, and emerging AfroFuturism, AfricanFuturism, and other movements that explore beyond the white gaze.

From Trek to Trump
A look at sample homophobic, transphobic, misogynist, and racist objections to the “Starfleet Academy” TV series.

©2026 Geoff Allshorn. I show my respect for Elders past and present and acknowledge the Wurundjeri-Willam people, the Traditional Custodians of the Land on which this blog was prepared. Editorial/artistic/research assistance from Anthropic Claude AI, Copilot AI, and Deep AI.