Discussion in 'Star Trek - Original Series' started by neoworx, Jul 13, 2013.
Yes, I also think it's a fair review although I, too, think there's more good than bad in the book.
I don't know that I agree. The same critiques are applicable to a lot of self-published books. I recently purchased an 800 page book about the history of Atari and you could copy and paste just about every criticism Harvey raised for TATV to that book as well: too long, spread out needlessly across three big volumes, no index, poorly written, poorly edited, nominally proofread, and, worst of all, rumor and supposition passed off as fact.
That's what's so disappointing about books that purport to be THE history yet wherein the authors can't be bothered to apply critical thinking to the work. If I need to fact check the book that is supposedly the facts, there's a problem.
I agree as well... while it doesn't make me happy that the book is not as well proofread as it could have been, the behind the scenes pre/during/post production information--much of which fans have never seen before--justifies the purchase.
This pretty much sums it up for me, too. It could have been better inspected prior to printing, but on the whole, I am quite happy with the new info that it provided to me. I can't wait for seasons 2 and 3.
Here is the pro/con about the traditional Gatekeepers. True in music also. The publishers needed to make dough on a big investment of paper and ink and warehousing, etc. So they apply quality control at the outset and the vast numbers of creators were filtered through a few gatekeepers. Who then employed editors and proofreaders and publicists. But we were limited to the choices the gatekeepers deign to give us.
Now with web 3.0 (or 2.0?) the everyone-is-a-publisher model, quality creators such as myself who just didn't tickle the fancy of a Gatekeeper can still publish and find an audience maybe. The audience has a quantum leap greater amount to choose from. (Though we then run into the paradox of choice when we have too many choices.) But a ton of it is crap. Or possibly good at heart, but needing of a Gatekeeper's care, as it sounds TATV did.
So which is "better," the fewer but relatively better creations (percentage-wise)? Or the vastly greater number available, but proportionately more crap? (Sturgeon, where are you?) I don't know, but I'm grateful for the self-publishing route myself. I tried really hard to avoid the steretypical pitfalls (hired an editor, had several qualified proofreaders, and taught myself some cover design basics).
Now I think about it, it's funny this couldn't find a real publisher. The #1 thing they look for is a built-in audience, and if anything has one, TATV does. Maybe author wanted the much bigger cut you get going the self-route.
Yeah, but the fact it's self-published is why I kinda do give it a bit more leeway. He obviously didn't have the time, money, or resources to make this as perfect and flawless a work as something you'd see from a big publisher.
Frankly given the mountain of data and material he had to organize and make sense of, I'm amazed he was able to make the book as interesting and readable as he was.
I'm not exactly planning to write a Trek history book of my own, so if it's not 100% accurate, so be it. It's still an incredibly interesting insight into the making of a TV show, and the process of shaping a script into the episode we see on screen.
That's forgiving too many sins just because they're not going "pro". The vast number of typos is inexcusable. All you need to do is give copies to a few people and have them mark it up. Hell, I make my computer read my scripts back to me and I can HEAR the typos. I think we're all for small-press and DIY, but there's a basic level of competency that we expect from printed works, and an author/publisher who can't be bothered with the most basic cleanup doesn't strike me as serious about their work.
Sorry, just ribbing you. No offense intended, and yes, I do understand the difference between a published reference book and a posting on an internet message board.
Oh, that was virtually guaranteed to happen. I fixed it when I looked at it again.
I will simply say this: If I had it to do all over again, knowing all that I know now, I would still buy this book and still recommend it to other Trek fans (maybe I'd recommend they wait for the second edition, however).
And I'm still stoked to buy the Season 2 edition...
How could you spend the years on this the author is supposed to have, and NOT get the English mechanics looked at and fixed? It does speak about the author, like a restaurant with a dirty bathroom.
Exactly. I went to a really nice restaurant the other day. The food and service were great. Then I went to the men's room and my shoes were sticking to the floor. Ugh.
The typos I agree with. They're not as constant and continual as some make them out to be, but they're still pretty distracting when they do show up.
Ultimately, I can't help but think this thing got rushed out a lot sooner than Cushman planned. Especially when you see how many interviews from 2013 are referenced in the back. You get the impression the book got printed directly off a first draft on his computer.
I must say, it's a little odd being called out on a typo ("The Alternative Factory") that isn't even there. Needless to say, I don't agree with Byrne, but he certainly offers another perspective.
The Alternative Factory is, of course, the sequel to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
And it's quite likely more entertaining than "The Alternative Factor."
It's a Golden Ticket...to the end of the universe!
Better than "Charlie X and the Chocolate Factory."
And suddenly this thread is NSFW. Great.
I guess all that can be said of Volume 1 has been said. We now await Volume 2...impatiently.
Separate names with a comma.