News Introducing Fact Trek

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Back in the day, we just took these reference books at face value. Since they were, more or less, authorized, we trusted the authors without needing to see reprints or scans of memos and things. I still felt Asherman was prone to hyperbole ("we came close to lifting Gene Roddenberry upon our shoulders and carrying him out of the room"), but didn't have reason to doubt his version of the viewing of the first pilot.

One of the issues with those reference books is the authors aren't as thorough or meticulous researchers as @Maurice or @Harvey. Nor do a lot of them have journalistic skills. And often, hyperbole or, in the case of Mark Cushman aka Cash Markman, speculation gets passed off as fact.

 

[Indysolo]

And often, hyperbole or, in the case of Mark Cushman aka Cash Markman, you get speculation passed off as fact.

 

[Ssosmcin]

One of the issues with those reference books is the authors aren't as thorough or meticulous researchers as @Maurice or @Harvey. Nor do a lot of them have journalistic skills. And often, hyperbole or, in the case of Mark Cushman aka Cash Markman, speculation gets passed off as fact.

Asherman at least provided some fresh details, such as alternate titles and outlines of earlier drafts of scripts as well as dates of shooting. So he apparently had some kind of access to limited documentation. His book came off better than some of the vanity press stuff littering the market after that (pretty much everything by James van Hise or Edward Gross).

 

[Neopeius]

Asherman at least provided some fresh details, such as alternate titles and outlines of earlier drafts of scripts as well as dates of shooting. So he apparently had some kind of access to limited documentation. His book came off better than some of the vanity press stuff littering the market after that (pretty much everything by James van Hise or Edward Gross).

Current researchers (me included) have the advantage of the internet.

 

[Christopher]

Current researchers (me included) have the advantage of the internet.

Which can be as much a hindrance as a help to research. Just look at the "Victoria Vetri played Isis" fiasco.

 

[Neopeius]

Which can be as much a hindrance as a help to research. Just look at the "Victoria Vetri played Isis" fiasco.

Having access to current fanzines, newspaper articles, and fellow researchers is just ridiculously helpful.

 

[Daddy Todd]

As an aside, did Westercon become Comicon at some point, or perhaps be supplanted by it? Or were they not connected?

Westercon, like Worldcon, is a "moveable feast" -- in a different city, and on different dates, pretty much every year. Westercon is still going on. In 2019, it was held in Layton, Utah, and I got to spend a bit of time there with Bjo & John Trimble. It was pretty awesome.

Oh, and I sat in on a panel presented by our very own @Neopeius.

 

[Maurice]

Asherman at least provided some fresh details, such as alternate titles and outlines of earlier drafts of scripts as well as dates of shooting. So he apparently had some kind of access to limited documentation. His book came off better than some of the vanity press stuff littering the market after that (pretty much everything by James van Hise or Edward Gross).

Having UCLA access to the Roddenberry papers and the ability to photograph them (which wasn't allowed at one time) helps. Also having the stick-to-it-ive-ness to organize and catalog the material helps. Plus, yes, online access to fanzines.

A bit part of doing it right, regardless of what level of access to documents you have, is not to treat things as authoritative based on minimal sources, and to be careful not to post opinion and supposition because people play "telephone" and file off the qualifiers, ergo opinion gets cited as fact. Logical inference is still inference and too many people treat hearsay as truth.

 

[FormerLurker]

Westercon, like Worldcon, is a "moveable feast" -- in a different city, and on different dates, pretty much every year. Westercon is still going on. In 2019, it was held in Layton, Utah, and I got to spend a bit of time there with Bjo & John Trimble. It was pretty awesome.

Oh, and I sat in on a panel presented by our very own @Neopeius.

Thank you.

 

[Maurice]

I wouldn't put it past him, but Asherman phrases it so it sounds like he and a small group of fans approached Roddenberry after a the first showing. I believe the end result was the same, but the journey is in doubt.

There are a number of accounts inconsistent with the known evidence. For instance there's one story about finding Roddenberry at the Trek table the day after the pilots screened, but it appears the con ended the night the pilots screened. So was he packing the table? Or has someone misremembered the sequence of events?

 

[Maurice]

Added this above:

*EDIT I should add that it's possible Roddenberry told the audience he only had one print in color and this earlier pilot in B&W, and gauged their interest in seeing it before letting it roll. We can't ever know for sure unless a recording of the event magically materializes.

 

[publiusr]

I wonder if there is enough false trek lore for a book.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I wonder if there is enough false trek lore for a book.

Several

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Several

And many of them published as books!

 

[plynch]

One could Cash in on that Mark-et.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

One could Cash in on that Mark-et.

Calling @Indysolo... please report to the thread.

 

[Indysolo]

One could Cash in on that Mark-et.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

And many of them published as books!

Thanks for the chuckle!

 

[Maurice]

I wonder if there is enough false trek lore for a book.

Absofuckinglutely. But we don't want to be the ones to do it. Debunking is tedious, and we only do it because the myths/false narratives/lies/ get in the way of more accurate accounts.

 

[plynch]

And all this false knowledge is about one lil ol' tv show. Think of all we"know in other domains that is either factually wrong or amainly the product of one perspective.