Gary Seven - Why try create new series when current one is struggling.

[The Old Mixer]

Re: Gary Seven - Why try create new series when current one is struggl

Tentatively scheduled for New Year's Day...as I don't get SyFy these days, it'll be a nice substitute for the traditional Twilight Zone marathon.

All of this reminds me of the 80s SNL skit in which Phil Hartman's Reagan takes Danny DeVito's Gorbachev on a tour of Washington. Gorbachev knows more about the actual history of the monuments than Reagan does, whereas all Reagan can offer is which movies they appeared in. At the end of the skit, they find common ground when Reagan brings up TDTESS, with both reciting the line "Klaatu barada nikto."

ETA: Ah, here it is: http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/cold-opening-reagan-gives-gorbachev-a-tour/n9644

 

[mos6507]

Re: Gary Seven - Why try create new series when current one is struggl

And there was an episode where Laverne had a job testing gravity boots for the moon program, something that ten-year-old me found too stupid to keep watching.

That should be on the tombstone of every Garry Marshall TV series.

And yet today I find that sort of absurdity the most charming thing about those shows. The best part for me is seeing all of the 1970s-isms bleeding into what was supposed to be a period piece.

In a sense, modern audiences have become too sophisticated with Wikipedia and instant fan deconstruction (like this board). Only in the 70s could you have brain-farts like Fonzie jumping the shark make it through all the way to air. So I think that was actually a good thing. Leave it to other shows to try to accurately portray a nostalgic Stand By Me universe.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Gary Seven - Why try create new series when current one is struggl

Klaatu's system effectively was a metaphor for the then-emerging balance of terror between the superpowers, wasn't it? Essentially, the people of Earth need to get their act together or they're going to annihilate themselves.

In-setting, I imagine that nobody in particular was in charge of the robots...the people had created an automated system that was now effectively running the show, a la so many computerized rulers on TOS. (Kirk vs. Gort...now that would be something.)

Admittedly, I don't think I've ever seen the movie in full. It's on Netflix, I need to change that soon.

It's also coming up on TCM this week, I believe.

And there's another ST connection in that it was directed by Robert Wise, who later directed the first Trek movie.

 

[Astra]

Re: Gary Seven - Why try create new series when current one is struggl

Quote isn't working again - sorry.

Christopher wrote:

Oh, certainly. Writers do that all the time; I've done it myself on a number of occasions. Moffat's "A Christmas Carol" was also derived from his first published prose Who story, "Continuity Errors." But just because something is done from time to time, that doesn't prove it was done in this specific case.

I'm not sure if How did you come up with the concept for this new series? "It was a story I'd had in mind for ages – I'm just glad the BBC gave me a canvas big enough to tell the tale!" is enough? That's all I am able to find at the moment. So apparently it wasn't a finished script, but an old idea. I can settle on that.

So never let anyone tell you that you have to be a non-fan in order to appreciate something, or that being within fandom would mean your attitudes were in lockstep conformity with those of every other fan. That's not how fandom works.

I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I am old and confident enough (which admittedly took a while to achieve) that I indeed let nobody tell me what I can or can't like. Equally I don't try to force my likings onto others.

I meant more my reaction - or the lack thereof - about the death of a character. Of course you react differently if you only know him for a relatively short time vs. someone who has known and loved and got attached to him for years.

But then I am quite matter-of-factly and in the "It's just a TV show" camp. Nothing to get angry about?

David Gerrold once wrote that it was actually short for "fancier," someone who fancies something, i.e. likes it or is fond of it.

That's nice, I like that! Sometimes you really don't want to call yourself a fan for the reasons you stated. "Fancy" is a British word, right? Torchwood and Doctor Who and its actors and creators taught me a lot of British slang

Fandom is about liking, not hating.

And can't we all agree on that! No need to fight over something. The need some have for that puzzles me indeed. There are quite more important things in the world.

I apologize for having turned this thread so much off-topic, time to back off I guess. It was just meant as a throwaway line. Nice discussion though - thanks for all the insight!

 

[Christopher]

Re: Gary Seven - Why try create new series when current one is struggl

I'm not sure if How did you come up with the concept for this new series? "It was a story I'd had in mind for ages – I'm just glad the BBC gave me a canvas big enough to tell the tale!" is enough? That's all I am able to find at the moment. So apparently it wasn't a finished script, but an old idea. I can settle on that.

