Are the Blish novelizations canon?

If it's 31 pages, then it's the Third Revision from April 17, 1967, the most familiar version.

That's misunderstanding the purpose of a writers' guide. It's not an absolute stricture on writers, just a starting point for their creativity. It's about laying forth the basics of the show's world and characters so freelancers can develop appropriate pitches, but it's meant to inspire their imaginations, not shackle them, so anything it states beyond what's already onscreen is merely a suggestion, to be used if a writer wishes and ignored if the writer comes up with something better. (For instance, the TNG writer's guide's premise that Data was built by advanced aliens was thrown out the window in favor of "Datalore.")

The guide does say on p. 25 that the show is "about two hundred years from now," but this was just in reference to what "Tomorrow is Yesterday" and "Space Seed" had asserted, and didn't stop "Metamorphosis" from implying a longer interval (since Cochrane had been born 235 years earlier) or The Making of Star Trek from asserting a 23rd-century date which the movies then canonized.

Anyway, I'd really be curious to hear more about other aspects of this article besides the chronology question.

Ah, so that must be where Stine got it. Just to clarify, an Analog issue with a February 1968 cover date would probably have gone on sale in November '67, if the lead time was the same then as it tends to be these days. (Magazine cover dates are basically "display until" dates, typically 3-4 months after release.) The first Blish volume with "Balance" in it has a pub date of January '67, meaning it probably hit shelves in December '66, and Stine obviously wrote his article after April '67 when the Third Revision came out. (I wonder how he got his copy. Was he invited to pitch for the show, or was he friends with one of the writers?)

 

Well CBS All Access is a streaming service.

 

No. The only time I see Colicos/Kor mentioned to return is in story outlines the pitched to the show. The first time it happens Justman rants.

Campbell flat out claimed in one interview he had a contract to play 13 episodes as Koloth. That's rubbish for too many reasons to get into here.

To quote the end of our Belushi video:

If there is a moral to this story it’s that anecdotes are not fact, especially decades removed from the events they report. All human memory is faulty, stories get conflated, and they change bit by bit the more they’re told. Caveat emptor, especially where pop culture “history” is concerned.​

 

More likely end of December. In my experience with 60s science fiction magazines (I read them every month "as they come out") the monthlies come out late in the second month before the publication month, and the bimonthlies often (but not always) early in the second month before publication month.

 

I take it the Alan Dean Foster adaptations were viewed similarly as the Blish (in terms of accuracy and impact?)

When I was growing up, I found the ADF books far superior to the Blish -- much more developed and interesting (but then I'd only read Blish's later adaptation stories).

 

The Blish adaptations were generally...brief, particularly by today’s standards. It was almost as if he did them grudgingly. Then again science fiction writing in that era tended to be tighter and more concise. Complete and elaborate novels could be written in about 120 pages, as evidenced by Spock Must Die! and many others.

The ADF adaptations were actually pretty good although he did tweak or embellish some things or add new elements to the stories, particularly with the last two or three adaptations he did. The “Counter-Clock Incident” became a book unto itself if I recall correctly.

The ADF works could serve to make the animated stories feel more real like the live-action episodes, at least for me.

 

Yeah, as I understand it, Blish's adaptations were about par for the course for books of that type in those days, and better than some. I remember reading some Twilight Zone anthologies back in the day that were supposedly based on episodes, but they were a mix of very inaccurate episode adaptations and straight-up ghost stories by the anthology author, who IIRC was an author of supposedly "true" ghost stories and who just threw in a bunch of his under the TZ heading along with the adaptations. I found them very inauthentic.

The alternatives in those days would be books that just adapted one or two episodes each at novel length, so only a few episodes would be covered. For instance, Murray Leinster did a novel loosely based on the pilot to The Time Tunnel, and another more original sequel later on.

The last four Star Trek Logs all had one episode each -- "Counter-Clock," "The Eye of the Beholder," "BEM," and "The Slaver Weapon" -- and expanded them to book length by adding original sequel stories following up on the episode's events. Log Ten actually added three new stories, taking place before, during, and after the events of "The Slaver Weapon," so that the actual adaptation made up only three of the book's sixteen chapters.

