• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

These Are The Voyages - Season Three

Likewise, no other book has been so riddled with inaccuracy or by an author so unwilling to openly acknowledge his mistakes. Instead, he waits for his readers to point them out to him so he can fix them in time for the next revised edition, thereby editing the books for him after the fact. Self-publishing aside, these books are being produced by a scam artist taking advantage of fans like you.

As much as I hate to admit it, this is pretty spot on. All one has to do is look at the UESPA book fiasco.

The gift that keeps on giving.

"The UESPA book fiasco"

He didn't even fix the mistake. Instead he wrote a snarky caption that now questions everything in the books and highlights the type of person we're dealing with.

Neil

Neil, I have nothing but respect, gratitude, and awe at the work you have brought to TOS scholarship--certainly as opposed to all the other derivative crap that's out there.

But Cushman's work is not derivative. There IS primary research here. It's only when he has to pad it that it becomes a "load of peanut butter", as David Gerrold once said.

For those of us who, as much as we would like to, can't spend hours at UCLA, it's pretty good stuff. Taken, of course with a discerning eye.

Steve Whitfield's book was beautiful, but somewhat "burnished". Gerrold's "World" doesn't hold up very well. Justman/Solow was a sacred text...but had errors or lapses that were maddening.

Your score series was nearly perfect, but of course, nothing is, is it?

Cushman's stuff? Schloppy, yes, and yet, there are nuggets and hard truths uncovered that were heretofore hidden. Is he an honest man? Who cares? Was Gene?

Oh well, I just keep gobbling it up.
 
Thank you for the kind words, Esteban.

You are correct, nothing is perfect, human error makes sure of that. However, there comes a point where you start questioning everything you read. Cushman's books are that way. He may be correct about things, but the demonstrable errors are so numerous that it becomes difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. Ultimately, it makes the books unreadable and useless as a history book.

Neil
 
Cushman's work is not derivative. There IS primary research here. It's only when he has to pad it that it becomes a "load of peanut butter", as David Gerrold once said.

For those of us who, as much as we would like to, can't spend hours at UCLA, it's pretty good stuff. Taken, of course with a discerning eye.

Steve Whitfield's book was beautiful, but somewhat "burnished". Gerrold's "World" doesn't hold up very well. Justman/Solow was a sacred text...but had errors or lapses that were maddening.

Your score series was nearly perfect, but of course, nothing is, is it?

Cushman's stuff? Schloppy, yes, and yet, there are nuggets and hard truths uncovered that were heretofore hidden. Is he an honest man? Who cares? Was Gene?

Oh well, I just keep gobbling it up.

Very well stated. Yes the books have flaws, but the information within is well enough sourced to be mostly reliable.

And again, I would applaud anyone's effort to try and do better.
 
Thank you for the kind words, Esteban.

You are correct, nothing is perfect, human error makes sure of that. However, there comes a point where you start questioning everything you read. Cushman's books are that way. He may be correct about things, but the demonstrable errors are so numerous that it becomes difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. Ultimately, it makes the books unreadable and useless as a history book.

Neil

Emphasis mine. This is about the only piece of information associated with these self-published books worth remembering.
 
Not to keep beating a dead horse, but I've looped into an involved email chain where several very knowledgeable people have been fact-checking some of what's in these books and the accuracy is very hit and miss. Sometimes he gets it right, other times he misses or ignores memos which outright contradict the conclusions he's drawn. The miss to hit ratio is high enough where you simply cannot take his word for it.
 
Not to keep beating a dead horse, but I've looped into an involved email chain where several very knowledgeable people have been fact-checking some of what's in these books and the accuracy is very hit and miss. Sometimes he gets it right, other times he misses or ignores memos which outright contradict the conclusions he's drawn. The miss to hit ratio is high enough where you simply cannot take his word for it.

This.
 
Anyway, I've read through the third volume and, not being as critical toward the other volumes, I was looking forward to reading about what is the least covered season of the original series. For awhile now, Cushman has said that this would be even more pages than the other volumes, even without the full time detailed documentation from Roddenberry and Justman or anything really from Coon or Fontana (not to mention that Freiberger and Singer weren't big on memos). And yup, that's true. At 736 pages, it's the largest of the volumes. But still, I felt a little let down. Without the constant memos, there are lots of quotes from a writer who was working on an abandoned biography with Fred Freiberger. Also, many, many pages are taken up by other people giving their thoughts on the episodes. People like Vic Mignona, Marc Altman, film critic Scott Mantz and so on. Also, some of his "assessments" go on for a very long time. Honestly, there's a lot of filler in here.