Well, that doesn't mean he had a specific plan to do it as a non-Who story -- just that he wanted to explore the idea in some form. As he says, "I wanted to tell a story in which civilisation snaps, in which we turn on ourselves, in which nothing is safe." And Torchwood was the show that gave him the opportunity to examine that theme. All writers have a bunch of basic ideas or issues or questions that they want to write about in some form, but it may take them years to find the right specifics, the right characters and context to tell them in, the right way to structure or resolve the story. In the quotes I've found, Davies talks about how he didn't even have the ending for Children of Earth worked out yet while he and his collaborators were writing the scripts to parts 1-4.

I meant more my reaction - or the lack thereof - about the death of a character. Of course you react differently if you only know him for a relatively short time vs. someone who has known and loved and got attached to him for years.

True, some people are fans specifically of a single character and can be inordinately upset if that character is killed off. When the Voyager novels killed off Captain Janeway for a few years (she got better), the sheer savagery of the vitriol and condemnation from a small segment of the fanbase was kind of alarming. They were convinced they'd been personally attacked. This was perhaps understandable, given that there had long been an ugly thread of misogyny directed against Janeway from certain dark corners of fandom, and so Janeway's stalwart fans probably had some reason to feel that they and the character had been attacked unjustly in the past, and some of them evidently jumped to the erroneous conclusion that the creative decision to kill off the character was part of that attack. But still, their reaction was astonishingly disproportionate considering that it was only a completely imaginary figure who'd died, and only in one iteration of the tie-ins.

But I consider that to be one of the more extremist flavors of fandom, and I think extremists tend to dominate the conversation more than they should because they're so much louder than everyone else. I think that there are always going to be plenty of fans who are fans of the whole series or the whole franchise, who recognize that characters may come and go as part of any ongoing story, and that a character's death isn't some horrible crime against fandom but just a story choice that seemed right to the creators at that time. In the case of Janeway, I felt that she actually had a stronger and more influential presence in the books set after her death, and dealing with its ongoing aftereffects upon her friends and crewmates, than she did in many of the books where she was alive. Character deaths can be a valuable and powerful storytelling device because of the way they affect and change other characters. And those other characters' reactions to a loved one's death can be a great tribute to that character.

Offhand, I can think of only one time that I've really been offended by a character's death in a TV series. It was the second-season premiere of War of the Worlds: The Series, where the new showrunner just happened to kill off both of the nonwhite characters and add a new white character to replace them, and then claimed it was for reasons having nothing to do with race. One of the characters he killed off, Colonel Ironhorse, was by far the show's most beloved and popular character, and the new showrunner claimed he'd somehow been unaware of that fact when he killed him off. Anyway, as wrong as that was to me, what really hurt was just how badly and callously his death was handled. He nominally sacrificed himself to save others, which in theory would be a noble end, but the situation was just so blatantly contrived and forced to make him kill himself, and the actual scene was directed so coldly and brutally, that it just left me bitter and furious at how badly the character had been handled.

But that's the exception, not the rule. I've been a fan of a lot of shows since, and seen a lot of characters I liked get killed, but it's never really offended or outraged me like it did then. Disappointed, sure, but I've never taken it so personally. Generally I've understood that it's just something that happens in ongoing series.

That's nice, I like that! Sometimes you really don't want to call yourself a fan for the reasons you stated. "Fancy" is a British word, right? Torchwood and Doctor Who and its actors and creators taught me a lot of British slang

It's an old-fashioned word in the US, but I don't think it's exclusively British. We have expressions that use it, like "a passing fancy," "catch one's fancy," "fancy that," etc.

 

[JWPlatt]

Re: Gary Seven - Why try create new series when current one is struggl

The darker side... Oh, please, how cliché. You forgot "gritty." I'm thinking that kind of deconstruction, in vogue all too often, makes me sick.

If you knew me at all, you'd know I'm the last person who'd want to jump onto the dark-and-gritty bandwagon just for its own sake. That's not what this is about at all. Just the opposite, in fact. This idea came to me -- back in the '80s, by the way, before there even was that much of a dark-and-gritty bandwagon to speak of -- because I recognized that the system Klaatu endorsed was much darker than he admitted and that there had to be a better way of achieving peace. The message I had in mind was far more optimistic and Star Trekky: That true peace is achieved, not when you're afraid to fight, but when you no longer desire to fight. That still hating other people but being terrified to try to kill them because you know the robots will kill you first is very, very far from being actual peace, and that real peace won't come until people overcome the will for hatred and violence and choose to stand together. The story I wanted to see would be an optimistic one in which the peoples of Klaatu's civilization rose up against the false peace of the robotic oppressors and strove to create a free society that would practice genuine peace based on mutual understanding rather than mutual terror.

So, yes, it would've been a deconstruction to reveal that Klaatu was basically working for the bad guys. But deconstruction isn't always cynical. Klaatu's view was the cynical one: That people are incapable of genuine peace and can only be coerced and threatened into nonviolence. I refused to believe that was the moral solution to the problem, and I wanted to see a story about finding a better way. A story about resisting an oppressive system doesn't have to be dark and depressing; see Star Wars, for example.

There's also the fact that Klaatu was very much a colonialist in the old Civilising-Mission vein -- seeing himself as a member of a wiser, superior society, coming to a land of primitives and looking with condescending amusement and scorn at their folly, and delivering a message of paternalistic benevolence that's basically "I will give you the chance to elevate yourselves to my society's kind of enlightenment for your own good, and if you don't accept my kind and selfless offer, my people will bomb you out of existence." At the time the movie came out, it was easy to see Klaatu as the hero, but in this day and age, that kind of patronizing attitude toward another culture doesn't really come off as well.

I totally agree with your point of view that a person who is benevolent, peaceful, moral, kind and good by their own free will and internal compass is a better person than one who superficially behaves the same out of fear of consequence or promise of reward. But I would rather not see us promote ourselves as superior by diminishing Klaatu's society for our own benefit. We could achieve the same effect by eventually rendering their threat inert without aggression and then choosing to be benevolent, peaceful and moral anyway just to prove your point. Perhaps it is more difficult to write that story? So be it. To reiterate McCoy: "It has always been easier to destroy than to create."

I take Klaatu's word for it that they are realistic that nothing is perfect, but that they are peaceful, and they are free to pursue better things in life and they approve of their solution as a society.

I have to wonder what generation you're from, and if you have the experience of living during the height of the Cold War. I grew up in the '70s and '80s with the fear of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head at every moment. People of my generation took it as a given that the world could end any day, for no reason other than that some early-warning radar mistook a flock of geese for a flight of missiles. We had drills where we huddled in the basement corridors of the school in the flimsy hope that it would protect us from nuclear blast and fallout. Look at Carl Sagan's Cosmos from that era -- in his segment about the Drake Equation and the odds of civilizations existing on other planets, his most optimistic estimate was that only one percent of technological civilizations would survive their nuclear age. That's the kind of terror we lived with every day of our lives. Trust me -- it did not feel peaceful.

That is why I know that Klaatu lied when he said his people were at peace. The mere lack of war is very, very far from actually being peace. Living every day in terror of extermination is not peace of any kind. Peace doesn't come until people mutually agree that they don't want to fight anymore.

I'm from perhaps a decade earlier, closer to the age of "Duck and Cover" than you. "Duck and Cover" was part of the 1950s and 60s culture. I never once had to practice the procedure at my schools in the 60s and 70s. It was old news and phased out as an absurdity even by then. I have to wonder where you lived that it was still going on into the 70s and, most incredibly, into the 80s unless it was included with instruction for natural disasters such as earthquakes and tornadoes out of regional concern.

 

[Christopher]

Re: Gary Seven - Why try create new series when current one is struggl

I totally agree with your point of view that a person who is benevolent, peaceful, moral, kind and good by their own free will and internal compass is a better person than one who superficially behaves the same out of fear of consequence or promise of reward. But I would rather not see us promote ourselves as superior by diminishing Klaatu's society.

Huh? First of all, Klaatu's society doesn't exist; like every fictional society, it's an allegory for our own. As I said, my story was inspired by my own feelings about Mutually Assured Destruction and why it was a poor substitute for real peace. So my sequel would've been allegorically criticizing our society, not calling it superior.

Second, even within the TDTESS universe, our society clearly had plenty of flaws of its own, which Klaatu pointed out rather effectively. Revealing that Klaatu's society had flaws of its own wouldn't make humanity's flaws somehow disappear. It's not like only one society at a time gets to be imperfect.

