The Making Of Star Trek....

[Warped9]

The Making Of Star Trek (by Stephen E. Whitfield) was once akin to a "holy bible" for fans. This was perhaps the first behind-the-scenes look at the making of a popular television, but it was also a well of information for the characters, hardware and tech and setting of the series.

Back in the day it was gold and could often be considered authoritative.

But time has marched on and now decades later many other reference and behind-the-scenes books have come along--some of them debunking myths once accepted as fact as printed in TMoST.

Nonetheless TMoST still has value in showing much of the thinking that went into the show back in the day. And it has an advantage in being written while TOS was still in production. And I'm reasonably sure that many fans, like me, still have a soft spot for this book. I still have my paperback copy on my bookshelf (alongside my other Trek books).


But has anyone recently read or reread this book?

I'm thinking of doing so since although I do refer to it once in awhile it's been many years since I've actually read it cover-to-cover.

 

[Galileo7]

I still have my first copy of The Making Of Star Trek (by Stephen E. Whitfield) that I purchased as a young boy in my elementary school book fair in 1975. That book and The Making Of Space:1999 book that I purchased in 1976 at a book store were among my favorite possessions in the '70s as a boy.

 

[feek61]

I've read it at least a dozen times over the years; the last time maybe two years ago. Still a very interesting read.

 

[Chris3123]

I've skimmed through my dad's old copy a few times. (He was a big fan in his college days). I don't remember looking at the publication date, but from the look of it and the fact that it was falling apart I'd say it had to have been one of the first printings.

What I remember reading, I thought was interesting. One thing that stands out in my memory was the memos/letters between Gene and others, throwing about ideas.

I think I might have it around here somewhere. I'll have to look for it so I can peruse it again.

 

[Warped9]

I've read it at least a dozen times over the years; the last time maybe two years ago. Still a very interesting read.

I can't recall the exact number, but I know back in the '70s I must have read it through at least a few times. I know when I first saw it at the corner store and picked up my own copy I felt like I was on the Moon. Sometime later I saw that a couple of copies had found their way into our school library.

 

[BeatleJWOL]

I've bought two copies of it over the last 10 years...granted, one was a replacement...

Fantastic book. Glad to have it in my collection.

 

[Campe]

I had a copy awhile back and sold it. Picked up another one on the cheap at our mega used book store.

 

[scotpens]

I have a copy of the second printing (I wore out the first one) that I keep on my desk next to the computer. I still use it regularly for reference regarding matters of Trek TOS tech, characters and production info. I call it my "geek bible."

 

[Warped9]

Matbe someday Harvey can get around to fact checking this one...if he hasn't already.

 

[mach7]

I reread it just before the 1st These are the Voyages came out.

I found it still a very good read. I would recommend rereading it to any Trek fan.

 

[Christopher]

It's a must-read for any serious TOS fan. It was also one of the first really in-depth books about television production, so in its day it had a lot of impact beyond Trek fandom, I believe. It was certainly the book that created my lifelong interest in film production, and its glimpses into the work of writers may even have helped inform my eventual choice to become one. (I never considered that possibility before just now, but it seems logical.) It's definitely one of the best "making of" books I've ever read.

It's also the source for a number of longstanding bits of Trek apocrypha that were never actually established onscreen, like Kirk being the youngest captain in the fleet, as well as technical details that weren't canonized until later, like the idea of the forward parabolic dish being a navigational deflector. I've come across threads on this BBS where people didn't know where these ideas came from, and it startled me that there are Trek fans out there who haven't read TMoST. I think of it as essential reading.

I'm on my second copy, since the one I got in first grade eventually fell apart.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

TMOST was the first Star Trek book I ever had. It's hard to overstate this volume's importance to the masculine side of fandom: it was the trailblazing book for future Making Of's, as well as the whole Technical Manual genre. Franz Joseph obviously devoured TMOST as his major source of research.

Incidentally, there was a time in my childhood when the cover photos on TMOST were my only glimpse of the show in color. That was tantalizing, especially the eight pictures on the back.

 

[Christopher]

^"Masculine side?"

 

[BillJ]

^"Masculine side?"

Girls have cooties.

 

[Push The Button]

I have two copies, my original from the early 80's with a silver cover, and one I received in the 90's as a birthday or Christmas gift with a white cover. I haven't read it in many years, but I'm going to very soon, along with Asherman's Compendium and Gerrold's Tribbles "Making Of" book. These were all must-reads for Trek fans in the pre-Internet days.

As I recall, passages in TMOST where Gene was "speaking" were printed in all-uppercase, and I always imagined that he was shouting when I read them.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

^"Masculine side?"

Girls have cooties.

Blueprints and technical manuals have always been more popular with male fans. That's kind of obvious. Contrariwise, it was mostly women writing the "shipper" (as in relationship) fan fiction. I'm not letting any cats out the bag, these are just commonplace facts.

 

[MikeH92467]

It's a valuable reference since it gives an inside look at how the process from concept to pilot episode to series works. It certainly is Gene's book, even though Whitfield is the official author and some things should be taken with a grain of salt, such as why The Cage was rejected. I think GR's claim that the audience "wasn't ready" for a female 2nd in command has pretty much been debunked. That said, I think it's extremely interesting when GR discusses the need for him to rewrite scripts at the cost of his relationship with distinguished science fiction writers (Harlan Ellison?) in order to maintain his creative vision.

I don't consider it THE source for the REAL TOS story, but I do think it's a valuable resource and starting point. The other sides of the story have their own value, but I would also note that the book was written at a time when TOS was a cult favorite, not a cultural phenomenon and is free of the axe grinding that seems to have driven some of the other books. (That's not to say GR was above spinning his version of events. I hope I made that clear already)

 

[Christopher]

Blueprints and technical manuals have always been more popular with male fans. That's kind of obvious. Contrariwise, it was mostly women writing the "shipper" (as in relationship) fan fiction. I'm not letting any cats out the bag, these are just commonplace facts.

No, they're blanket generalizations that ignore the real diversity of human beings. Do you have any idea how many women are producing television series today? Or how many women were inspired by Star Trek to become astronauts or engineers? Don't mistake trends for universal laws. It's the people who are the exceptions to the rule that generally make the most impact on the world.

I don't consider it THE source for the REAL TOS story, but I do think it's a valuable resource and starting point. The other sides of the story have their own value, but I would also note that the book was written at a time when TOS was a cult favorite, not a cultural phenomenon and is free of the axe grinding that seems to have driven some of the other books. (That's not to say GR was above spinning his version of events. I hope I made that clear already)

Of course no single text should ever be taken as absolute gospel. That's basic scholarship. Every source has its bias, so every source should be read critically and compared against other sources. But that doesn't mean a source can't be valuable. TMoST is one of the key primary-source documents about the production of Star Trek and the ideas and intentions of its creators. That makes it an invaluable work, both about the show itself and about the perception and promotion of the show at the time. The biases in a text can themselves be revealing and useful to examine.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I've gone through a couple of copies, starting with my first one circa 1972. I tended to break the spines, usually where the pictures are. It was pretty much my Trek bible for years.

 

[Galileo7]

I have multiple copies including my first copy from 1975 when I was a boy. I wonder if it is still in print, being published?