Some things started to dive me a little nuts. Now, I get that people may not choose to read it from cover to cover, instead starting at whatever chapter or episodes interest them the most. However, that biographer is constantly introduced as "the writer who worked with Freiberger on his abandoned biography." And there there's the maddening, easily checked music errors. Such as "Plato's Stepchildren" have a partial score, when it was, in fact, a full score.

However, I still found it fascinating to read the evolution of each episode, and gained a real appreciation for what Freiberger and Arthur Singer had to work with. It was really a two man operation, especially after Justman left. They were the only two people doing polishes after the drafts were handed in. Also apparently, Freiberger was tasked with making each episode "good enough." Just get them done in 6 days and under budget. While he seemed to want to do stories with value, his "vision" was miles away from Roddenberry's.

Sadly, since most of the information presented is either second hand or conducted through interviews done well after the fact, there isn't much of a consensus between the wounded writers like DC Fontana and Freiberger's version of events. Even if one could trust Cushman implicitly, the memories and lingering bitterness would color an already faulty memory. The lack of voluminous memos really hurts this book.

Still, the Freiberger biographer's contributions were interesting to read since I was always interested in the producer's point of view.

I don't know, I guess if you didn't want to read the others for the various reasons, this volume won't do a damned thing other than confirm those reasons. If, however, you enjoyed the previous two volumes, you'll still find value in this. Just don't take it as gospel and enjoy the evolution of each episode and what the players have to say about it all.

I'll just file these with the other faulty but interesting books on the series.
 
Now if someone would just write really good behind the scenes book on Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, I'd be in heaven.

Youy might be getting your wish. I was doing some research at UCLA this morning and who walks in but Marc Cushman himself. He was looking at four boxes of the Irwin Allen papers.
 
Did you say, "Yo, Cash!" ;)

I want to chime in here on something that I think Mr. Cushman misses. For whatever reason he seems incredibly reticent to admit or acknowledge any failings in his work. Perhaps he thinks admitting to same would damage sales of his work. If so, I think he's misjudging his audience. I think if he were to admit that any work is inherently imperfect and solicit feedback for future revisions he'd do a lot to cement his reputation as a real expert on the subject instead of coming across as a pretender to same. Hardcore fans generally want to know the truth and would likely bend over backwards to help him improve future editions.
 
Now if someone would just write really good behind the scenes book on Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, I'd be in heaven.

Youy might be getting your wish. I was doing some research at UCLA this morning and who walks in but Marc Cushman himself. He was looking at four boxes of the Irwin Allen papers.

Gonna bilk another fan base out of some cash with half-assed work! :lol:
 
Harvey, I know this is the wrong book volume for the episode, but maybe you already know the answer:

In "Patterns of Force", Skip Homeier gets a rarely used "Special Appearance" type billing instead of "Guest Star". Was he a last minute replacement or something? Is there any documentation on how he got this unusual billing?
 
I can't speak for Harvey, but billing is typically negotiated by agents and some actors have enough pull to get special billing.
 
I know it's probably contractual, but he's listed as "Guest Star" for "The Way to Eden", and it's actually a better role than Melakon. In "Patterns" though, two other people get Guest Star honor before his name appears. I'm hoping it's not due to him playing a Nazi, since his career really started by playing a Hitler Youth at about 14 or 15. And Skip never was a really BIG star.
 
Did you say, "Yo, Cash!" ;)

:lol:

Nah, not really my style.

I want to chime in here on something that I think Mr. Cushman misses. For whatever reason he seems incredibly reticent to admit or acknowledge any failings in his work. Perhaps he thinks admitting to same would damage sales of his work. If so, I think he's misjudging his audience. I think if he were to admit that any work is inherently imperfect and solicit feedback for future revisions he'd do a lot to cement his reputation as a real expert on the subject instead of coming across as a pretender to same. Hardcore fans generally want to know the truth and would likely bend over backwards to help him improve future editions.

I think part of the problem is the driving force of the books (the thesis, really) is that the show was a ratings hit, but the network suppressed this knowledge in order to justify killing the show, because they didn't like Roddenberry.

Cushman did remove small mistakes in his revised season one book (such as insisting Bruce Hyde appeared in "The Man Trap," or stating that the score to "The City on the Edge of Forever" was completely tracked), but removing his big throughline would necessitate a page one rewrite.

Of course, that reasoning doesn't explain the whole "Arena" fan art thing...

In "Patterns of Force", Skip Homeier gets a rarely used "Special Appearance" type billing instead of "Guest Star". Was he a last minute replacement or something? Is there any documentation on how he got this unusual billing?

Not that I've seen, but I haven't looked closely at the Justman papers for that episode

Harvey, did you offer to fact-check it for him?

Nah -- I'm too busy fact-checking his last books! :p
 
It's sort of a pointless premise for the book anyway. Even if his numbers were right, it's not going to put the show back on the air again.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top