And third, when did I say that it would be us who overthrew the robots in my proposed sequel? I explicitly said it would be the peoples of Klaatu's own civilization who would rise against the robots. My sequel would've probably had humans involved in the story, interacting with the galactic civilization, but not necessarily as the catalysts for the uprising. If anything, Earth humans might've been portrayed more as the beneficiaries of the alien revolutionaries' efforts -- like, maybe the Gorts were about to come and destroy us for failing to disarm, and the alien heroes launched their revolution to prevent Earth from being wiped out. So we might've been more the damsels in distress in my scenario than the heroes.

We could achieve the same effect by eventually rendering their threat inert without aggression and then choosing to be benevolent, peaceful and moral anyway just to prove your point. Perhaps it is more difficult to write that story? So be it. To reiterate McCoy: "It has always been easier to destroy than to create."

And you're still being pretty damned condescending in assuming the worst about my story idea when you know so little about it. It's always a lot easier to criticize than create, too. Again, if you knew anything about me or my work -- and it is easily possible to learn the latter, because I've had a lot of stuff published -- you'd know how utterly ludicrous it is to accuse me of being someone who'd favor darkness and violence over peace and optimism.

I'm from perhaps a decade earlier, closer to the age of "Duck and Cover" than you. "Duck and Cover" was part of the 1950s and 60s culture. I never once had to practice the procedure at my schools in the 60s and 70s. It was old news and phased out as an absurdity even by then. I have to wonder where you lived that it was still going on into the 70s and, most incredibly, into the 80s unless it was included with instruction for natural disasters such as earthquakes and tornadoes out of regional concern.

I lived where I live now, in Cincinnati, Ohio, smack dab in middle America. You're forgetting how much Reagan heated up the Cold War with all his "Evil Empire" rhetoric and hawkish policies, not to mention the SDI/"Star Wars" boondoggle.

Remember The Day After? It was a 1983 TV movie, directed by Nicholas Meyer, that depicted a nuclear war and its aftermath. It was the most-watched TV movie of all time, because it was such a hot-button issue and showed the impact of a nuclear war so bluntly and terrifyingly. It resonated so much with the fears of the time that there were actually counseling hotlines offered, and there was a lot of controversy about it being too traumatic to watch. I had to convince my father to let me watch it, because he didn't think I could handle it emotionally. It didn't really bother me that much, because I'd already learned about much of its revelations from books like Carl Sagan's Cosmos, John Hersey's Hiroshima, and Jonathan Schell's The Fate of the Earth. But it was a hugely influential film, and it prompted a massive public debate on the US's military and diplomatic policies, and Reagan himself claimed in his memoirs that the film helped lead to a later disarmament treaty.

So, yes, I can say with confidence that fears of nuclear apocalypse were very, very much alive and influential in the United States in the early 1980s. I have to wonder where you were if you missed it all.

 

[JWPlatt]

Re: Gary Seven - Why try create new series when current one is struggl

...when did I say that it would be us who overthrew the robots in my proposed sequel?

You didn't. I did. Because it would be a better story than telling an alien civilization (yes, as a real writer of the fiction representing an allegory) that the way of life they've chosen for themselves isn't good enough for us to leave alone, even if they are happy with it. And I didn't say "overthrow." I said render inert, meaning having no effect on us, but leaving them in control of the society that intentionally and willingly created and submitted to them. Who are we to say what makes them happy? I might - might - like that as a story only if it ended tragically for their society and proved it misguided and wrong to believe that they would be better off without the choice they made just because we wouldn't like it.

We could achieve the same effect by eventually rendering their threat inert without aggression and then choosing to be benevolent, peaceful and moral anyway just to prove your point. Perhaps it is more difficult to write that story? So be it. To reiterate McCoy: "It has always been easier to destroy than to create."

And you're still being pretty damned condescending in assuming the worst about my story idea when you know so little about it. It's always a lot easier to criticize than create, too. Again, if you knew anything about me or my work -- and it is easily possible to learn the latter, because I've had a lot of stuff published -- you'd know how utterly ludicrous it is to accuse me of being someone who'd favor darkness and violence over peace and optimism.

