Regrettably the previous thread discussing this book was closed because things were getting out of hand. However, I think there was still much to discuss regarding the book's content.
Up front I'll say that I bought the original hardback edition because I was dying of curiosity. I also wanted to read the revised edition of Volume One so I purchased the Kindle version of it. I will say that I enjoyed both reads although I still prefer a hardcopy version in hand rather than reading an ebook off a screen.
The revised edition does read more cleanly than the original and no glaring spelling typos leaped out to my attention. That isn't to say there aren't any, but I didn't notice any the way I did in the original edition.
The revised edition is said to have about sixty pages or so of additional materiel. It must be sprinkled throughout because I'm hard pressed to identify what was different from the first edition. Maybe someone else has been able to spot the additional materiel more easily. If so then I hope they would share what they noted with the rest of us here.
Now more to the point I'm hoping we can discuss some more specific things (besides the added materiel), particularly in terms of certain assertions made by the author and whether they are indeed true or not. I'm aware of a few things, but certainly not all, and I'm hoping that a collective contribution by many of us can spot and discuss assertions made by the author and either refute or verify them.
I will add that we needn't restrict ourselves solely to the text of the book because in interviews of the author, both in print in on video, he has been known to make assertions that might or might not be included in the book. In one video interview I saw he says that Star Trek introduced the miniskirt. In context of the interview he makes it sound as if the series introduced the miniskirt as a fashion. In fairness perhaps he didn't mean it that way, but such a statement is, strictly speaking, false. The miniskirt as a fashion was introduced before Star Trek was even pitched as a series and the miniskirt's development actually began in the mid to late 1950s.
Another assertion made by Cushman (and widely held for decades) is that Star Trek was the most expensive series to produce at the time. This one I challenge because not long ago I read a book detailing the development and production of the original Mission: Impossible---in production at the same time as Star Trek---and I distinctly recall per episode budgets and budget overruns that were distinctly more than Star Trek's. If true then such an assertion is factually incorrect, and that's just one show. It would be interesting to know the budgets of other prime time series of the time such as Lost In Space, Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea, The Time Tunnel, Land Of The Giants and The Man From U.N.C.L.E.
In the book Cushman states that NBC had no previous experience with science fiction. I'm striking out on this one. I know Harvey, in the previous thread, stated that wasn't strictly true but I can't find any references online to previous science fiction oriented shows on NBC prior to Star Trek. That doesn't mean there weren't any, but I haven't found evidence of it myself. Maybe Harvey or someone else can set the record straight one way or the other.
It would also be nice if we can cite examples of factual errors in the first edition that were (hopefully) corrected for the revised edition as well as examples where the errors were not corrected.
Of course, the biggest assertion of the book, and purportedly true of the second and third volumes as well, is one that Cushman repeats in interviews: that Star Trek was actually not the ratings failure NBC claimed during the series' original run and this assertion has been widely accepted for more than four decades. Cushman asserts, by citing archival documents of the actual Nielsen ratings reports from the time, that Star Trek actually won its timeslot or came in a close second. He asserts that this was true throughout its three year run including the Friday evening timeslot of the third season. He alludes that NBC, beginning after the first season's run, had other motives for wanting the show gone and fabricated the story of low ratings as an excuse. This assertion sets out to debunk a widely accepted belief that Star Trek was initially a ratings failure. Of all assertions made in the book this is the one that needs to be examined the most closely. It must be said that while today a show's ratings are not closely guarded secrets back in the 1960s ratings were something not shared by the networks, and so it isn't impossible for the ratings to be misrepresented simply because no one else but the networks had access to that information.
On a final note I'm asking fellow posters to focus our discussions on the content in text of the book and to sidestep the contentious issue regarding photographs used in the book. I don't think there is really anything else to be said regarding that issue until (or if) new information comes to light.
Up front I'll say that I bought the original hardback edition because I was dying of curiosity. I also wanted to read the revised edition of Volume One so I purchased the Kindle version of it. I will say that I enjoyed both reads although I still prefer a hardcopy version in hand rather than reading an ebook off a screen.
The revised edition does read more cleanly than the original and no glaring spelling typos leaped out to my attention. That isn't to say there aren't any, but I didn't notice any the way I did in the original edition.
The revised edition is said to have about sixty pages or so of additional materiel. It must be sprinkled throughout because I'm hard pressed to identify what was different from the first edition. Maybe someone else has been able to spot the additional materiel more easily. If so then I hope they would share what they noted with the rest of us here.
Now more to the point I'm hoping we can discuss some more specific things (besides the added materiel), particularly in terms of certain assertions made by the author and whether they are indeed true or not. I'm aware of a few things, but certainly not all, and I'm hoping that a collective contribution by many of us can spot and discuss assertions made by the author and either refute or verify them.
I will add that we needn't restrict ourselves solely to the text of the book because in interviews of the author, both in print in on video, he has been known to make assertions that might or might not be included in the book. In one video interview I saw he says that Star Trek introduced the miniskirt. In context of the interview he makes it sound as if the series introduced the miniskirt as a fashion. In fairness perhaps he didn't mean it that way, but such a statement is, strictly speaking, false. The miniskirt as a fashion was introduced before Star Trek was even pitched as a series and the miniskirt's development actually began in the mid to late 1950s.
Another assertion made by Cushman (and widely held for decades) is that Star Trek was the most expensive series to produce at the time. This one I challenge because not long ago I read a book detailing the development and production of the original Mission: Impossible---in production at the same time as Star Trek---and I distinctly recall per episode budgets and budget overruns that were distinctly more than Star Trek's. If true then such an assertion is factually incorrect, and that's just one show. It would be interesting to know the budgets of other prime time series of the time such as Lost In Space, Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea, The Time Tunnel, Land Of The Giants and The Man From U.N.C.L.E.
In the book Cushman states that NBC had no previous experience with science fiction. I'm striking out on this one. I know Harvey, in the previous thread, stated that wasn't strictly true but I can't find any references online to previous science fiction oriented shows on NBC prior to Star Trek. That doesn't mean there weren't any, but I haven't found evidence of it myself. Maybe Harvey or someone else can set the record straight one way or the other.
It would also be nice if we can cite examples of factual errors in the first edition that were (hopefully) corrected for the revised edition as well as examples where the errors were not corrected.
Of course, the biggest assertion of the book, and purportedly true of the second and third volumes as well, is one that Cushman repeats in interviews: that Star Trek was actually not the ratings failure NBC claimed during the series' original run and this assertion has been widely accepted for more than four decades. Cushman asserts, by citing archival documents of the actual Nielsen ratings reports from the time, that Star Trek actually won its timeslot or came in a close second. He asserts that this was true throughout its three year run including the Friday evening timeslot of the third season. He alludes that NBC, beginning after the first season's run, had other motives for wanting the show gone and fabricated the story of low ratings as an excuse. This assertion sets out to debunk a widely accepted belief that Star Trek was initially a ratings failure. Of all assertions made in the book this is the one that needs to be examined the most closely. It must be said that while today a show's ratings are not closely guarded secrets back in the 1960s ratings were something not shared by the networks, and so it isn't impossible for the ratings to be misrepresented simply because no one else but the networks had access to that information.
On a final note I'm asking fellow posters to focus our discussions on the content in text of the book and to sidestep the contentious issue regarding photographs used in the book. I don't think there is really anything else to be said regarding that issue until (or if) new information comes to light.
Last edited:
