These Are The Voyages Volumes 4 and 5...

[EnriqueH]

I've been reading criticism about Cushman's books.

How wrong are they? Are there a ton of errors? Can someone give me an objective review/blurb about his books?

I don't know if you'll get a truly objective answer.

Oh, I think there are opinions that are objective enough. IndySolo just posted links to some. Or, have you found specific faults with Harvey's reviews that you'd like to share with us?

Or, do you mean that you've never seen a review/blurb that praises the books objectively?

To be honest, I haven't sought objective reviews outside this forum.

It just seems to me that Cushman and negative criticisms go hand in hand.

Any time Cushman is mentioned, snide remarks (almost exclusively) are followed.

Before I learned that his books are criticized for lack of accuracy, I bought the first two volumes.

Are they worth reading? I know Indy has MAJOR problems with the books, (and I trust his opinion), but I was just curious what the consensus in here is.

 

[Vger23]

I don't know if you'll get a truly objective answer.

Oh, I think there are opinions that are objective enough. IndySolo just posted links to some. Or, have you found specific faults with Harvey's reviews that you'd like to share with us?

Or, do you mean that you've never seen a review/blurb that praises the books objectively?

To be honest, I haven't sought objective reviews outside this forum.

It just seems to me that Cushman and negative criticisms go hand in hand.

Any time Cushman is mentioned, snide remarks (almost exclusively) are followed.

Before I learned that his books are criticized for lack of accuracy, I bought the first two volumes.

Are they worth reading? I know Indy has MAJOR problems with the books, (and I trust his opinion), but I was just curious what the consensus in here is.

I don't thik you're getting "objective reviews" from this forum, if that's what you are looking for. In fact, I'd suggest you are getting exactly the opposite.

 

[Maurice]

I WANTED to like these books. I WANTED them to be great. I then read the sample chapters and immediately got "a red alert right here".

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I don't thik you're getting "objective reviews" from this forum, if that's what you are looking for. In fact, I'd suggest you are getting exactly the opposite.

That's complete baloney. Some people making snide remarks doesn't detract from Harvey's work.

This is a discussion forum, not an objective review forum. Not everybody is contributing objective reviews; a lot of people are just discussing.

But at least one person has written and posted objective reviews here, and at least some others are striving to remain objective, and are participating in the discussion based just on the facts. To claim otherwise, you're going to actually have to show us where Harvey has failed to be objective. I daresay he would appreciate constructive criticism, were errors in his approach uncovered.

 

[CrazyMatt]

I don't thik you're getting "objective reviews" from this forum, if that's what you are looking for. In fact, I'd suggest you are getting exactly the opposite.

And that's fine, just as long as everyone understands the POV the posters are coming from. I view these books from a more positive standpoint than others here, even as I acknowledge they have flaws.

The best that can be hoped for is to expose the viewers of the post to as many viewpoints as possible on the topic, so that they can decide for themselves whether or not to read/buy the books. I hope that my posting of these additional links fosters that.

Again, for better or worse, Cushman has provided a product. If anyone thinks they can produce a better product, I would welcome the attempt.

 

[Maurice]

I'm on an email chain about the Roddenberry and Justman papers and related materials and there's a constant flow of info which contradicts things Cushman has written, and this is not opinion, this is primary source stuff.

 

[Harvey]

I'm not even sure what an "objective" book review would look like. Reviews, by their very nature, are subjective pieces of writing.

Accuracy, on the other hand, is something that can be objectively evaluated. Simply put, Cushman and Osborn make numerous claims which are not accurate. These are claims that are flatly contradicted by the primary sources the book is allegedly based on. On several occasions, the very photos used to illustrate the book contradict the narrative Cushman and Osborn are trying to tell.

I'm working on a piece right now about some of the shooting dates reported in Cushman and Osborn's second volume that has just been a bear to write, because there are so, so many mistakes in their chronology. I had initially wanted to limit myself to only writing about the filming of "I, Mudd," but their dates are so messed up that it's really impossible to talk about the issue without also bringing up errors in their reporting of the filming of "Mirror, Mirror," "The Deadly Years," and "The Trouble with Tribbles."

 

[Vger23]

I don't thik you're getting "objective reviews" from this forum, if that's what you are looking for. In fact, I'd suggest you are getting exactly the opposite.

That's complete baloney. Some people making snide remarks doesn't detract from Harvey's work.

This is a discussion forum, not an objective review forum. Not everybody is contributing objective reviews; a lot of people are just discussing.

