“How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is to have a thankless child!”

I remember reading an article in the old Trek fanzine published and then re-printed for a paperback compilation in which writer Russell Bates was required to defend himself on charges of stealing the central idea of the second season episode, “Who Mourns for Adonais?” Unknown to most fans, Bates was a longtime friend of producer Gene L. Coon, and wrote “How Sharper Than a Serpent’s Tooth” as homage to Coon, who had died the previous year. If there are variations on themes present throughout the Star Trek lore, “How Sharper Than a Serpent’s Tooth” hardly qualifies.

One of the more consistent of those themes is the idea of a super-intelligence roaming the cosmos either searching for God, or claiming to be God, and Kukalkan is that creature. The embodiment of Kukalkan appears as a winged serpent with multi-colored feathers. It reminds me of one of the many strange characters that would pop up on The Venture Brothers, a show that spoofed cartoons like these in every episode. I kept thinking the second Kukalkan popped up, Brock Samson would simply jump on it and crush its neck before it had a chance to spout off its platitudes about helping mankind.

Kukalkan (frustratingly mispronounced as “Koo-kla-Kan” by Shatner all through the episode, and which reminds me of Kukla, Fran and Ollie)) basically captures the Enterprise and puts the ship in a bubble before transporting Kirk, McCoy, Scotty, and Ensign Walking Bear to its ship. That’s right. There is an Ensign Walking Bear who fills the landing party in on the legend of Kukalkan because he’s part Comanche. I got into some heat with a bunch of apologists for calling out Roddenberry’s obvious P.C. pandering to Dakota stereotypes in Star Trek: The Motion Picture, but you’ll note in this episode, Walking Bear is not wearing those ridiculous feathers and headbands.

Kukalkan has a menagerie of dangerous animals in cages (more variations on themes) that have been collected over millenia. Kukalkan tells Kirk about a visit to Earth a long time ago. Kukalkan observed that humans were savages and that nothing has changed, and that they are still considered to be children. We’ve been around this “Prickly Pear” more than a few times in the Animated Series alone, and yes Kirk has to, once again, explain that man is no longer savage and that we have no need for gods, or superior beings. Couldn’t he just draft a memo and “forward to all?” Thankless children, indeed.

2 responses to “STAR TREK REWIND: “How Sharper Than a Serpent’s Tooth””

  1. Reading this article was less an exploration of Star Trek: The Animated Series and more an exercise in enduring condescension, nostalgia bait, and lazy analysis. Supposedly focused on the episode “How Sharper Than a Serpent’s Tooth,” the piece meanders through half-baked recollections, name-drops, and personal grudges with the subtlety of a sledgehammer.

    The article starts with an anecdote about Russell Bates defending his originality, but instead of offering meaningful insight into the episode’s thematic or narrative structure, the author veers into irrelevant asides and tired fan gatekeeping. There’s more energy spent comparing Kukalkan to The Venture Brothers and ranting about William Shatner’s pronunciation than actually engaging with the story or its cultural context.

    What could have been a thoughtful discussion of Native representation or mythological themes in Star Trek instead turns into a dismissive, borderline smug sneer. The treatment of Ensign Walking Bear in particular reeks of the same flippant stereotyping the author accuses the show of perpetuating. Mocking his inclusion without offering any meaningful critique—just accusations of “P.C. pandering”—feels more like grievance-mongering than reasoned analysis.

    Worse still, the article leans heavily on cynical sarcasm in place of actual argument. Phrases like “couldn’t he just draft a memo and ‘forward to all?’” might get a chuckle in a Reddit comment thread, but they don’t belong in a piece that aspires to serious criticism. The author clearly wants to sound like a genre-savvy insider, but instead comes off as someone more interested in airing personal gripes than enlightening or entertaining the reader.

    In the end, the article offers little more than tired takes on Star Trek tropes and a string of pop culture references to distract from the lack of substance. If you’re looking for insight into the episode or its place in the broader Star Trek canon, you won’t find it here—just another example of how not to write a meaningful critique.

    Like

    1. You still wear a mask and get your bi-monthly booster, don’t you? Admit it.

      Like

Leave a comment

Trending