I think this pretty much sums up the sentiment.
These Are The Voyages Volumes 4 and 5...
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
I think someone like Harvey might well write a book(s) someday, but one can argue that Cushman's already saturated the market for such a history, so there'd be little point in doing something immediately since a lot of the potential audience would say, "I already bought books that subject."
That means he has to dig up memos about the animated series and Planet of the Titans for this to be of value.
Neil
I read this thread. That's where I got them from. More often than not, the posts I see are on the issues I discussed.
We're both being a little smug. I started it and I apologize for that. I really don't like to play this way. Let's just agree to disagree. Okay?
And who is to say he hasn't done that?
Over the years people have written books that have given us pieces, but certainly not all, of the larger puzzle. These books are really more of the same.
Appreciated.
I don't know, but I think Harvey would know or at least have a good idea where to look. And I think a reasonable researcher would have an idea how to find out as well.
There isn't a great deal of archival material about Star Trek or Gene Roddenberry from the 1970's that is publicly available.
I've listed the finding aids of many Trek-related collections on my blog (look for the sidebar to the right), a few of which have some material from the '70s.
(Warning, screed ahead
)Inside Star Trek: The Real Story (1996) is a memoir, dependent on the thirty year old recollections of those involved, and as such it is subject to the fallibility of memory. Like any memoir, it is not without mistakes.
These Are The Voyages, on the other hand, is not a memoir. Cushman didn't work on the show. Rather, the books are (ostensibly) a meticulously researched archival history of a television show (the books have been marketed as both the "Star Trek bible" and the "definitive history" of the show). Yet, they are rife with errors, both on the micro level...
-- Cushman claims that "I, Mudd" needed seven days to shoot due to the complex opticals (it shot in six days)
-- that Gene Coon came up with the idea of killing Decker in "The Doomsday Machine" (Decker's death was a part of the story, written by Norman Spinrad, from the beginning)
-- that Gerald Finnerman missed the shooting of the bridge scenes on "Who Mourns for Adonais?" due to illness (Finnerman actually shot these scenes, but was sick later during the shoot on the temple set)
...as well as the macro level...
-- Cushman claims that Star Trek was a ratings success, which was buried by NBC because the network loathed Roddenberry (it wasn't)
-- that the third season was slower paced because of dramatic FCC intervention against television violence (unpacking his lack of understanding here is a subject for the future)
These are just a few examples. There are many other such claims that Cushman could have quickly dispensed with if he had actually done the work.
No work of history, of course (as with all human endeavors), is going to be without mistakes. The question is, how many mistakes do there have to be before an author's entire credibility as a historian comes into question?
For me, the mistakes in these books go far beyond the breaking point of acceptability. It is not a matter of a few details, picked to death by hungry nitpickers on the web, for the errors are rampant and pervasive -- even in the latest edition of the first book, which has been revised twice now.
mb22 wrote: 
So basically anyone writing a book will either have to get special permission from Viacom (or whatever entity has the Paramount archives) to do primary research or entirely depend on interviews (and the usual problems with decades old recollections), published (or unpublished) contemporary interviews, and secondary sources.
So basically anyone writing a book will either have to get special permission from Viacom (or whatever entity has the Paramount archives) to do primary research or entirely depend on interviews (and the usual problems with decades old recollections), published (or unpublished) contemporary interviews, and secondary sources.
In the first volume (at least in the first edition; I don't know if he corrected this later), Cushman claimed that TNG explained TOS Klingons by saying the Empire contains many different species. Given that level of knowledge, I don't want Cushman anywhere near TNG.
I don't recall that. But then it doesn't prove anything. The Federation is made of many different species so why couldn't the Empire have many different species...conquered, of course.
This, and all other criticisms of the author and his output is well founded. Unfortunately, he's getting a ton of free publicity out of this. Guess we have to take the bad with the good.
Well, I don't believe that TNG ever made the claim that smooth-headed Klingons were explained in that manner.
I must have glossed over the passage before, but, it's still there in the revised edition:
Yes, it would've been a perfectly fine bit of fan speculation prior to DS9, but it's not anything that was ever said in TNG as Cushman claims.
He's wrong about the claim, but that IS my personal favorite explanation for the foreheads. After all, the US armed services (for example) feature people from all the nation's multicultural heritages.
Similar threads
