Fact-Checking Inside Star Trek: The Real Story

The only place I know where "The Women" appears as a title is in the original pitch, as in...

 

Yep. Cushman and Osborn correctly identify that, but then assume that the title didn't change until Stephen Kandel's teleplay (possibly because it would immediately rule out their claim that Mudd wasn't a character in the story until Kandel wrote the script?).

 

If he used that document as a source, he would have called the other pilot "The Next Cage".

Neil

 

This type of VAM work is typically unpaid though (save for possibly expenses), right? Maybe I'm just being too short-sighted in looking for a profit motive.

Perhaps here the simplest explanation is the correct one; my personal theory is he didn't do the research at all (or it was very cursory). We already know Cushman claimed to have been given exclusive access by GR to publicly-available documents and then later backtracked. His conclusions seem for all the world like fan speculation; the only difference is he's presenting it as thoroughly-researched and authoritative. Not to give credit where it's not due, but some of the speculation is intriguing and if it was presented as such could be quite entertaining -- sparking discussion, debate, etc. Of course the danger (if Trek fandom can be considered dangerous) here is that Cushman's speculation begins to become accepted fact.

This is what I've always found so perplexing about this entire project. As a self-published, casual read for fans by a fan (and I do believe Cushman is a Trek fan, however untalented) its audience would have been the same without all of the truly bizarre obfuscation -- posthumous testimonials, shell companies, pseudonyms, obvious endorsements and overly-defensive social media posts by unacknowledged paid contributors, use of images that arguably added nothing to the presentation without attribution (which would have gained a ton of goodwill and probably cost Cushman nothing) -- to say nothing of the amateurish writing, editing, and proofreading (such as it was). I used to devour the "Best of Trek" compilation volumes which were full of this stuff back in the day. I just don't get it.

Color me naive on this; I'm familiar with paid endorsements (official and otherwise), but particularly in Trek circles is it really that easy? I'm no fan of Gerrold, but could I really walk up to Drexler or Koenig with a (let's say) $500 check and say "I was friends with Gene 30 years ago, will you put my new book on your Facebook page?"

BTW, I don't want to make this thread a referendum on TATV and divert attention away from Harvey's positive contributions in this area. Just so many unanswered questions here that I can't help but ask...

 

It gets you legitimacy. Remember, this is a guy who worked for over 25 years in the porn industry and can't talk about it.

Using the Wayback Machine Internet Archive, you can go back to the Jacobs/Brown page from October 2013. This is back when they had bios of the staff. Another one of Cushman's pseudonyms was "Matthew Williams Brown II" and his bio states, "It is not our attention [sic] at J/B to crank out a great deal of product. I’ve done that under various pseudonyms and now look forward to putting my stamp, and my name, on product I can be proud of."

Neil

 

That's the one I remember, with the photo of "Matthew Williams Brown II" (aka Cushman) with his back turned. When I saw that with the cat photos I was like, "What kind of operation is this?"

The "Legal Council" thing was also priceless, but the absolute best is the Arena novelization fan art thing. I don't want to link to your album documenting this, but please feel free if you like. IMO it never gets old.

 

Did someone say "Arena" and "fan art"?

https://goo.gl/photos/NvsL5H2WDJAKVXiy6

Neil

 

[Double Post]

 

Forgot another one:

http://www.jacobsbrownmediagroup.com/the-trek-begins-here.html

"The level of research is astounding ...
an incredible job; a tremendous amount of good information....
The reviews are wonderful and well deserved."

LEONARD NIMOY

Sigh...

 

Augh, embedded autoplaying music! That's the real crime here.

 

I would not hold it against people like Nimoy, Koenig and Senensky for endorsing the book. Honestly, here is how I see it. Nimoy gets an advanced copy of the galley proofs, or something of that nature, and is asked for a quote. He is told that the author spent years researching it. He glances through it, sees some of the material -- call sheets, cast sheets, whatever, and says to himself "Wow, this guy dug up some seriously detailed stuff, he must be legit." Of course Nimoy doesn't remember the details of the transition from Coon to Lucas. He may barely remember hearing Coon was leaving, and stopped by and wished him good luck. A couple weeks later, he remembers to stop in and congratulate Lucas. He doesn't remember (if he ever knew, exactly) which episode was Coon's last, which was Lucas' first.

This in no way excuses Cushman's sloppy "journalism," though. We're talking about three elderly men (and in Nimoy's case, a deathly ill man) who glanced at pages, sent out a quote, and put the book on a shelf and never touch(ed) it again.

Sir Rhosis

 

Here's a question -- the current website for these books claims they contain "A first-ever interview with Gene Coon, Star Trek producer and writer whose extraordinary contributions helped to define the series."

I haven't finished drudging through book three yet, but I've read enough at this point that I have to ask -- what interview?

 

First ever. He didn't give interviews back then? Then one can only assume Cushman, via a medium, interviewed Coon from the great beyond.

 

^Does Parker Brothers still sell Ouija boards?

 

That's contradicted by this page.

Neil

 

There's no doubt that these books will be considered authoritative for years to come.

 

That's why I hope that Harvey will publish a book of his own someday to provide an alternative to them.

 

Or three, if that's what it takes...

 

SEVENTY NINE BOOKS! One per episode!