 

If I had one real gripe with the Blish and ADF adaptations is that sometimes the characters didn’t sound like themselves—how they said something didn’t seem like how the live-action character would speak. It’s a minor thing, but it’s there.

 

Wasn't Blish writing the adaptations without seeing the actual episodes? That would explain the discrepancy on his end.

 

Like others have said, the Blish adaptations along with the tech manual and blueprints were a way to get into the Star Trek world when the show wasn't on. It was very exciting for me when all new stories started appearing, first with Spock Must Die and the New Voyages books.

For some reason I just didn't get into the animated series, I guess because I thought it was strictly for little kids. I know now it wasn't and wish I had given it more of a chance back then.


ZapBrannigan said:

For me as a kid, obviously Star Trek was unavailable except for that precious hour when it was "on!", and sometimes barely even then. At one point the show moved to a distant Canadian station we couldn't really pull in with rabbit ears. It was almost all snow and the sound of white noise, on a b&w TV, and I watched it anyway. My father couldn't believe it.


I was luckier than you. I remember having to wrestle with the TV antenna but then In about 1970 or '71, my dad started subscribing to an early form of cable. It was limited, the channels it had were only the three networks, two or three independent stations including PBS and maybe two or so stations from other cities that had been too far away to receive over the air.

We already had a color TV so it was quite something else to suddenly have the picture always be crystal clear on every channel.


Robert

 

As per "human memory is faulty" I was reminded by @alchemist that the first draft of teleplay for "Day of the Dove" features Kor. So at least in that instance the idea made it farther than the story outline.


Digging into the GR papers, Bixby addressed this in an early letter:



Don't yet have all the extant memos on this, so can't say when Kor got changed to Kang.

Quote them or point me to them, please.

 

I don't know if this helps, but Colicos was apparently unable to take the role for "Day of the Dove" due to his shooting Anne of a Thousand Days. According to Jerome Bixby, Colicos was very upset at not being able to take the role.

"He was abroad doing a film, and he said that when he first read the script he wept and threw himself at walls and nearly jumped off a balcony he wanted to play the part so bad, but he was committed to that other production and couldn't play Kor. So they changed it to Kang." - The Star Trek Interview Book by Allan Asherman page 147

 

Michael Ansara was masterful and memorable as Kang that it’s hard to imagine anyone else doing the role, even John Colicos as Kor. And candidly the Trek universe is richer for the two distinct characters rather than just one.

 

I would have loved to see what Colicos would do with it, but Ansara was such an powerful presence and a more imposing physical actor. You can absolutely imagine Kang being able to beat Kirk in hand to hand combat. He was a warrior. Kor, from what we saw that one time, was more of a planner, an administrator. Now, under the influence of the alien, sure, he'd pick up a sword and go at it, but can you picture Kor backhanding Kirk at their meeting the same way Kang did?

Both actors were excellent and indelible impressions. I am also grateful to have them both.

 

Possibly. But again, anecdotes always merit scrutiny.

 

If that's what the script had him do, then sure. I couldn't imagine Spock climbing a tree and laughing until "This Side of Paradise" had him do exactly that.

 

Oh, based on his performances, I know he'd be amazing at it . Just "having the script have him do it" means little if the actor can't pull it off. If this were Koloth, I wouldn't buy it. Ansara towered over Shatner. You could tell just by looking at him that Kang could probably mop up the floor with Kirk. Kor not so much. I'm not sure of John Colicos' height, but be was less physically imposing of an actor. So he would probably have made up for it with his own style of chilling villainy. It would have been interesting to see how it played.

 

Hmm. If Kor had been in "Day of the Dove," then would "The Time Trap" have featured Mara instead of Kali?

 

I had the pleasure of actually meeting John Colicos once at a Toronto Trek convention. He was maybe about 5’-7” if that. He was a very pleasant man. Sadly this was about a year before he passed away.