When I write forum posts, they may quote other posts, but blend a response to the person quoted while speaking to the general audience. I am happy that you prefer the optimistic point of view, as I suspect many who like Star Trek also would be. So I am also happy when you and others might understand, and even agree, that deconstruction of our heroes is something of a "bandwagon" or cliche. I am also happy just to make my objections to deconstruction as one small voice against it for everyone to read in the hopes that it catches on - not just for or at you. But I will not concede that the suggestion of making the story of how Klaatu's society is worse off with their robots because it does not conform with our standard is anything but. We deconstruct heroes and humanize enemies to feel better about ourselves. I don't like the practice, and I don't see much difference.

...I can say with confidence that fears of nuclear apocalypse were very, very much alive and influential in the United States in the early 1980s. I have to wonder where you were if you missed it all.

I was in Florida, watching shuttle launches in person and watching The Day After on my 6-foot projection TV screen, while waiting for the rumored, then officially denied, second attempt at an invasion of Cuba, which an acquaintance with US Naval and CIA connections, a position I corroborated with an independent source with similar connections, warned me about who was obviously still alive after being officially reported presumed dead as a cover, which I found documented from local newspaper articles, who was then pursued and captured by federal agencies. I had a pretty good seat.

 

[Christopher]

Re: Gary Seven - Why try create new series when current one is struggl

You didn't. I did. Because it would be a better story than telling an alien civilization (yes, as a real writer of the fiction representing an allegory) that the way of life they've chosen for themselves isn't good enough for us to leave alone, even if they are happy with it.

Wow, you are just determined to ignore what I'm actually saying and replace it with your own straw men. I was talking about a story in which the rank and file populace of the alien civilization was not happy in the least about living under the absolute tyranny of robots, and in which they chose for themselves to overthrow that tyranny. Whatever this is that you're making up in order to discredit has nothing to do with my idea; you're having an argument with yourself at this point. So since it doesn't involve me in any way, I'll just leave you to it.

 

[JWPlatt]

Re: Gary Seven - Why try create new series when current one is struggl

I do understand. I see it as a personal prejudice of the writer intruding on the story. Klaatu said they were okay with it. You said you don't believe him. I do. So being unhappy with their robots is an invention for the writer's convenience in disagreement with the original "facts" of the story - a changed premise to make the story fit.

Edit: Okay, I'll go a bit further and offer a suggestion that might make your story one that I and people like me might like: You must accept that Klaatu was telling the truth so as to not alter that story in any way, so that it remains watchable in the same spirit as it always has been, and by extension their society did in fact happily choose to submit to their robots. Changing my viewing experience and perception of the original movie might very well be my biggest objection. You'd have to ask how and why they can be so deluded - without the trick of some mind-altering external force - as to believe they are happy when they truly aren't; free when they truly aren't. Klaatu could even return to his homeworld with changed perceptions from his experience that become a catalyst. It would have to be about them and not an allegory about us because that would smell like the author imposing our human belief system on an alien race where it does not belong. It would have to come from their own internal life without our interference. I think allegory implies a certain inorganic interference or manipulation in alien matters because they are used as a lesson to humanity - meh. Then work it into how Earth might solve its own issues and join their effort as a natural course of events.

 

[Christopher]

Re: Gary Seven - Why try create new series when current one is struggl

I do understand. I see it as a personal prejudice of the writer intruding on the story.

Isn't that true of most stories, though? The writers of TDTESS had their own personal perspective on the validity of the system, and I had another. There's nothing wrong with that. There's no requirement for a sequel to blindly copy the original's point of view; some of the most potent sequels are those that challenge or re-examine the assumptions of the originals. (Like, say, Deep Space Nine vis-a-vis TOS.)

Klaatu said they were okay with it.

And no society is a monolithic "they." Every society has dissenters; anything else would be an unrealistic portrayal. And the very nature of this system is one in which there is no possibility for dissent to be safely expressed and no inherent mechanism for reform to be instituted. That is a tyranny by definition.

So being unhappy with their robots is an invention for the writer's convenience in disagreement with the original "facts" of the story - a changed premise to make the story fit.

Not at all. Because the only fact is that Klaatu said the system worked that way. Individual testimony is not evidence that a thing is objectively true, merely evidence that the speaker believes it to be true (or wants others to believe it). Klaatu was a member of his society who bought into the validity of the system, but surely there would be other members of the same society who rejected his belief in its validity. Every society has its authorities and its dissenters. I'm not talking about changing the facts, I'm talking about looking at the other side of the argument. It's naive to hear only one person's view of his culture and assume it's the absolute truth.

