Here, let's try a new City thread, with a couple of actual topics. 1. I'm a fan of Harlan Ellison, have a few collections of his short stories. But he's dead wrong about his script. I mean, Roddenberry may have screwed him; but the episode that aired is stronger than his original script. Tighter and more dramatic. 2. I wrote elsewhere, in the Tribbles thread, that I don't get fans who think that comedy is the "soul of Star Trek." The first season is steeped in tragedy. It starts with the two pilots: Vina has to stay on Talos IV with no human contact; Kirk has to kill Gary Mitchell. It continues with most of the first ~dozen episodes: the salt vampire goes extinct, and Nancy was never there; Charlie can't stay with his own kind; Roger Corman is dead and gone; Lenore accidentally kills her dad; the bridegroom dies. We think of City as an exceptional episode, with much stronger emotional overtones than most episodes. But I think maybe that's not the case. I think Ellison homed in on something central to the roots of the series. City falls right in line with the "tragedy" aspects of the pilots and other early episodes. It's powerfully done, but not really a departure. Instead it heightens elements already strongly present in the series. Basically, City is just like Where No Man. With Edith, Kirk has to do pretty much exactly what he had to do with Gary Mitchell. I never noticed that before. What I'm saying is, City is so good not because it ventured into such new territory, but instead because it hewed so closely to the show's roots – dug more deeply into them. Thoughts?