After completing "The Making of Star Trek" I decided to read my copy of "The World of Star Trek". Unlike my "The Making..." copy, my "The World...." copy is an old beat up 4th printing version I've had for years but never read to date. This book is not "The Making..." redux. In fact, Gerrold refers the reader to the former book a couple of times, notably at the beginning when he basically says he won't recover ground already covered there. I find the two actually go pretty well together when it comes to discussing the original series. Whereas "The Making..." is more concerned with the creation of the show, how it was made, and background on the people behind the production, cast and characters, "The World..." is more a book about the show itself, the stories, the point of the show, and a lot of interview information from the cast and Gene Rodenberry. And Gerrold does not hold back. He's critical of the show, but in a loving sort of way. He applauds its concept and purpose, but is more critical of it's failure to not always live up to its potential. And sometimes he will make a critique, but then defend it. For instance early in the book he critiques some of the lack of science in the science fiction, but then goes on to defend some of those decisions because it's a show that had to succeed on TV. They had to take some liberties to make it watchable to a TV audience. He is complementary of some of the set designs, such as the bridge design. But criticizes some things like the corridors, but then ultimately defends that call due to the needs of the production. He then goes into some information about the characters, some of their strengths and weaknesses, along with a lot of interview information, including long quotes from the cast talking about their characters. It's interesting to read as it is a look at how each of them viewed their part in the show in the early 1970's...after the show had ended, but before the movies or even the animated series. He also spends some times talking about Star Trek fans, fanzines and conventions. Then he spends almost a quarter of the book on his criticism of some of Star Trek's failure to live up to its potential. On the one hand he's critical of Captain Kirk and Spock continually going on away missions, which would be totally unrealistic in the real world. The captain's place is on the bridge and you would never send your top 2 officers on dangerous missions (and it's interesting that TNG years later would run with this idea by limiting Captain Picard's exposure to dangerous away missions). Now Gerrold acknowledges that as the hero, Kirk couldn't very well be the 'hero' of the show and just be nothing but a delegator and decision maker. In fact, that would probably mean the main character, or hero, would end up being whomever ended up leading the landing parties. He also has some criticism of Star Trek running with the idea of "The American Way" when dealing with enemy civilizations. That's not to say he's saying Star Trek should be anti-American. And there's nothing wrong with our heros being in the right, and in fact the way they were presented in some of those episodes ("The Return of the Archons" as an example) we find we agree with Kirk's actions. But what Gerrold is saying is sometimes it would have been nice to see our heros on the 'wrong' side. To present a more real world example to Star Trek, that heros aren't always right. And he was critical of the show becoming too formulaic. We all know Kirk beats a computer happened a couple of times in the show. Kirk has repeated romantic interests. Spock has some. Some of the supporting cast, like Uhura or Sulu, are given little to do many times. He pointed out parallels between "The City on the Edge of Forever" and "All Our Yesterdays", praising the former episode as a highlight while criticizing the latter for basically being a pale shadow of the former. He was highly critical of an episode that many praise, "The Enterprise Incident" for it putting our hero in the place of being a sort of villain, and doing something he (Kirk) would likely not approve of. And he was highly critical of the third season. But he does point out in any episode there are good things about 'bad episodes' and some bad things about the best of episodes. And he gives some information about how the 3rd season came about, including Roddenberry's offer to return to full time production if they gave it a good time slot, and NBC's failure to follow through (due to "Laugh-In" incidentally). He finishes the book by talking a bit about the future. At the time NBC was in talks with Roddenberry about reviving the show...based on the timing of the book's release I figure this likely ended up being the animated series which came out around the same time. Overall I found the book to be an honest look at Star Trek's strengths, and some of its shortcomings. After all these years sometimes we Trekkies have a romanticized view of the original series. And it was a great TV series. But looking at it honestly there are some shortcomings, things that if done differently could have made it even better. I don't agree with every one of Gerrold's critcisms. Sometimes I a bit more forgiving of some of his criticisms (i.e. I actually thought "The Enterprise Incident" was a very good episode and I didn't agree with some of his critiques of that episode). But he makes some good points also. And I find a lot of things I liked about future series, but things that could have been better as well. An entertainment franchise is forever changing. The shows will never be perfect.