But at least one person has written and posted objective reviews here, and at least some others are striving to remain objective, and are participating in the discussion based just on the facts. To claim otherwise, you're going to actually have to show us where Harvey has failed to be objective. I daresay he would appreciate constructive criticism, were errors in his approach uncovered.

BALONEY???? Them's some serious fightin' words! We don't stand for BALONEY on the interwebs!!!

Ok, I never mentioned "Harvey," don't know who that is, and have no knowledge of "his work," nor do I care.

But, this reaction is the kind of thing that makes me doubt even more the opinions of members of this board on this topic. There's a strong emotional reaction from many that is clearly NOT objective.

So, I'm not sure how you claim "baloney" on this comment I made. I'm in no way claiming the "discussion board should be objective." I'm simply pointing out that it is not objective, in my opinion. Enrique said he was looking for objective reviews. I simply stated that here is not the ideal place to gather those opinions, based on my observatios of the behaviors and emotions on this topic when it comes up.

In a way, it reminds me of the petty fighting and jealousy that is so tastelessly on display between fans regarding certain fan film productions. Really, it just discredits everyone involved in my opinion.

Sorry if tha seems like "baloney" to you.

 

[Vger23]

I don't thik you're getting "objective reviews" from this forum, if that's what you are looking for. In fact, I'd suggest you are getting exactly the opposite.

And that's fine, just as long as everyone understands the POV the posters are coming from. I view these books from a more positive standpoint than others here, even as I acknowledge they have flaws.

The best that can be hoped for is to expose the viewers of the post to as many viewpoints as possible on the topic, so that they can decide for themselves whether or not to read/buy the books. I hope that my posting of these additional links fosters that.

Again, for better or worse, Cushman has provided a product. If anyone thinks they can produce a better product, I would welcome the attempt.

This is really all I'm getting at. So, I totally agree. You put it more eloquently than I.

But again, the immediate and strong "challenges" to any positive (or hell, even neutral) feedback on these books makes me raise an eyebrow. The more it comes, the more skeptical I am of the sources.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I don't thik you're getting "objective reviews" from this forum, if that's what you are looking for. In fact, I'd suggest you are getting exactly the opposite.

That's complete baloney. Some people making snide remarks doesn't detract from Harvey's work.

This is a discussion forum, not an objective review forum. Not everybody is contributing objective reviews; a lot of people are just discussing.

But at least one person has written and posted objective reviews here, and at least some others are striving to remain objective, and are participating in the discussion based just on the facts. To claim otherwise, you're going to actually have to show us where Harvey has failed to be objective. I daresay he would appreciate constructive criticism, were errors in his approach uncovered.

BALONEY???? Them's some serious fightin' words! We don't stand for BALONEY on the interwebs!!!

Ok, I never mentioned "Harvey," don't know who that is, and have no knowledge of "his work," nor do I care.

But, this reaction is the kind of thing that makes me doubt even more the opinions of members of this board on this topic. There's a strong emotional reaction from many that is clearly NOT objective.

So, I'm not sure how you claim "baloney" on this comment I made. I'm in no way claiming the "discussion board should be objective." I'm simply pointing out that it is not objective, in my opinion. Enrique said he was looking for objective reviews. I simply stated that here is not the ideal place to gather those opinions, based on my observatios of the behaviors and emotions on this topic when it comes up.

In a way, it reminds me of the petty fighting and jealousy that is so tastelessly on display between fans regarding certain fan film productions. Really, it just discredits everyone involved in my opinion.

Sorry if tha seems like "baloney" to you.

Let's focus on what I've underlined. It's not like you have to look very far to find links to his reviews. Hint: you can find them just a few posts upthread right here in this thread, posted within the last 24 hours. I can only assume that you simply aren't actually looking for anything objective, which makes your remarks about there being nothing objective to be found in the forum utterly worthless.

To hopefully avoid ambiguity, by "objective" I mean being limited to statements that are strongly supported by fact.

 

[BillJ]

But again, the immediate and strong "challenges" to any positive (or hell, even neutral) feedback on these books makes me raise an eyebrow. The more it comes, the more skeptical I am of the sources.

After someone's been proven a liar and hasn't done a credible job researching, I'd say the books have deserved the wrath they've gotten from some in the fan base.

 

[Saga]

I don't thik you're getting "objective reviews" from this forum, if that's what you are looking for. In fact, I'd suggest you are getting exactly the opposite.

And that's fine, just as long as everyone understands the POV the posters are coming from. I view these books from a more positive standpoint than others here, even as I acknowledge they have flaws.