 

[JWPlatt]

Re: Gary Seven - Why try create new series when current one is struggl

Agreed that the existence of the robots and their consequences implies potential dissent and conflict, or they would not otherwise be necessary. I don't believe the robots would respond against civil disobedience or other passive forms of non-violent protest and change. Klaatu would have been sent as a representative of the societal consensus, so I believe his word is theirs.

 

[FormerLurker]

Re: Gary Seven - Why try create new series when current one is struggl

That only works if Klaatu were the one whose opinion mattered, but he isn't. Gort's is. And Gort, as the robot enforcer, represents only the monolithic concensus of the robots. They don't care what the organic beings think, or if they want to examine the possibility of another way. They only enforce order. That is their only goal.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Re: Gary Seven - Why try create new series when current one is struggl

I was in elementary school in the 70s and early 80s. (I think Christopher and I are roughly the same age.) In Indiana we had "storm drills" that involved getting into the corridor away from glass windows, which made sense in tornado country. But in Florida there were vaguer "emergency drills" (IIRC) that involved getting under desks...I didn't know what those were about at the time, but later figured that they were a holdover from the height of Cold War tensions in the early 60s.

Learning what nuclear weapons were all about in late elementary school was a major growing-up shock for me. And the idea that a nuclear war within our lifetimes was practically inevitable was very much a thing as late as the mid-80s.

Of some interest to this discussion...today DECADES is playing a 1963 movie called Ladybug, Ladybug, which they've shown at least a couple of times before, about how some people in a small town react to a nuclear alert drill that they're not sure is real. It's a pretty intriguing glimpse at those times, and feels like a feature-length episode of The Twilight Zone.

 

[Tim Walker]

help/guidance from an alien civilization

Besides being a cool idea, it (like Trek) has an optimistic streak!

 

[Maurice]

Re: Gary Seven - Why try create new series when current one is struggl

Of some interest to this discussion...today DECADES is playing a 1963 movie called Ladybug, Ladybug, which they've shown at least a couple of times before, about how some people in a small town react to a nuclear alert drill that they're not sure is real. It's a pretty intriguing glimpse at those times, and feels like a feature-length episode of The Twilight Zone.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

​

With William Daniels!

 

[JWPlatt]

Re: Gary Seven - Why try create new series when current one is struggl

That only works if Klaatu were the one whose opinion mattered, but he isn't. Gort's is. And Gort, as the robot enforcer, represents only the monolithic concensus of the robots. They don't care what the organic beings think, or if they want to examine the possibility of another way. They only enforce order. That is their only goal.

Except that a few words from Klaatu spoken by proxy from a human - Klaatu barada nikto - can call off an action.

 

[Christopher]

Re: Gary Seven - Why try create new series when current one is struggl

Except that a few words from Klaatu spoken by proxy from a human - Klaatu barada nikto - can call off an action.

But that doesn't mean Gort is Klaatu's subordinate. It means that Gort's decisions can be shaped by information from his subordinate Klaatu -- in the same way that, say, Lt. Uhura could relay a message from Mr. Spock that would get Captain Kirk to call off an attack. "Klaatu barada nikto" basically means "Klaatu hasn't been killed/compromised, so you don't need to destroy the world."

The Day the Earth Stood Still was based on a short story called "Farewell to the Master." It's a pretty bad story -- it involves the robot Gnut using superscience to resurrect the dead Klaatu from a tape recording of his voice -- but its surprise twist at the end is that when the humans ask Gnut to tell his masters that Klaatu's death was an accident, Gnut replies, "You misunderstand, I am the master." The robot being the master and Klaatu being the servant is the whole point.

 

[JWPlatt]

Re: Gary Seven - Why try create new series when current one is struggl

Obviously, and the robots are not quite the zero-tolerance fanatics you fear.

 

[Christopher]

Re: Gary Seven - Why try create new series when current one is struggl

^You're still caricaturing my ideas and completely missing the point. Please, let's just drop this. It's kind of silly to argue about a story I never actually wrote. Maybe if I actually had written it, you'd understand my intent.