The best that can be hoped for is to expose the viewers of the post to as many viewpoints as possible on the topic, so that they can decide for themselves whether or not to read/buy the books. I hope that my posting of these additional links fosters that.

Again, for better or worse, Cushman has provided a product. If anyone thinks they can produce a better product, I would welcome the attempt.

This is really all I'm getting at. So, I totally agree. You put it more eloquently than I.

But again, the immediate and strong "challenges" to any positive (or hell, even neutral) feedback on these books makes me raise an eyebrow. The more it comes, the more skeptical I am of the sources.

why would you expect people to say something positive about a series of books that are full of inaccuracies?

 

[1001001]

I don't thik you're getting "objective reviews" from this forum, if that's what you are looking for. In fact, I'd suggest you are getting exactly the opposite.

That's complete baloney. Some people making snide remarks doesn't detract from Harvey's work.

This is a discussion forum, not an objective review forum. Not everybody is contributing objective reviews; a lot of people are just discussing.

But at least one person has written and posted objective reviews here, and at least some others are striving to remain objective, and are participating in the discussion based just on the facts. To claim otherwise, you're going to actually have to show us where Harvey has failed to be objective. I daresay he would appreciate constructive criticism, were errors in his approach uncovered.

BALONEY???? Them's some serious fightin' words! We don't stand for BALONEY on the interwebs!!!

Ok, I never mentioned "Harvey," don't know who that is, and have no knowledge of "his work," nor do I care.

If Harvey says it, it's true.

 

[Indysolo]

I'm not even sure what an "objective" book review would look like. Reviews, by their very nature, are subjective pieces of writing.

Accuracy, on the other hand, is something that can be objectively evaluated. Simply put, Cushman and Osborn make numerous claims which are not accurate. These are claims that are flatly contradicted by the primary sources the book is allegedly based on. On several occasions, the very photos used to illustrate the book contradict the narrative Cushman and Osborn are trying to tell.

I'm working on a piece right now about some of the shooting dates reported in Cushman and Osborn's second volume that has just been a bear to write, because there are so, so many mistakes in their chronology. I had initially wanted to limit myself to only writing about the filming of "I, Mudd," but their dates are so messed up that it's really impossible to talk about the issue without also bringing up errors in their reporting of the filming of "Mirror, Mirror," "The Deadly Years," and "The Trouble with Tribbles."

It's a huge problem when a history book has incorrect dates. Why else would you want to read it?

Neil

 

[BeatleJWOL]

Are the things that are sourced in these books either a) done so clearly in the text or b) able to make it worthwhile to pick up these books purely for the bibliography?

Cushman's bibliography is extensive, and probably the most impressive part of his books, at least from my perspective. There are some things worth pointing out, though.

- The bibliography is largely the same in books one and two (and it also lists material that isn't discussed in those volumes, but will presumably be mentioned in volume three). In other words, it's been padded a little, and you shouldn't have to buy all three volumes if you want to see the bibliography.

- In terms of actual citations, he only cites quotations (and, as many have noted here, sometimes his citations lead to nonexistent endnotes).

Thanks! Figured I wouldn't hear anything that would encourage buying the books but a spin through his sources for the real stories might be worthwhile.

 

[plynch]

I revisited the sizable sample of TATV vol 2 avail on kindle store. I wanted to make sure I hadn't unduly maligned the work. I have nothing to say.

BUT -- it got me to watch Catspaw last night. Woof, what a piece of crap. WHAT was Korob and Syvia's mission, actually? I fell asleep during the nothing-really-happening-for-a-half-hour segment of our program. Why did they kill Jackson? They warn our heroes away, but then keep them. And what do they really want from them? Mind probes that don't work? If this were Friends, I guess this would be "The One Where It's Halloween."

Thus endeth the rant.

 

[BeatleJWOL]

If this were Friends, I guess this would be "The One Where It's Halloween."

Now that would be a fun exercise. Rename TOS episodes in the style of Friends episodes.

 

[plynch]

Well, there's The One with the Flag at the End.
And The One with Hippies.

Premise in search of a plot; though both of those had OK plots imho.

The One with [insert Romans, gangsters, etc. here].

 

[BillJ]

The One Where Gary Became God
The One With Modern Romans
The One With Space Nazis
The One With Mudd's Women
The One With Mudd's Androids

 

[Campe]

The One Where Kirk Becomes a Woman
The One With the Flying Pancakes
The One Where Kirk Meets Lincoln
The One With Janice Talking About Her Legs
The One Where Spock Loses His Mind